When I started my formal spiritual growth, back in the 70s, I was told to focus on being something (which was termed “being positive”, although “being positivist” might be more accurate), rather than using the formulation “not being X”.
To illustrate that, if I want to focus on a muscle not being tense, the teaching was that I would fail, and the muscle would actually be tense.
In that instance, that is arguable: I can be aware of a muscle being tense, and then will it to be relaxed.
In the case my teacher at that time used, however, if I want to “not visualise a pink elephant” the mind tends to first visualise a pink elephant, and then wipe it out - giving the sense that it is not there, when the instruction led to it first being there, and then not being there.
There are also safety situations where the formulation “be safe” is not sufficient - it lack enough detail. I may need more specifics, such as “don’t drink and drive”, “don’t push that button unless that switch is in this position”, and “don’t ignore warning signs” (and there is a need to make sure warning signs are in the language of workers, but that’s something for another post).
So there are situations where the “negativist” instruction to “not be or do X” is actually appropriate.
However, there is another aspect of this to be aware of.
To return to my tense muscle example, I may be able to will a muscle - say, in my forearm - to “not be tense”, but at the same time I may wind causing my shoulders to tense up.
Another way to contemplate this is to think of managing heat within a specific area (or “a limited system”, as scientists might term it). I might be feeling cold, and, without doing something like lighting a fire to change some potential energy into heat energy, I would need to transfer heat from other areas (maybe with a heat pump) to make me feel warmer.
When I do that, however, other areas would inevitably be colder.
So the admonition to “be positive” has to be considered from a contextual point of view: sometimes it is appropriate, sometimes it is not appropriate, and sometimes whether it is appropriate or not depends on what effects it has elsewhere.
Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:
- there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;
- I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.
Vote Yes for the Voice in Australia.
Finally, remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing.
