Overcoming Jealousy (Blog)

[Sunnybayes]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I'd have to say this was mostly a consequence of a deeper realization I had. Many wise people have said there is no doer in reality and that action can really be effortless. I think I finally "got it." I've been getting a lot more done by holding the perspective that I'm not the one doing any of it.

I know what you mean Steve. Lately I've been laughing at the nature of reality, and scared about it too. I think laughter is when you realize something that is absolutly true, but is totally unexpected. Unexpected truth.

It feels like I just broke up with a woman. The feeling that you get when you come face to face with her, and its all awkward, and your heart is racing, and you try to anticipate and read her every move, with all emotions and memories of how it used to be.

I just broke up with "reality" and I'm suspicious about her... and that I'm trying to be "just cool friends" with her even though I know she's quite messed up and flawed, but I still love her.

Or also like the feeling that you have when you are stuck in a dream and its all crazy and strange, then you realize its a dream, and you wake up, and its all fine.... but now I always feel like I'm in the dream. I'm still trying to wake up to make things feel like the way they used to be, but its continues to be crazy.

Just knowing about how people really work, and knowing how so much of your behavior is just so automatic..., and just knowing about the absolute absurdity of things, like how people chase to become billionaires... but the chase is so absolutly pointless, and they don't really know the reason that they do it. And knowing that we're all nuts on some level, at least in private, but then all is normal and cool beans again when we all get together.

It just feels so arbitrary. I laugh at it. Ha. Reality. Its a funny thing, and I'm just going along for the ride.

[openeyes]

I most enjoy being around people who are better at something than me in some areas, and who I'm more proficient than in other aspects. It affords us both a chance to learn from and admire each other, with little need for jealousy/envy in that case. Luckily I have a number of good friends who fit the bill, and we're a very dynamic bunch

[IAmSoOverMe]

I guess the next question that would enter into my head is, if I enjoy being around others who are doing better and are more successful than I, then how is it for the other person? Do they like to be around me since I am less successful than they are? Or would they prefer to be hanging around someone that is more successful than they? Anyhow, I am the same way as Steve Pavlina. I do prefer to be around people that are doing better than me because I am inspired by it. However, and I have been in this situation, I don't like being around people that are doing better, but are arrogant about it and make sure to let you know that they are definitely above you. So I guess it all boils down to attitude. I enjoy being around people that have good attitudes regardless of whether they have done more or less than I have. A good attitude goes a long way and does rub off on other people. And those other people might open some doors of opportunity for you as well.
http://www.IAmSoOverMe.com

[jksk]

Am I the only who thinks Steve wrote about envy, not jealousy?

From wikipedia:

"Jealousy typically refers to the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that occur when a person believes a valued relationship is being threatened by a rival."

"Envy is the desire for another's traits, status, abilities, station, or worldly goods. It need not be associated with an object; its salient characteristic is the unfovorable [sic] comparison of one's own status with that of another."

[ProjectX]

Heres a question;

Can you be envious of someone's happiness? Is it justifiable?

[mahreenferdous]

The mindset Steve talks about in this article about 'Overcoming Jealousy' closely follows the mindset the religious school ask us to adapt. One of abundance and that of a temporary world which only exits to put us through trials and turbulence (it's only about the experience) until we reach the hereafter. The fact that one can come to such conclusions through logical deductions from the notion of a subjective reality, brings to me faith that there is a certain truth and higher knowledge in religious scripture.

Mahreen

[khrome]

Your blog entry has confused the definition of jealousy. The blog actually talks about *envy*, not jealousy, which implies loss. Jealousy is based on love and/or inclusion, and the impact of exclusion constitutes a negative impact on your life. It's bad to be envious, almost universally... but a small amount of jealousy is a good thing: it creates an air of vigilance, through which you retain crucial assets to maintaining your operating environment. Sometimes your environment becomes unsustainable, sure... but to say we should not try to minimize that just seems naive and unstable.

[tinasu]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I've been getting a lot more done by holding the perspective that I'm not the one doing any of it.

