Are You Too Busy to Be Happy?

We tend to believe if we’re busy enough, feeling happy or significant will be the result; but this all depends on us, as individuals, doesn’t it? So, we need to figure this out for ourselves.

An image was posted on a social site that said: Stop the glorification of busy. This reminds me of how much emphasis we put on what people do versus who they are, and how happy they are. There’s a theme running through our psyches that says we have to be and or stay busy or we’re not living up to our full potential. Underneath that is the other theme: concern about what others will think and say about us. Society-at-large claims to admire people who are on the go all the time, who live in the fast lane, who “live large.” The implication is that if you don’t fit into that mold, you aren’t someone special; your value or worth is less, according to those parameters.

I saw someone I hadn’t seen in years, which meant we had catching-up to do, so I asked about her children. Her conversation went something like this (all identifying information has been changed): “Mark is working for Acme Insurance. He’s a department manager. His wife, Anna, works at Booker Bank. She’s the loan manager. Their older son, Steve, is the floor manager at Estates Antiques. Their younger son, George, is the top salesman at Luxury Cars. Their daughter, Angie—” well, you get the picture. As the time passed, I asked more specific questions, but one thing stuck in my mind: how happy someone is, is rarely the first thing someone says about another.

We put so much emphasis on what people do when we could put it on who they are and how happy they are. How much admiration do we have or value do we place on someone who is genuinely kind, caring, and happy, and has a job, say, as a personal assistant, a cook, or a housekeeper? Or, we might comment, when asked how a mutual friend is doing after a move to a new town, that the move was a bold one; that we believe in our friend’s abilities; that we know there will be adjustment time involved, but that our friend possesses what she or he needs at the inner and outer levels to make life a good experience in the new place, rather than what work our friend is doing. 

There’s a story you may be familiar with about a business executive who visited a coastal village. He had a conversation with a local man and learned the local man got up in the morning when he wanted to, took his small boat out for an hour or two and caught enough fish to sell for money his family used, then spent the rest of the day and evening with his family and friends, where they all enjoyed each other’s companionship. It was a simple, easy, joyful life the local man described.

The executive launched into a discussion about how the man could get more boats over time and create a huge, profitable business. The executive was in his element during this conversation: Building businesses from scratch and growing them was his expertise and passion. The local man listened carefully then asked why he should do that. The executive explained that with proper management, the man could sell the company and retire in twenty years with enough money that would allow him to get up in the morning when he wanted to, fish when he wanted to, and spend as much time with his family and friends as he wanted to. The local man replied, “I do that now.”

Someone posed an excellent question about this story: Which man was happy? What’s your answer to that question? The question-poser’s answer was an intriguing one: Both of them. What made each man happy was different. One man liked to stay busy in a particular way to feel fulfilled; the other liked to stay just busy enough to feel fulfilled. Each man had certain responsibilities they had to attend to, which they did, and you can bet that each man had challenges they had to meet in life, but they knew what made them happy and lived it.

We put so much emphasis on what we and others do and so little on what makes us genuinely happy. We keep ourselves busy, either with genuine responsibilities, some of which we probably could delegate, or with busywork, so we can appear productive to ourselves and others. Never confuse activity with productivity. We trap ourselves in that vortex far too often and too easily, either with physical activity or mental activity.

One friend of mine had the thought instilled in her that if she took the time to read a book for her own purpose or pleasure she was guilty of the sin of laziness (I just heard the collective gasp of avid readers). So she worked and worked and did and did, all the time. She and I had many conversations about this, until she was finally able to find the courage to read a book. She was in her 40s before this happened, and she did so under the disapproving gaze of the person most adamant about it being a lazy person’s thing to do, as she took her turn to sit with him in his hospital room.

My father was a workaholic. My mother was always doing something. Neither ever sat and watched TV without doing some other task at the same time. It’s no surprise I too became a workaholic, until a health matter put an end to that. It took me several years to move past denial of this, as well as continuing to push myself to the borderline critical stage, before I really got the message. Then it took another year or two to figure out how to live and function in a new way, and to see the gifts that came with this, such as a different level of creativity, because I could no longer afford to be active without being productive. It was especially challenging to deal with others who couldn’t comprehend or adapt to this new “reality” for me. Comments were often harsh. Eventually, I had to not care what others thought. It shouldn’t take a health matter for us to not care what others think or to choose balance for ourselves and our lives.

We have been programmed to believe if we are busy enough, it will lead to happiness. Why? Because if you’re busy, you must be being compensated, right? And if you’re compensated, you must be able to afford stuff, and stuff makes us happy, right? Yet, some of the busiest people are the most under-compensated and some of the best-compensated people are some of the unhappiest.

There’s also the aspect of strengthening our spiritual side to consider. How can we do this if we never sit still long enough to hear the deeper messages or to balance and recharge our energy, or to nurture our connection with the One Consciousness? We also need to consider the mental, emotional, and physical drain on us that can happen when we don’t have that balance in our lives.

Do you identify with who you really are, or with what you do and are experiencing? Do you project this onto others, as well? Maybe a good question is: How happy am I in general? Do I make time to not be busy so that the other parts of my life are fulfilling and joyful? It’s time to stop the glorification of busy for ourselves and others and embrace life and its many facets, and determine for ourselves what makes life a happy experience for us. It’s a good practice, one you’ll appreciate.   

          

Practice makes progress.

© Joyce Shafer

Are We Becoming Spiritual Orphans?

The current movement to awaken or enhance spiritual consciousness has been ongoing for decades. Are we doing as well as we might with this, or could we do much better?

I saw the opening text scrolled on the screen for the movie “Anthony Adverse” (which I chose not to watch) that ended with the sentence, “They were spiritual orphans.” Spiritual orphans—what a term; it intrigued me. My dictionary includes the definition of orphan that you might expect, of a child whose parents have died. There was another definition there, as well: “a product that is medically valuable but is not produced because it lacks a profitable market.” And there was the verb form: “to cause to become an orphan [orphaned by the war].”

Using the standard definition, I’d say a spiritual orphan is a person whose feeling, intuitive Heart guidance has been disconnected or diminished, or its existence has never been realized or developed: it isn’t working right, for whatever reason, so the innate guidance isn’t fulfilling its function. As for the second definition, you could say the lack of a profitable market (public recognition and receptivity) holding the product that has value (the full expression of spirituality) back from or for widespread use is the ridicule or dismissal true spirituality receives from mainstream and experts.  

Looking at marketability a different way, no one would argue the fact that books and other items focused on spirituality have been produced and are still a profitable market, but the items themselves are not spirituality, and using the items does not guarantee spirituality as the result. How do you obtain spirituality, or find it to obtain it? Here’s a quote by Rumi that answers this question simply and well, though I make a specific statement about this later on: “I looked in temples, churches and mosques. But I found the Divine in my heart.” You could say, “I looked in books, listened to tapes, and attended seminars. But I found my spirituality in my feeling, intuitive Heart.”

If you ever feel like a spiritual orphan, you might consider whether you approach spirituality solely or predominantly through your left-brain (logic, analysis, seeing just the “dots”). If so, this is a big part of the disconnection or lack of connection you experience. You can’t get to spirituality through the left-brain. You have to use both the right- and left-brain in combination with the feeling, intuitive Heart.

Every bit of information—conscious or subconscious—that you receive becomes a code that your brain, your biological computer, decodes and acts on or stores for reference. This includes information you don’t necessarily recognize as such, which includes commercials, ads, movies, billboards, symbols and logos, video games, and so on: everything you take in through your five senses is code that your brain processes, including subliminally, and possibly believes without question. Just as you are what you eat, you become, in some way, the information you ingest, deliberately or not, as well.

Think of it like this: each side (and part) of your brain has its own software, so to speak. The right side is coded for feelings (love, compassion, and empathy), intuition (expanded awareness), no time-no space awareness (you’re in the Now rather than the past or future), and realizing the bigger picture (holistic viewpoint, connecting the “dots”). But too much right-sidedness doesn’t allow you to put what you receive then decode into order or practical application (you feel unfocused, you drift along), which is where the left side comes in; but it’s meant to be a servant to the right side, not the dictator or ridiculer it can become.

If you process solely or predominantly through the left-brain, you might believe anything or might discount what you ought to believe, even if it defies what you’ve been told (e.g., Intuition is real, valuable, and felt vs. intuition doesn’t exist, or is nothing more than an advanced form of logic). If you decode information received solely or predominantly through the right-brain, you might interpret information according to what it is you prefer to believe about it, even if it defies or ignores reality (self-protective denial), or not be able to figure out what to do with the information (inertia based on confusion that results from conflicting beliefs or resistance, perhaps).

Even if you manage to use whole-brain thinking (or don’t), you still need to include the emotional, intuitive Heart, which reveals a Divine Trinity we humans are capable of but seldom use, mostly because it isn’t taught and we aren’t taught that it is who we inherently are. We look for spirituality; but where do we usually go to look at and decide on what the Truth of spirituality is? The left-brain. Jonathon Miller-Weisberger said, “It is necessary to perceive truth with the heart, not just the mind.” It’s the same for our spirituality.

Using intuition (expanded awareness) as our example, the fact that it is real is in direct contrast with what the left-brain is programmed and conditioned to believe (or is believed evil by some), so intuition is difficult for the left-brain to accept, much less use (a real contrast is that intuition is dismissed by the establishment but used by governments). Depending on your conditioning, you might believe everything you’re told by the “experts,” without question; and if the experts’ “facts” change after several years (or months), you’ll believe those as well, without question.

Your feeling, intuitive Heart is where Truth resides. The ancients who understood this maintained that our innate, true intelligence was found in the Heart, not in the brain/mind. The Heart filters out programming and tells you what you really feel, as well as what is going on energy-wise—even ahead of you seeing evidence, as opposed to the left-brain telling you what ought to think or decide the Truth is, based on your programming.

While living in New York City, someone asked me to take a road-trip to Louisiana. I went back and forth with logic about this (I did want to go, but not with that person) until I finally decided to leave all thought out of it and ask my Heart what it had to say. I got a resounding yes. I e-mailed the person and never heard back. Two days later, someone else contacted me and said he’d pay me a nice sum and all expenses to ride with his girlfriend, who was driving to Louisiana for an extended stay, and would arrange and pay for my flight back. Of course I said yes. My intuitive Heart knew I was to take the trip and that there was a better deal that would be offered. My Heart’s yes was not about the first offer, as my left-brain believed when I got the answer, but the offer I didn’t know about yet.

But we seem to continue to move further and further from listening to and operating from our Heart. The further away we move from our feeling, intuitive Heart, the further we are from being connected to the spirituality that is inherent in us and that we so deeply desire—and need. But here’s what we must Know: spirituality is not something we obtain; it’s something we already are. But we forget or never learned this, or it’s blocked behind so much that we have been taught and told. This is why listening to our Heart is not necessarily easily done: because so many others have forgotten this or have in some way been disconnected from this Truth, and they have been or are our experts, teachers, and examples.

This leads me to the verb form of orphan: to cause to become an orphan. When you see some of the stories about what’s going on in the world, do you consider them with your left-brain or right-brain only, or also with your Heart, which tells you “This isn’t right”? I saw an image that has stuck with me, of a very young black child curled into the fetal position on the dirt, belly swollen from starvation, still alive but barely. Two yards behind the child was a vulture, waiting. That was the moment when I grasped that we can look for our spirituality as far and wide as we wish, alter our appearance to look the part (as though true spirituality has a look), or do all manner of methods or practices, and still miss the fact of it as our true nature and our responsibility, because of where else we’re looking—or not looking. In this way, we all risk becoming spiritual orphans in some measure.