Wow, this is really Beautiful. Thank you for the inspiration!
I'm a big believer that if we just flowed with truth, with the energy from the core of who we are, that the 'doing' within presence is effortless.

Like being in the zone when we write or draw a picture.

Steve, Thank you for inspiring bloggers like myself. Thank you for being true to yourself and values. It really shines through your writing.

...

[Revanto]

Envy and Jealousy are pretty close to each other so I suppose that Steve could be referring to either term. I'm sure that some people see Jealousy being something done in a heated passion.

Anyway, the thing is that, no matter how 'enlightened' you've become in life, you won't truly get rid of all your negative emotions. There's always a chance of slipping up. The thing is to catch yourself when you do feel jealous and change your mental perspective on the situation. Easier said than done, though.

The other thing is that Jealousy stems from fear. That is, fear of loss, fear of rejection, fear of neglect.

I think the problem is that when people form a partnership, they can get attached to their partner and feel that when their partnership is threatened. Sometimes an innocent person can get hurt. I know cos it's happened to me. Even though the situation wasn't harsh or anything I felt violated in my freedoms.

Basically, what happened was that I just moved into a dormitory style set of apartments and I made a few harmless naughty comments at one of the tennants. She didn't have a problem with my comments because she was laughing along with them and they were indirect.
A few days later I get a knock on my door and there's a guy who says 'I don't like how you've been talking to my girlfriend'. I explained to him that I was jjust kidding around and he eventually let things go.
Now the things that got to me were that:

A) I didn't know that she had a boyfriend. I had no intention of 'wooing' her in the first place. I was just in a silly mood.

B) He said that HE didn't like how I was talking to her. She didn't seem to have a problem with what I said but I never asked him whether if she had a problem or not. I just assume he was being the jealous type. If she said that she was uncomfortable with what I said then I would definitely apologised and watched my language around her in the future.

c) He basically assumed that he had the right to tell me how I was to speak to his girlfriend whether it bothered her or not.

I never spoke to her during my time in the dorms after that. I never had a problem with the boyfriend, though. He turned out to be a nice guy but I was still peeved by that event.

Basically, jealousy does NOT give you the right to control others or to go emotionally nuts and hit something/someone (oh, and all the little levels inbetween).

Emotions without restraint can be a dangerous thing.

Revanto

[lifecoach uk]

I agree with the earlier posts that jealousy can be used to mean two different things - one is envy which is really what Steve's orginal overcoming jealousy blog post was about and the other is what is perhaps is the more common use of the word jealousy - namely to describe the feelings of anger, insecurity, hurt etc. which people can feel when they are worried that someone close to them (usually a partner) may be giving undue attention to someone else.

Both types of jealousy involve feelings of resentment and in respect of the envy type you could say that Steve's advice might work if you can carry it out. If you can learn not to see life as a competition but as a sharing cosmos then that could help you not to feel envious of someone else for possessing a quality or possession that you don't have. But the sharing cosmos ideal may not be what someone is looking for who wants to overcome the other type of jealousy.

For the type of jealousy where you are worried that your partner may be attracted to someone else, then simple things you might do to help manage or overcome this kind of jealousy could include cognitive techniques such as recording your jealous thoughts exactly as they occur and then trying to think of simple balancing statements that put them in perspective and help you to stay in control. For example, you might ask yourself what a sensible and supportive friend might say about the situation and say that to yourself when the jealous thoughts arise.

If self esteem is an issue in your insecurity in a relationship then it may also help to remind yourself of the qualities that you have, because when you get jealous you may have a tendency to feel bad about yourself. Don't be too hard on yourself! No one's relationship is perfect. If jealousy is your issue, rather than beat yourself up about it, try to focus on the good things in your relationship and to manage your behaviour when you feel jealous so that if possible you don't react in an unreasonable outburst. And if sometimes you do react in that way, then apologise. If your partner loves you they will listen to your apology and you may be able to talk about some of your anxieties and find ways through them.

[jlolson]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

So it would appear that self-esteem also plays a role in jealousy. If you don't fully accept and love yourself as you are, you could be more prone to comparing yourself to others as a way of artificially boosting your feeling of self-worth.