Perhaps the inundation of all that’s going on in the local and global communities, most of which makes no rational sense and demonstrates lack of Heart and spirituality, is contributing to making spiritual orphans of us all in some way, bit by bit, drip by drip. The more this inundation continues the more we move away from appropriate response and into overburdened senses; and our feeling, intuitive Heart becomes dulled as a self-protection mechanism. The more we move into this dulled way of being, the further away we move from not just the Truth of our spirituality but also from being and living as who we really are.

We are points of Divine Consciousness dreaming a physical experience. This statement is not airy-fairy; it’s a quantum physics fact that no one in-the-know argues with or can (any longer), but is still not being incorporated into our collective dialogues to expand our understanding of the true nature of reality and ourselves: there is only the Spiritual that exists; physical and spiritual are not separate, they are one and they are Spiritual. The way back to the Truth of who we are, to our spiritual nature, is through the feeling, intuitive Heart.

On YouTube is a 9-minute video of Erica Goldson’s 2010 high school valedictory speech. It is worth watching to hear how she explains what education is and does today, how it robs the upcoming generation of what’s needed to make a difference and to have a fulfilling life. It’s an articulate, well thought out speech from one individual who saw what-is, who proclaimed the Emperor has no clothes on, and pointed out that there are many who either see only what they’re told to see or ignore the fact of what they see. It’s brilliant, and I hope you watch it, because what she says about how students are being trained to be workers to fit employer needs rather than critical thinkers and creators, ties in with how we are being numbed to seeing, listening, and feeling with our Hearts. Look at what’s going on in schools today. Are we teaching upcoming generations that they are intelligent, creative, conscious, spiritual beings or are we teaching them to be spiritual orphans? However, it isn’t just the system. What do our own examples show them?

We might start to connect some dots using our whole brain and Heart. For example, you might read this article online: “Harvard Study: Fluoride Lowers Children’s Intelligence By Seven IQ Points,” which discusses the proven, stunning negative impacts on the brain and body in all age groups. The idea that toxins are used in this way (and in far too many other ways), despite controversy since it started, impacts us on the feeling, intuitive level, which is another form of spiritual orphaning: our left-brain argues that no one would do this knowingly (but it’s done); our right-brain doesn’t want to believe it is happening (but it is); our feeling, intuitive Heart knows it for what it is. But will we listen? 

The movement to awaken spiritual consciousness is ongoing, but is it or will it happen fast enough? It’s up to us, isn’t it? We can improve and expand our consciousness and spirituality by simply ceasing to do whatever is opposite of that, but we have to know what that is. Our feeling, intuitive Hearts can tell us, if we’ll listen and if we’ll act. Then we can be examples for others and the next generation and the next. It’s a good practice, one you’ll appreciate. 

          

Practice makes progress.

© Joyce Shafer

Natural Chaos Should Not Be Feared but Embraced

We rely on rules to prevent chaos, but do rules ever get in the way of what’s natural? Is chaos ever a good thing?

We resist and or fear both unnatural chaos (for good reason) and natural chaos (because we’ve been conditioned to), so we rely on policies and rules to ease individual and collective fears and, we usually hope, to smooth life’s path. How’s that really working so far? Can we go too far with this? Can chaos ever be a good thing? What if natural chaos actually contributes to desired improvement? Let’s see.

I read an article posted on a social site: “School ditches rules and loses bullies.” It was a fascinating and revealing account of an Auckland, New Zealand, school that, as part of a university experiment, got rid of the playground rulebook (and all rules, which was beyond what the experiment required) that had been created to do what you might expect such rules to do: protect children and property, and maintain order. The astonishing results of the no-rules experiment were there were fewer injuries, less vandalism, and a significant drop in bullying. Also, concentration levels in the classroom increased. Could this remarkable result also apply outside that school’s environment, for all of us?

Principal Bruce McLachlan said, "We want kids to be safe and to look after them, but we end up wrapping them in cotton wool when in fact they should be able to fall over." This return to what it was like before health and safety policies began to rule at the school led to the re-realization that the activities and fun children create when allowed to, without numerous restrictions, kept them so occupied and creative that the time-out area was no longer needed, nor were as many teachers required to keep watch. "The kids were motivated, busy and engaged. In my experience, the time children get into trouble is when they are not busy, motivated and engaged. It's during that time they bully other kids, graffiti or wreck things around the school." The children were happy, and parents were happy because their children were happy.

The article went on to comment that a certain amount of risk-taking develops parts of the brain and develops the ability to work out consequences of actions. "You can't teach them that. They have to learn risk on their own terms. It doesn't develop by watching TV; they have to get out there."

Interestingly, the comments that resulted on the social site posting were equally revealing. One person was insistent (despite the proven results) that without rules, bullying would increase. The poster (both a mother and in the educational field) replied that children would learn consequences of actions and to defend themselves; and that in adulthood there is no teacher to run to. A replier to the poster’s comment stated that because he’d always had an adult to take care of everything for him when he was growing up, as an adult he doesn’t know what to do in certain circumstances. Another replier feared that children would be punished for standing up for or defending themselves, as had been her experience (which mimics what does happen in society at large: for example, a resident can be sued by a thief injured while breaking into the resident’s house).

The replier concerned about a potential (or, in his opinion, inevitable) increase in bullying wrote: “I get all that, but I think that no matter what, there would still be bullies. I know I, for one, would see this as an opportunity to be an even bigger bully. No rules? Then there would be more punishment for disobeying me. I’m not trying to say it’s a good thing, but I think it could lead to some not-so-good things.” The poster replied, “That’s the society we’ve become. You’re right. It’s kind of scary, not to mention that kids allowed to explore and make their own mistakes are often the ones that are inventors and the great thinkers. It would be a different world if we were allowed to just experience life, rather than just doing what we’re told.”