IMO this is still a mindset issue, albeit of a somewhat different nature. Self-worth is not a relative concept, since ultimately there's only one SELF, so there's no one else to beat or defeat. By trying to defeat others, you can only defeat yourself.

I'm wondering how "compersion" works when your significant/primary other begins to find someone else more psychologically and sexually attractive, and thus spends increasing quantities of time with that other person - perhaps even to the point of no longer wanting to be with you. Should we feel joy for our loved one and rejoice that they are absenting themselves from our lives?

[jlolson]

Originally Posted by khrome

Your blog entry has confused the definition of jealousy. The blog actually talks about *envy*, not jealousy, which implies loss. Jealousy is based on love and/or inclusion, and the impact of exclusion constitutes a negative impact on your life. It's bad to be envious, almost universally... but a small amount of jealousy is a good thing: it creates an air of vigilance, through which you retain crucial assets to maintaining your operating environment. Sometimes your environment becomes unsustainable, sure... but to say we should not try to minimize that just seems naive and unstable.

I agree with the "small amount of jealousy is a good thing" - or at least that it's a natural and not necessarily destructive thing. When it becomes obsessive - worrying about past loves or every stray glance or expression of appreciation for someone else - then it's clearly damaging. But to affect a kind of stoic indifference to the state of one's love's desires seems not only likely unattainable, but not particularly flattering or advantageous with respect to one's relationship.

For example, my love has what I call a "normal range" of jealousy. She isn't concerned about my past sexual experiences or loves or even if my eyes momentary bulge out when a beautiful model strolls by (I wouldn't generally allow that to happen;-). If she chanced upon me making out with another woman, then, yes, she would get angry. But that kind of anger isn't a threat to our relationship; I think it would be a legitimate response to that event. And if she didn't feel upset upon seeing that, I would suspect she didn't feel a passionate connection with me; I wouldn't find that pleasing at all.

Her former love was an ardent Buddhist who eschewed any form of jealousy as "atavistic." His lack of passion for her proved eventually to be the downfall of their relationship.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by jlolson

I'm wondering how "compersion" works when your significant/primary other begins to find someone else more psychologically and sexually attractive, and thus spends increasing quantities of time with that other person - perhaps even to the point of no longer wanting to be with you. Should we feel joy for our loved one and rejoice that they are absenting themselves from our lives?

Of course, feel joy at that. The universe is abundant, and there will be plenty of new opportunities for you to experience love and connection. There are billions of other people to connect with on this planet too. Relationships are very fluid, and attachment only squeezes the life blood out of them.

A sense of scarcity points to a lack of security and a lack of belief in one's self-worth. If you see yourself as a worthy person, you will attract worthy partners.

This doesn't mean you won't still grieve the loss, but that temporary grief is nothing to fear, as within it is the seed of greater happiness.

[jlolson]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Of course, feel joy at that. The universe is abundant, and there will be plenty of new opportunities for you to experience love and connection. There are billions of other people to connect with on this planet too. Relationships are very fluid, and attachment only squeezes the life blood out of them.

A sense of scarcity points to a lack of security and a lack of belief in one's self-worth. If you see yourself as a worthy person, you will attract worthy partners.

This doesn't mean you won't still grieve the loss, but that temporary grief is nothing to fear, as within it is the seed of greater happiness.

Hmmm...it seems if you were logically consistent - that loss inexorably leads to something better - you would also feel joy and the death of a child, because "attachment only squeezes the life blood" out of relationships. Would you then joyously anticipate an even more loving connection with someone?

You're about to embark on a journey which *might* lead to the dissolution of your marriage. Erin or you might discover a more compatible person. Let's say Erin does. Or, more to the point, let's say you, through some psychic means, learned of someone who would make Erin happier, and as a consequence, she would wish to cease living with you and your family and move in with him. Would you make the call, and set up this new relationship, knowing what you would lose?

My point is that surely there are events where the loss of value is so devastating that one would wish to avoid those events. Yet your viewpoint, if logically followed, ought to admit of no such events, no? All events - all relationship-endings, for instance - must inexorably lead to something better.

The logical consequence of that is there actually exist no undesirable events - am I right?

[Daffy Duck]

jl, in real terms, I think the point is to accept life and move on.

I was with a girl once for 5+ years. We were engaged. Stuff happened and we broke up. It was heartbreaking. I was very upset. But with time I accepted it, learned from it, and opened myself to "new opportunities to experience love and connection" (in Steve's words). In hindsight, I'm beyond glad it happened.

Steve didn't say you won't grieve. He said, "This doesn't mean you won't still grieve the loss, but that temporary grief is nothing to fear, as within it is the seed of greater happiness."

When I broke up with my ex-fiancee, it would serve no purpose to sit and cry for the rest of my life. Likewise, if a child died, it would also serve no purpose to sit and cry forever. The best course of action is to accept it and then continue living a life of joy. I'd bet it's what your child would want you to do as well.

[jlolson]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

jl, in real terms, I think the point is to accept life and move on.

I was with a girl once for 5+ years. We were engaged. Stuff happened and we broke up. It was heartbreaking. I was very upset. But with time I accepted it, learned from it, and opened myself to "new opportunities to experience love and connection" (in Steve's words). In hindsight, I'm beyond glad it happened.

Steve didn't say you won't grieve. He said, "This doesn't mean you won't still grieve the loss, but that temporary grief is nothing to fear, as within it is the seed of greater happiness."

When I broke up with my ex-fiancee, it would serve no purpose to sit and cry for the rest of my life. Likewise, if a child died, it would also serve no purpose to sit and cry forever. The best course of action is to accept it and then continue living a life of joy. I'd bet it's what your child would want you to do as well.

I think you're right about all you've written, but it didn't address my central point - namely, that in *some* cases you can experience a net loss. There actually does exist "scarcity" in our universe; not everyone or everything is replaceable. Some relationships are indeed unique. In fact, we all are unique (which contradicts the idea of "non-scarcity" pretty effectively, I think).

Yes, certainly, the best course after losing a loved one is carry one as joyfully as one can manage (though grieving is unavoidable). However, the loss of a loved one is a bad thing. Some things which happen to us are simply bad. Sure, something good might come out of those things, but there can be no guarantee of avoiding a net loss in all cases.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by jlolson

However, the loss of a loved one is a bad thing. Some things which happen to us are simply bad. Sure, something good might come out of those things, but there can be no guarantee of avoiding a net loss in all cases.

I understand what you mean. For example, if some guy came up to me and cut off all of my fingers for no reason, it would probably be very hard to see anything good that would come out of that. It would just seem like a purely "bad" thing that happened.

But as we study spirituality and use our imaginations, we start to see that virtually every bad thing can be a good thing, depending on how you look at it.

You said the loss of a loved one is a bad thing. And I can definitely understand where you're coming from. I don't want to "lose" my brothers, or my friends, and so on. I like having them in my life. But imagine if one of them died and went somewhere wonderful and were full of more joy than they could ever hope to experience. Imagine them wishing they could let me know from the other side, "Hey Daffy, don't sweat it! This is so AWESOME!"

From my Earthly perspective, I'm sitting here like "OH MY GOD!"
From their "Heavenly" perspective, they're sitting there like "OH WOW, GOD!"

So that's just one countless example I thought of. Know what I mean?

And as we study and think and use our imaginations even more, some of us conclude that "good" and "bad" is all an illusion anyway.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by jlolson

The logical consequence of that is there actually exist no undesirable events - am I right?

Essentially yes, that's one way of interpreting it. The undesirability comes from our resistance to an event, not from the event itself.

Last year, for example, a local friend of mine died suddenly in a car accident. At first I was surprised and sad, but I re-connected with him in a special way and wrote an article about it. Since he was a Toastmaster like me, and since it was a big part of his life, I also donated some money to Toastmasters in his name. That was my way of transforming his death into something positive and meaningful for me.

I don't feel that I lost him. I just think of him as one of my non-physical friends, and in that form I'm able to connect with him whenever I want. So where is the loss? Why should I be sad about losing him as a friend? I'd prefer to be happy that he's moved on to another phase of his existence.