At this point, I added my two-cents-worth: Bullies happen—in the schoolyard and in the bigger world. They can legislate behavior all they want in both venues, but there will always be those with either the primary psychosis (from birth) or secondary psychosis (from conditioning), who act out as bullies. The only thing legislating behavior does is oppress those who don’t need the rules in the first place, those who know how to behave or who figure it out as they go—who figure out that they have a choice: find a way to co-exist as peacefully as possible or get into trouble. They can legislate behavior out the yin-yang, and it’ll still be the bullies who come out to “play” while all the others are following the rules—the unnecessary rules. It’s a matter of how much freedom will we give up because there are bullies in the schoolyard (or the global environment) who don’t play by anyone’s rules.

Natural chaos and unnatural chaos spawn different experiences and outcomes because of the energy and motivation inherent in each. In the matter of Prohibition, a law put into effect in the U.S. in the 1920s and pushed for by those who wanted to control others’ personal choices, specifically alcohol consumption, the unnatural chaos created by the imposed rule resulted in an escalation in organized crime and other crime, violence, and imprisonment. In the matter of the school and playground experiment, the natural chaos created by removing the rules so children worked things out for themselves (within reason, as they were children) resulted in enhanced self-learning, self-modifying, creativity, harmony, productivity, conflict resolution, self-governing behavior, and focus and attention. Although the article didn’t mention this, it’s difficult to imagine that a boost in self-confidence and self-reliance was not also a result.

How much of the chaos happening in the world now is actually caused by more or certain rules or policies being added or remaining rather than going to the true root of the matter and addressing the individuals causing the real problems? It’s become the “norm” in society to treat symptoms rather than target the true cause, be it alcoholism or health or whatever. It’s also become the “norm” to make rules everyone must follow, not just those who actually need proper and effective attention. It’s like what sometimes happened when I was in school: one student misbehaved and the entire class was punished.

We’re in a society that rewards people who follow the rules, even the nonsensical or infringing ones. The “rewards” are that they don’t get penalized; they get proverbial pats on the head; they get to feel superior to rule-breakers (or be envious, depending on the rules not followed). We have a profusion and confusion of rules, and the letter of the law tends to be followed rather than the spirit of the law. At a lower point on the gradient, specific utensils are to be arranged in a particular order and used as appropriate when you dine or you’re thought to be unsophisticated, low, less. At a middle point, stop signs at intersections are to encourage safety and avoid confusion; but if it’s three in the morning, no traffic anywhere, with clear visibility in all directions, and you slow or pause rather than stop, you could get a ticket because you broke a rule. At a more extreme point, something is legal in one county or state, but illegal in another; legal in one country, but illegal in another; immoral for individuals, but moral (or deemed acceptable) for those in positions of power. There are personal-choice decisions made for us that we should be responsible to make on our own.

If everyone everywhere learned and followed the moral compass to never steal or violate in any way the life, property, and security of anyone, and taught this to their children, what need of rules would there be? Who would need to create rules, and for what reason? The replier to the post about bullying believes the world would be an even more unsafe place without lots of rules and perhaps even more of them, then went on to explain why: because without them, he would be abusive or more abusive. During the experiment, I venture to say that any bullies who did attempt their behaviors with the children in the schoolyard were dealt with by the children.

For those who ignore moral right anyway, there is usually only one way to deal with or stop them: deterrents regarding their own well-being, to give them pause before they choose to exhibit such behaviors or to help them correct behaviors. This may sound harsh to some, but it’s akin to preventive healthcare. In the school experiment, it’s possible that several children stood together to oppose a bully who then backed down, or perhaps they refused to include any bully in activities and play, until the bully chose to behave better and did, and perhaps demonstrated a sincere desire to contribute in a productive way.

If some people never broke or ignored certain and, particularly, unnecessary rules, including academic; never thought outside of the creativity box; or colored outside the lines, we’d have a poverty of inventions, innovations, improvements, and cultural arts. We could, indeed, become better problem solvers than we currently are, individually and collectively. Natural chaos brings our attention to where problems or issues exist so we can resolve them in a beneficial way—or is supposed to. But so many, as with the replier, hold the belief that mankind in general, as individuals and as a collective, are incapable of controlling their behaviors and actions or of truly knowing and honoring the difference between moral right and wrong, so must have rules imposed on them/us. All we have to do is look around and realize this is not wholly true or accurate. Yes, there are those who seem not to possess a moral compass or would act against their moral compass, but they could be addressed individually, as needed. Their unnatural chaos tendencies could be managed. And if you think about it, those who do not follow a moral compass are outnumbered by those who do.

Natural chaos causes inventions and innovations to flourish, as has happened throughout history: We have no cause to fear it, but every reason to embrace it. As Plato said, “Necessity … the mother of invention.” Chaos is a teacher, including teaching us what not to do. Fear of chaos can lead to the death of imagination, and to the end of freedom, on a school playground or in daily life. Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither, and will lose both.”

The school experiment demonstrated the positive results of natural chaos and the freedom to address it that leads to better self-governing, personal responsibility, and improved creativity, productivity, and cooperation required for quality problem solving and as-peaceful-as-possible co-existence. The rules had, previously, created something of a mental, imaginational, and socially restrictive enclosure for the children. The absence of the rules opened “doors and windows and skylights” to let freshness into their minds. It opened a beneficial level of freedom for the students, teachers, and, yes, even most of the bullies.

Imagination and freedom of thought, word, and action—guided by moral right and Natural Laws of the One Creator and a mutual understanding and agreement about these—are needed to create, including to create a better state of existence if the one experienced isn’t working as well as it could. We, as individuals and a collective, have an obligation to ourselves and others to work on and increase our consciousness and awareness so that rules are not required for peaceful co-existence and quality of life. The school children in the experiment proved—or rather, reminded us—that this is possible. It’s a good practice, one you’ll appreciate.           

Practice makes progress.

© Joyce Shafer

Choices and False Choices

How many of our choices are actually false choices? What does this even mean? It means sometimes we are given or experience the illusion of choice, and may not realize this.

The simplest way to demonstrate this is with a question a parent, who wants vegetables eaten, might ask a reluctant child: Do you want broccoli or carrots? It seems a clever way to get a goal accomplished, when dealing with a child, that is. Sometimes a false choice is so subtle you don’t see it for what it is.

A man and woman were guest experts on a news program, to discuss a finding that claimed the happiest wives, based on a study, were ones whose husbands stayed at work longer. That the ideal number of hours a husband should be at work each week is 56. The man said that after people are married a number of years, they don’t want to be around each other as much as they once did. The woman said one reason this office time for husbands makes wives happy is there is more money available for the wives to take care of themselves with and for them to have lunch with their girlfriends; that these husbands working 56 or more hours a week are supposed to come home after their day on the job and make their wives feel special and cared for. She then mentioned that women who work outside the home always have two jobs: the office and the home and children, which is why husbands should help at home. The man countered that he realized men are now expected to help with housework, but that wives complain that they washed a dish with cold water rather than hot.

I don’t think I blinked the entire brief time they spoke, and I’m pretty sure my jaw dropped. Was it a real study or a quick survey, and what questions were asked? How accurate are we to believe the results are? One guest added quickly, as an afterthought at the end, that the participants were middle-age. How effective and representative is it to test only one age group and only one gender?

What’s sad, I think, is how many people may have watched that segment in part or in its entirety and then believed the finding is a truth that should be adhered to—because the guest experts said so—or rather, because they said the wives involved said so, which they then shared as gospel, and the rest of us are supposed to accept as fact. We are to believe that any husband not doing this is now wrong. That a husband’s choice is to work 56 or more hours a week and have a happy wife or work fewer hours a week and have an unhappy one. What might some women and men (and children) who heard this think their choices are? What were your thoughts as you read this?

The two program guests were to be considered authority figures by viewers, but I saw them more as promoters, of what though, I’m still not sure. There are some who hear or read such information as the guests provided and believe it’s their only or best choice, made consciously or subconsciously. Any choice given that leads one or more sentient individuals into being controlled or manipulated, no matter the path or the provider, is a false choice, with only the provider’s agenda in mind. This is important because too often we miss or don’t recognize that believing in or dealing with false choices is not only about who offers the choices and what the choices are but also about us and our willingness or conditioned habit of going along with such controlling or manipulating methods. 

We have the ability and the Free Will Right to make discernments and judgments for ourselves. We are not supposed to believe everything we’re told, including by those we consider or are told are authority figures. We are meant to listen to or read information then assess and decide for ourselves, using rationale, reasoning, and, as appropriate, personal experience. We are to notice when a false choice is being offered to or pushed upon us. We are to use common sense and conscience to guide us about right and wrong.

Anytime we KNOW a particular choice is wrong for us or just plain wrong, yet choose it or agree to it or allow it anyway, we practice a form of schizophrenia (split-personality), and that can add up over a lifetime, with negative effects, especially about decision-making and what we believe we deserve. Have you ever felt that way when you weren’t on board or aligned with something but did it or agreed to it just the same? You’re uncomfortable—about the choice and about how you feel during and after what follows. Maybe you made the choice or chose to go along because you may have been afraid of some form of loss, criticism, reprimand, or penalty or punishment if you didn’t, whether imagined or real. That’s also a false choice experience, imposed by another and exercised by you. Head and heart alignment is imperative, to keep us in integrity.

There is a certain amount of going along that gets done in life because it is a rational choice made in order to avoid unnecessary conflict, especially violent, and to exist peacefully. But this isn’t to happen when our choices are clearly seen as false ones we truly don’t agree or align with based on what is morally appropriate and inappropriate or right and wrong. We have the responsibility to discern what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong; and not just according to our perceptions, which may be falsely indoctrinated ones, but by looking at what’s really there for us to see.

Perception serves us best when it aligns exactly or as closely as possible with Truth. In The Trivium, Sister Miriam Joseph stated, “Truth has an objective norm in the real.” Objective, not subjective. My dictionary defines the word perceive as “to take hold of, feel, comprehend through; to grasp mentally; take note of; observe; to become aware of through one of the senses, especially through sight—SYN. DISCERN.” Perception is meant to assist us with greater accuracy in our translation of information received and what we discern about it then do with it.

Perception often gets confused with attitude adjustment or alignment, the interpretation that results after we pass what we see or experience through personal mental-emotional filters. An example is the “glass half full, half empty” one. We can observe and then perceive the truth that the water is at the halfway mark. Being told we must choose whether the glass is half full or half empty is a false choice. Deciding subjectively whether it’s to be thought of or called half full or half empty by us is a personal choice, made for our own benefit or comfort, but the objective truth is the water is at the halfway mark.

Several decades back a diet book written by an expert became a mega-best-seller (I will not mention the name). The information in the book was assumed to help people lose extra weight and stay optimally fit for life. What actually happened was that after several years, the obesity rate in the U.S., as well as diabetes, escalated in a way never before seen. In fairness, the author did state who in particular was to follow the diet and who wasn’t, which was ignored. The fact is that each individual is responsible to learn what his or her body responds well to and poorly to. If a diet method says to ingest something your body doesn’t tolerate well, you have the free will choice to ingest or not whatever it is that creates the symptoms or reaction. And, using a product available to mask symptoms of your body’s reaction to something it doesn’t tolerate is a choice you can make, but based on a false choice. That’s allowing someone deemed as in authority to tell you it is okay to do what’s inappropriate or harmful for you rather than you being responsible and saying, “No, it isn’t. There has to be a better way, even if it means not doing it” or “I choose to do what I choose to do.”

False choices occur as often as they do because some people attempt to skew others’ perceptions of reality to their own, for their own purposes, or to the one they want to sell (Aspartame, once listed by the Pentagon as a biochemical agent for warfare, now renamed AminoSweet because it sounds “healthier,” for example). Please—read my articles if you choose, but question what I say as well; do your own research and exploration. We all need to be able to question what we see and hear in an intelligent manner and not believe everything we’re told. If the latter is what we practice more often, we’ll make choices that seem correct or appropriate but are anything but, for ourselves and for others. This is important not just for individuals to practice, but for the collective as well.