You might enjoy reading this article:
The Joy of Sadness

[Savage]

Originally Posted by jlolson

Yes, certainly, the best course after losing a loved one is carry one as joyfully as one can manage (though grieving is unavoidable). However, the loss of a loved one is a bad thing. Some things which happen to us are simply bad. Sure, something good might come out of those things, but there can be no guarantee of avoiding a net loss in all cases.

How's that philosophy working out for you so far?

[jlolson]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

How's that philosophy working out for you so far?

That raises an interesting question: Is the purpose of philosophy to discover truth, or to make us feel good? Is there a true distinction between the two? Is the sole measurement of truth that it makes us feel great? I would love to fly and live forever. Does the fact that if these things were true I would be happy have any bearing on their truth?

I guess my reply in a nutshell is that in order for philosophy to be useful in achieving happiness, it has to contain truth; and to the extent that a particular philosophic position is untrue, it will not enable happiness. The only tried-and-true means I personally have of evaluating the veracity of a philosophic claim is whether it is logically coherent and corresponds to reality (such as I'm aware of it).

But to your question: How in the heck would you measure that? Am I as happy as you are? I have no way of knowing. If I say I'm happy as a result of my philosophy - just as so many have claimed to find happiness by believing the most patently absurd things - what have I proven?

I want to be happy, just as you do. I just don't see any good reason to suspect that path is paved by non-critical thinking. (Not accusing you of that; just saying that the logical truth of a claim is relevant to its "happiness-producing" quotient ;-).

[jlolson]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

How's that philosophy working out for you so far?

That raises an interesting question: Is the purpose of philosophy to discover truth, or to make us feel good? Is there a true distinction between the two? Is the sole measurement of truth that it makes us feel great? I would love to fly and live forever. Does the fact that if these things were true I would be happy have any bearing on their truth?

I guess my reply in a nutshell is that in order for philosophy to be useful in achieving happiness, it has to contain truth; and to the extent that a particular philosophic position is untrue, it will not enable happiness. The only tried-and-true means I personally have of evaluating the veracity of a philosophic claim is whether it is logically coherent and corresponds to reality (such as I'm aware of it).

But to your question: How in the heck would you measure that? Am I as happy as you are? I have no way of knowing. If I say I'm happy as a result of my philosophy - just as so many have claimed to find happiness by believing the most patently absurd things - what have I proven?

I want to be happy, just as you do. I just don't see any good reason to suspect that path is paved by non-critical thinking. (Not accusing you of that; just saying that the logical truth of a claim is relevant to its "happiness-producing" quotient ;-).

[Savage]

Originally Posted by jlolson

That raises an interesting question: Is the purpose of philosophy to discover truth, or to make us feel good? Is there a true distinction between the two? Is the sole measurement of truth that it makes us feel great? I would love to fly and live forever. Does the fact that if these things were true I would be happy have any bearing on their truth?

I guess my reply in a nutshell is that in order for philosophy to be useful in achieving happiness, it has to contain truth; and to the extent that a particular philosophic position is untrue, it will not enable happiness. The only tried-and-true means I personally have of evaluating the veracity of a philosophic claim is whether it is logically coherent and corresponds to reality (such as I'm aware of it).

But to your question: How in the heck would you measure that? Am I as happy as you are? I have no way of knowing. If I say I'm happy as a result of my philosophy - just as so many have claimed to find happiness by believing the most patently absurd things - what have I proven?

I want to be happy, just as you do. I just don't see any good reason to suspect that path is paved by non-critical thinking. (Not accusing you of that; just saying that the logical truth of a claim is relevant to its "happiness-producing" quotient ;-).

You're talking about the core concepts from the first two chapters of my book, Truth and Love.

Ultimately to be aligned with positive growth, you need both Truth and Love, and you need to resolve apparent conflicts between the two, so they're both pointing in the same direction.

Your desire to align with Truth is good and necessary. However, you seem to be struggling with the alignment with Love in a way that doesn't contradict Truth. I think you fear that Truth and Love may be in conflict, but that's a false dichotomy that you're creating.