When what we’re told to believe contrasts with the reality we see and experience, what then? Do we trust the truth we observe or experience ourselves, or do we engage in a shared collective hallucination? What false choices do we present to ourselves, including behaviors? We also have to monitor ourselves for false perceptions, as well, self-induced or otherwise. Sounds tricky, doesn’t it? But, it’s a worthy practice we owe to ourselves to engage in. You can know the truth (water at halfway mark) and also choose how you wish to consider it (half full, half empty), if making that choice assists you in any way, but don’t then consider the truth as unimportant or subjective.

Know that when you recognize a false choice or an inaccuracy for what it is and perhaps choose not to go along, you may be criticized, ostracized or even penalized. I know how strong that sounds, but it’s not an unfamiliar experience for any of us, if we pause to think about it. When you are given the choice between two or more options you recognize as equally not good, be willing to recognize it for what it is: a false choice, not a real choice, because neither or none are what you would choose. What you do or choose from there serves you better if you follow your true moral compass, which isn’t always necessarily easy to do but can be done and is worth it. Keep your integrity intact through head and heart alignment. It’s a good practice, one you’ll appreciate.             

Practice makes progress.

© Joyce Shafer

How We Can Begin to Free Ourselves from Certain Self-Imposed Burdens

“I have a dream…,” and so goes the noted speech filled with words spoken from and with higher thought, heart, courage, and Care. But there’s a phrase included that is key to shedding certain self-imposed individual and collective burdens we share.

The third Monday in January in the United States is a date Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is honored. Yes, the man and what he sacrificed and gained for many is remembered, but what is also supposed to be remembered and honored as well is our choice—and our responsibility—to act with and from higher thought, emotion, word, action, and Care for ourselves and for all who share our human experience.

This is what, from the speech, got my attention in a particular way: “I have a dream that one day… the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood…. and all of God’s children…. will sing…. ‘Free at last! Free at last!’” We often miss the fact that it isn’t only those who are caused to be in or are coerced into any form of oppression who are oppressed or enslaved, but also those who actively engage in this practice or who condone or perpetuate, through their ambivalence or ignore-ance, any form of oppression, be that in our personal lives or on a larger canvas. Whether at the individual or collective level, no one who controls or manipulates or oppresses, or seeks to (or allows it), is free, nor can they be, until they cease such practices.

When anyone seeks to control, manipulate, coerce, or unfairly treat another in any way, he or she is no freer than those who receive such treatment: the finer qualities of their true spiritual natures and of their humanity are blocked; practiced long enough, these qualities wither. The individuals are or become slaves themselves, oppressed by their own fears, insecurities, and immoral behaviors, recognized as such or not—locked into a mental-emotional cage of their own making or choice. Deep down they know this imbalance exists, though their affected or afflicted ego aspects or psyches may attempt to dress this in different garments. As a result, they believe the only thing that will ease this unease or dis-ease is to do more of the same in order to attain their goal: to feel powerful enough to feel secure, whatever the cost, whatever the means.

Any individual, group, or institution burdens and oppresses themselves when they practice taking anything from others, whether it be something tangible or dignity or basic Rights, in order to enhance or empower themselves; or withholds what would benefit or uplift others; practices hate or ambivalence rather than Love, or oppression rather than honor the Right of Free Will for all, that is, Free Will based on acting in accordance with the Natural Laws and their Unifying Principle.

The premise of the Natural Laws and the Unifying Principle is that there are standards about right and wrong which do not rely on anyone deciding or decreeing what they are, that humans have an inherent understanding of these and the ability to recognize one from the other, e.g., theft (of life, property, security) is wrong. The Universe is a spiritual construct designed by the Creator for us to have experiences and learn and grow in Higher Consciousness. The more we all practice this the more we all benefit. The less we all practice this the less we all benefit.

The 7 Natural Laws, and their Unifying Principle, which are universal so do not recognize as exempt such things as boundary lines, race, religion, social position, or income brackets, are these:

The Law of Mentalism: Thoughts are formed before any manifestation; therefore, thoughts create things and conditions. We are to be responsible for our own thoughts rather than think, speak, and act from programming, especially flawed mental-emotional programming. We are to recognize pathological thinking and behavior, which includes oppression of any kind, when we see it, so that we may address it and cease passing it down (teaching it) to generations that follow.

The Law of Correspondence: The above is like or similar to the below. The macro- and microcosms mirror each other. As individuals are or behave, so will the collective be or behave. As the collective is or behaves, so will be the individuals be or behave. This is when the Law of Mentalism can assist us: we have personal responsibility when it comes to our thoughts, emotions, words, and actions.

The Law of Vibration: There is no non-motion or complete rest; everything moves. Everything vibrates. The Universe is pure vibratory energy manifesting itself in different ways. All matter is energy in a state of vibration; nothing is truly solid. This means that everything changes, that everything is in a constant state of change. Our thoughts, emotions, words, and actions are ultimately vibrations that create manifested experiences. We are meant to be responsible co-creators, about what we create or don’t create, change or don’t change.

The Law of Polarity: Everything has a dual nature, that is, has its pair of opposites. However, the opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree, just as hot and cold are both measures of temperature, but different in degree. Skin color is a matter of degree in pigmentation; nothing more, nothing less: we are human beings. Any other (perceived) difference, including culture, is imposed by man, not by the Creator.

The Law of Rhythm: Everything has its tides, its ascents and descents. Rhythm compensates: the measure of the pendulum swing to the right is the same measure of the swing to the left. Rhythm is real, but not set in stone. Rhythm reveals tendencies; therefore, Consciousness can override a tendency.