Truth can't be measured by happiness... not directly at least. But it can be measured by effectiveness. If one philosophy generates more predictable, consistently effective behavior than another, then it's reasonable to consider that the first philosophy may be more accurate than the second. This is essentially how science works -- it's largely based on coming up with better and more consistent predictive models. A model is considered more true to the degree it's good at predicting outcomes consistently.

It seems we can predict that your philosophy could generate a potential state of prolonged powerlessness when certain events happen, events that are outside of your control. This means you must guard against those events, but since that's impossible to guarantee, it means you will experience a small amount of fear or perhaps guardedness in living your life. And that will lead to missed opportunities from being too guarded. However, it may help you prevent tragedies by being more careful and cautious, but obviously you can't plan for every contingency, so there's no way to eliminate all risk.

I have lived that way in the past, but I found it too limiting. I leaned toward another perspective that doesn't cause me to disempower myself in the face of uncertainty. Since I find that this perspective produces better results consistently, I consider it more accurate and true.

Instead of trying to rail against the uncertainty of life -- to fear it and to try to eliminate it -- I've found that it works better to accept it and not to resist it.

This mindset allows me to love Erin and my kids right now without worrying about what's going to happen to them. I think it makes me a better husband and father in the here and now to be present for them.

[jlolson]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Essentially yes, that's one way of interpreting it. The undesirability comes from our resistance to an event, not from the event itself.

Last year, for example, a local friend of mine died suddenly in a car accident. At first I was surprised and sad, but I re-connected with him in a special way and wrote an article about it. Since he was a Toastmaster like me, and since it was a big part of his life, I also donated some money to Toastmasters in his name. That was my way of transforming his death into something positive and meaningful for me.

I don't feel that I lost him. I just think of him as one of my non-physical friends, and in that form I'm able to connect with him whenever I want. So where is the loss? Why should I be sad about losing him as a friend? I'd prefer to be happy that he's moved on to another phase of his existence.

You might enjoy reading this article:
The Joy of Sadness

I was surprised. I thought that was actually rather profound. What it means exactly - that experience of loving fear and pain (I have wondered about it often!) - is something I'd like some time to think about. I wonder how much the joy you're describing is contingent on certain (supernatural) beliefs. You deny that in your essay, and on some level I think you're right, but the degree of one's enjoyment of "bad things" is surely limited by one's conception of the universe we inhabit.

I'm a tad skeptical that it's the one you've identified. It seems that the debate would have to shift to religion, which is a whole 'nother carton or perhaps beer keg of worms.

[jlolson]

Originally Posted by jlolson

I was surprised. I thought that was actually rather profound. What it means exactly - that experience of loving fear and pain (I have wondered about it often!) - is something I'd like some time to think about. I wonder how much the joy you're describing is contingent on certain (supernatural) beliefs. You deny that in your essay, and on some level I think you're right, but the degree of one's enjoyment of "bad things" is surely limited by one's conception of the universe we inhabit.

I'm a tad skeptical that it's the one you've identified. It seems that the debate would have to shift to religion, which is a whole 'nother carton or perhaps beer keg of worms.

Oh, sorry - I was referring to your "Joy of Sadness." Really a superb meditation.

[jlolson]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

You're talking about the core concepts from the first two chapters of my book, Truth and Love.

Ultimately to be aligned with positive growth, you need both Truth and Love, and you need to resolve apparent conflicts between the two, so they're both pointing in the same direction.

Your desire to align with Truth is good and necessary. However, you seem to be struggling with the alignment with Love in a way that doesn't contradict Truth. I think you fear that Truth and Love may be in conflict, but that's a false dichotomy that you're creating.

Truth can't be measured by happiness... not directly at least. But it can be measured by effectiveness. If one philosophy generates more predictable, consistently effective behavior than another, then it's reasonable to consider that the first philosophy may be more accurate than the second. This is essentially how science works -- it's largely based on coming up with better and more consistent predictive models. A model is considered more true to the degree it's good at predicting outcomes consistently.

It seems we can predict that your philosophy could generate a potential state of prolonged powerlessness when certain events happen, events that are outside of your control. This means you must guard against those events, but since that's impossible to guarantee, it means you will experience a small amount of fear or perhaps guardedness in living your life. And that will lead to missed opportunities from being too guarded. However, it may help you prevent tragedies by being more careful and cautious, but obviously you can't plan for every contingency, so there's no way to eliminate all risk.

I have lived that way in the past, but I found it too limiting. I leaned toward another perspective that doesn't cause me to disempower myself in the face of uncertainty. Since I find that this perspective produces better results consistently, I consider it more accurate and true.

Instead of trying to rail against the uncertainty of life -- to fear it and to try to eliminate it -- I've found that it works better to accept it and not to resist it.

This mindset allows me to love Erin and my kids right now without worrying about what's going to happen to them. I think it makes me a better husband and father in the here and now to be present for them.

"However, you seem to be struggling with the alignment with Love in a way that doesn't contradict Truth. I think you fear that Truth and Love may be in conflict, but that's a false dichotomy that you're creating."

I'm not sure what you see "Love" representing in this context. The two main claims I've made which you may be referencing with your speculation that I'm advocating a "false dichotomy" are: 1) Bad things happen; 2) that we may wish to believe in something good does not mean that this good thing is in fact real.

I believe one can grant that (1) is true without being hampered by some horrific negative thinking. One could believe that bad things do in fact happen and still maintain a predominately positive attitude. What might be the practical effects of believing that as opposed to believing, as you apparently do, that bad things don't truly happen?

Well, if I believe that some situations and relationships are truly irreplaceable or unduplicable, then I will be especially motivated to preserve and/or protect them. If, on the other hand, I believe that every situation and relationship, regardless of how precious or unique they might seem, are more or less replaceable, then I won't be as protective of them. Now I gather from your writings that you believe this latter attitude to be more effective (or simply better overall)?

I'm skeptical that you truly believe this, at least in its strongest form. If you did, for example, you wouldn't bother to defend your family against attack by intruders or to push someone out of the path of an oncoming truck, since if these really aren't "bad events" then you'd have no motivation to stop them.

So I would suggest, if you grant that you would indeed take such preventative/preserving actions, that you do accept the existence of "bad events." But I think what you're really talking about is how one ought to relate to the possibility of negative events or to them once they've happened. You would doubtless advocate that we ought to try to avoid being paralyzed by fear of them, and that if they occur, we should attempt to find something positive in them. Of course no one in their right mind would argue against that, but such a positive viewpoint does not require denying the reality of "bad events."

Naturally, there is a balance between being cautious and protective of one's current values - one's status quo - and being willing to embrace positive change. Shiva, the destroyer, paving the way to such change and all. A certain degree of "destruction" is inarguably necessary to achieve positive change. But there are limits to how much we can destroy without losing ourselves. Your premise (as I understand it) would logically admit the possibility of destroying everything, since all bad things ultimately lead to something good (if not better).

This illustrates, I think, a practical difference between your premise and mine: I would act under the assumption that some things in my life are unique and irreplaceable, and thus would fiercely fight to protect them; if you truly believe that everything is replaceable and even improvable, then you would act far less protectively, if you acted protectively at all.

I would add that while it may seem on first sight that it is empowering to view everything in your life as replaceable - the appeal is obvious for anyone who has lost a lover or a loved one - there is a dark side to that seemingly cheery outlook: it diminishes the uniqueness and importance of individuals. To say that one's wife can abscond with one's children to run off with another man is no big deal because it merely opens up another wondrous opportunity to meet a better wife (with better children?) and so on ad infinitum is to reduce all individuals to mere interchangeable cogs in some universal machine. Yet what gives human life meaning if not the individual uniqueness and irreplaceability of individuals?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by jlolson

Yet what gives human life meaning if not the individual uniqueness and irreplaceability of individuals?

IMO fear of loss isn't a necessary component of that meaning. Those relationships can be just as precious without a sense of underlying worry. My experience is that fear and worry hurt the relationships more than help them.

Letting go of fear and worry doesn't mean living in denial. You still know the truth that the relationships will end, and their temporary nature can certainly help sweeten the experience.