The Law of Cause and Effect: Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause. Chance is what we call a Law not recognized. No matter the cause, nothing escapes this Law. We have the Right of Free Will, but not to ignore the Natural Laws and the Unifying Principle without consequences. There is a time lag for what is often called Karma (you reap what you sow; what goes around comes around). And the effect is not always delivered to us on a one-to-one basis, alone. The effect is also experienced by the collective humanity, whether that’s a result of action or inaction, whether positive or negative.

The Law of Gender: Gender is in everything. Everything and everyone has its masculine and feminine principles. The highest form of this is in exercising the Sacred Masculine AND the Sacred Feminine together. The Sacred Masculine embodies the use of intellect, reason, and the self-defense principle to protect ourselves and others when our or their Creator-Given Rights are infringed upon. The Sacred Feminine embodies creativity, intuition, and the non-aggression principle: to not steal life, property, or the Rights of another; to not initiate violence or violation in any form upon another.

The Unifying Principle that binds or encompasses the 7 Natural Laws: CARE. Care is the causal factor that generates creation. Care is that which you give your attention to and nurture. How you focus your attention and what you feed into that attention generates experiences and results. Feed ignorance, apathy, or oppression and you fuel more of each and ensure they grow. Feed true Consciousness, common sense, and Care and you fuel more of each and ensure they grow. What we care about on a daily basis acts as the driving force of our thoughts, emotions, and actions. Care is the ultimate generator of the quality of our individual and collective experiences.

Our lives and the world are what they are because of how and how much we Care or don’t care to do what’s required to effect change and improvement, including raising our Higher Consciousness, when and where needed. We can improve the quality of our attention by putting it on information that can improve both our and the collective human condition. We should ask ourselves what we spend our time on, what we pay attention to, and what kind of quality, as opposed to just quantity, do we get in return. It is up to us to help ourselves and others by raising our Consciousness and assisting others in any non-infringing way that can be done.

Larken Rose wrote: When everyone has the same misperception of reality—when everyone believes something untrue, even something patently absurd—it doesn’t feel untrue or absurd to them. When a false or illogical idea is constantly repeated and reinforced by nearly everyone, it rarely occurs to anyone to even begin to question it. In fact, most people become literally incapable of questioning it, because over time it becomes solidified in their minds as a given—an assumption that doesn’t need a rational basis and doesn’t need to be analyzed or reconsidered, because everyone knows it to be true…. Such a deeply entrenched belief is invisible to those who believe it. When a mind has always thought of something in one way, that mind will imagine evidence…. It is exceedingly uncomfortable and disturbing, even existentially terrifying, for someone to call into question one of the bedrock assumptions upon which his entire view of reality, and his entire moral code, has been based for all of his life.... will not find it easy or pleasant to contemplate the possibility that his entire belief system is based upon a lie, and that much of what he has done throughout his life, as a result of believing that lie, has been harmful to himself, his friends and family, and humanity in general.

It is a burden to carry on with flawed mental and emotional programs running us, as individuals and as a collective, as though it’s the only way we and life can be. It is a burden to try to figure out how to stay ahead or even just survive, when we know life could and should be better and more equitable than it is. It is a burden to dull our thinking, feeling, intuition, and caring rather than enhance them. It is a burden to have oppression of any kind (or slavery to any thing or idea, especially a false one) and oppressors. Dr. King had a dream of the day when both oppressed and oppressors would say, “Free at last!”

  

We can begin to free ourselves by becoming aware of what we’re doing and what’s going on around us that we, as a collective, have self-imposed through allowing or ignoring, and what we could be doing instead to make life a better experience. Edmund Burke said “…all that’s necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” George Bernard Shaw said "Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." This takes something Dr. King demonstrated: conscience, vision, and courage.

I, too, have a dream—of a world where we allow ourselves, and take on, the personal responsibility to be strong mentally, emotionally, and spiritually; a world where we look out for and are supportive of one another; a world where no person goes hungry, and has access to not just healthy foods but healthier foods; a world where no person goes without proper shelter and clean water; a world where we strive for and attain excellence in all we think, feel, say, and create, freed from the worry of how to make enough or just enough to live on—but done so in a way where the Free Will Rights of all are exercised and enjoyed, based on Natural Laws being understood and practiced by all, from true Wisdom and Higher Consciousness; a world where we practice Care. What we could create and experience with that! It’s a good practice, one you’ll appreciate.

            

Practice makes progress.

© Joyce Shafer

Don’t Give Negativity Another Thought

Should we or shouldn’t we ever put our attention on the negative? Maybe there’s something we need to discern about this, to avoid confusing ourselves and perpetuating negativity that ought to be given our attention.

What do we think or believe negativity to be? Is it whatever doesn’t feel good to or for us individually? What about whatever doesn’t feel good to or for others or the collective humanity we are part of, as well? We aren’t meant to dwell on or in negativity in a manner that does no good for us or others, but we have to watch that we don’t stick our heads in the sand either, when we should be taking a closer look at something. Let’s consider this and what we often do and might do differently about negativity and negative experiences, through something most people are aware of.

Here’s the first part of the “Serenity Prayer” most of us are familiar with and frequently use or refer to:

God grant me the serenity 
to accept the things I cannot change, 
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference.

Here’s the same first part of the “Serenity Prayer,” as its author Reinhold Niebahr wrote it and intended it to be reflected upon and used:

God, give us grace to accept with serenity 
the things that cannot be changed, 
Courage to change the things 
which should be changed, 
and the Wisdom to distinguish 
the one from the other.

An initial difference between the two versions that got my attention is how each starts. The altered version has no comma after God, but the original version does. The comma indicates a direct, personal conversation with the Creator of All Things is being held (just as it does in rules of punctuation), whereas the absence of it in the altered version makes it seem removed and rote, as though we’re repeating words to ourselves in the hope it—the repetition—will make the difference.

In the altered version, it’s all about the “I,” the individual. It asks for “me” to be granted serenity, as though serenity must be provided to us or we don’t or won’t or can’t have it. And the word granted is something of a subservient term, as when someone in “authority” grants a favor, but it comes with a price or an obligation, that is, if it’s granted. It states serenity is needed in order to accept the things “I” cannot change. This can be problematic because we humans are known to confuse (or ignore) the difference between cannot and will not.