But instead of resisting the inevitable loss, you can learn to surrender to it. That brings a whole different level of sweetness to life.

[jlolson]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I understand what you mean. For example, if some guy came up to me and cut off all of my fingers for no reason, it would probably be very hard to see anything good that would come out of that. It would just seem like a purely "bad" thing that happened.

But as we study spirituality and use our imaginations, we start to see that virtually every bad thing can be a good thing, depending on how you look at it.

You said the loss of a loved one is a bad thing. And I can definitely understand where you're coming from. I don't want to "lose" my brothers, or my friends, and so on. I like having them in my life. But imagine if one of them died and went somewhere wonderful and were full of more joy than they could ever hope to experience. Imagine them wishing they could let me know from the other side, "Hey Daffy, don't sweat it! This is so AWESOME!"

From my Earthly perspective, I'm sitting here like "OH MY GOD!"
From their "Heavenly" perspective, they're sitting there like "OH WOW, GOD!"

So that's just one countless example I thought of. Know what I mean?

And as we study and think and use our imaginations even more, some of us conclude that "good" and "bad" is all an illusion anyway.

Well, you're offering a variation of the "God knows best" argument - that no matter how bad something appears, it's part of a divine plan and thus ultimately good. An interesting implication is that everything we do and experience is good, which is essentially (I think) what Steve granted.

A further implication is that it really doesn't matter what we do because, in popular parlance, it's "all good." Seems like a motivation for doing nothing at all with one's life...

Really, what follows from the premise that we can do good things is that we can also do bad things. Likewise, if we can experience good things (or experience them in a good way), we can also experience bad things. I'm kind of getting the impression the some personal development advocates (perhaps including Steve) would prefer to do away with the "dark" side of that equation...kind of a "wanting to have one's cake and eat it, too," type of deal. Or maybe it's akin to taking the "Happiness Pill" (it makes you feel happy no matter what!). If you subscribe to a particular viewpoint, in other words, you'll be happy no matter what.

I wonder how many people here would find it advisable to take the Happiness Pill? (For me, it would depend on its cost.) ;-)

[jlolson]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

IMO fear of loss isn't a necessary component of that meaning. Those relationships can be just as precious without a sense of underlying worry. My experience is that fear and worry hurt the relationships more than help them.

Letting go of fear and worry doesn't mean living in denial. You still know the truth that the relationships will end, and their temporary nature can certainly help sweeten the experience.

But instead of resisting the inevitable loss, you can learn to surrender to it. That brings a whole different level of sweetness to life.

"You still know the truth that the relationships will end, and their temporary nature can certainly help sweeten the experience."

I agree, and would extend that to life in general: it's precious largely because it is temporary - and fragile.

But doesn't that claim strike you as having some logical tension with your previous admonition that we shouldn't approach life as though the things we love or are good for us are scarce? Doesn't the temporariness of life and everything in make those things scarce (and thus more valuable)?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by jlolson

But doesn't that claim strike you as having some logical tension with your previous admonition that we shouldn't approach life as though the things we love or are good for us are scarce? Doesn't the temporariness of life and everything in make those things scarce (and thus more valuable)?

I hardly see scarcity when there are 7 billion people available to relate to. Even if you narrow it down quite a bit, there's still a massive abundance.

Scarcity thinking is when you get too attached and try to hold time still to avoid change. This is a very fear-based approach. It's anyone's choice to live that way, but it seems rather disempowering to resist the inevitability of change. If you resist change, it will simply be forced about you. Better to live in tune with reality than try to rail against it.

Change is good. Change helps us grow. No change = no growth = stagnation.

If you feel safe here (which is essentially a choice), you needn't fear loss. When it happens you accept it and grow through it.

To say that any experience is bad is to make a personal judgment from a certain perspective. If you want to go around labeling things as bad, that's your choice to make. But it's not a requirement for your existence.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by jlolson

A further implication is that it really doesn't matter what we do because, in popular parlance, it's "all good." Seems like a motivation for doing nothing at all with one's life...

That's one way to look at it. As for me, I find doing "nothing" to be quite boring, so I like to do a lot.