The altered version asks to be granted the courage to change the things “I” can. We’re faced with the same cannot/will not conundrum. How many things are there that you believe need to change but you also believe you are powerless to do anything about them? (Perhaps, as an individual this is sometimes true, but as a group or collective, it isn’t.)

It asks for the wisdom to know the difference—the difference to know what you can’t change and what you can. Well, depending on what you believe you are capable of and what you know or don’t know your Rights to be, that could be an interesting form of wisdom that reflects more of an “I’ll do it if it’s convenient or comfortable and doesn’t require too much of me” kind of scenario. 

The original version is about “us,” we as individuals, as well as humanity as an aggregate or collective of individuals sharing the human experience. The original version requests grace to be given, as a gift, with no strings attached. If we truly understand what the Creator has given us, we understand that that grace has already been given; that acting with grace is always a choice. And, “to accept with serenity” reminds us that we have a choice to accept with resistance or anger or serenity—that is, to make peace with the fact of what cannot be changed. 

The original writing makes it clear there are some things that cannot be changed. Such things include the Natural Laws the Creator of the Universe put into effect to assist us to raise our Consciousness so we do a good job as co-creators and with how we operate within our individual and shared physical reality (To exercise Consciousness is to interact with Truth more often than not interact with it, to marry our perceptions with Truth so that our perceptions more closely and frequently align or intersect with Truth); death (once it’s happened and we’re sure the person is beyond resuscitation); any event that has already taken place and is factually irreversible; gravity; and so forth. 

It asks for courage, which we can infer means to assist or remind us to use inner strength to make the choice to engage our courage to change the things which should be changed. This wording is a whole different ball of wax from the altered version, isn’t it? It’s a statement that recognizes that part of our human nature is to at times be so fearful or unmotivated that we won’t change even what should be changed. And, it points out that there are, indeed, some things that should be changed. The problem with the altered version is that it implies if something doesn’t affect “me” (or “me” too badly), “I” shouldn’t necessarily do anything about it or give it another thought.

Then, we request the Wisdom (capitalized in the original version, to indicate a higher level of knowledge and common sense, rather than a personal opinion) to distinguish the one from the other: Things that cannot be changed (have happened or are Natural Laws and cannot be altered) and things that should be changed (require our attention and right action). Neibahr meant for all of us to practice this version particularly because our individual and collective behaviors influence the conditions we share, and the conditions we share influence our individual and collective behaviors.

There are levels of negativity, and negativity happens in degrees. Therefore, our responses must be appropriate and in appropriate measure.

There’s the level of the individual experience and expression of negative thoughts, words, and actions. Reasons for this negativity vary: learned behavior, chosen behavior, depression or some other form of psychosis, sleep deprivation, chemical imbalance, physical or emotional pain, overwhelm, to list some prevalent ones. About each of these, something can be done. The individual has the Free Will Right to choose to do or not to do something about it, especially to do no harm or stop harm to the self and or others, unless something specific impedes this, like a mental or physical infirmity that makes right or conscious choice impossible.

There’s the level of an individual, but usually more than just one individual experiencing and expressing negative thoughts, words, and actions, where Rights of individuals in any number are infringed on or taken away. We might call these basic Rights or Freedoms, in accordance with Natural Laws, which are different than man-made laws. About this form of negativity, something should be done. Individuals, whether alone or who are members of a group or collective, have the Free Will Right to choose to do or not do something about this. Again, our individual and collective behaviors influence the conditions we share, and the conditions we share influence our individual and collective behaviors.

I watched The Truman Show recently, and was affected by a dialogue line that was spoken by a fake radio announcer: “Don’t think about that. Sit back and enjoy this relaxing music.” The advice to not think about that (Don’t give it another thought) referred to something anomalous that happened and had gotten Truman’s attention, causing him to question its strangeness or not-rightness. After that anomalous event, the practice of diverting Truman’s attention from what the reality or truth was, worked only for so long, until he began to come out of his mental fog (or ambivalence) and pay more attention to what was really going on than he had been. The more attention he paid the more the truth was revealed.

Carl Jung: “One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The latter procedure, however, is disagreeable, and therefore, not popular.” This can refer to the darkness that is negativity, as well as lack of true Consciousness and willingness to attain it within each of us, as well as within our collective humanity.

None of us wants to see or experience negativity. But we need to understand there’s a difference between dwelling on it and not doing anything about it at any level other than complain, or tolerate it in silence, and putting our attention on it to understand it better so we can and will do something about it, so that we, hopefully, can prevent more of the same from happening again. Part of the New Age information has been that if we focus on something negative, we give it power. We’ve interpreted this to mean we shouldn’t give it any of our attention. Is the true power, especially to effect change, in whether or not we put our attention on the negativity, or is the true power in the individual? There’s a difference between feeding negativity and not feeding it, ignoring it and shifting it. Had Truman believed the power was in the illusion and those supporting it and not in him and his desire for truth, he’d have remained trapped, used, and miserable.

One of the most powerful things we can do is to say No to perpetuating negativity or creating new negativity. If something has already happened, we can choose the grace to accept the fact of it with serenity (for our best benefit and clear-mindedness) and choose the courage to change whatever about it should be and can be changed. We need to consider that maybe it isn’t that we shouldn’t put attention on the negative, but that we should put the right kind of attention on it, as well as on the desired result of our attention; then, take right action to attain or accomplish it or something even better.

We could lessen or eliminate some of the negativity in our individual and shared experiences if we did give negativity another thought—the right kind of thought so that we can demonstrate our power to do more than what we may have been doing. It’s a good practice, one you’ll appreciate. 

          

Practice makes progress.

© Joyce Shafer

You are welcome to use this article in your newsletter or on your blog/website as long as you use my complete bio with it.