Only posts tagged with: Human Dignity | Display all
Apr. 18, 2013, at 9:30pm
To say that fiscal policy is not my forte is—let’s put it nicely— an understatement. (In fact, I chose this graph because it was so pretty.) But there is an important personalist point to be made about it anyway, and maybe I can express it in a way that other liberal-arts types can understand.
Many labor under a perceived conflict between taking seriously the Church’s concern for the poor, on the one hand, and treasuring the rights of the individual, including the taxpayer and entrepreneur, on the other. The “social justice Catholics” object to neglecting the poor in the name of the economic freedoms of people who could help them. Small-government advocates object to a state that …continue reading
Personal healing and authentic communion.
You're right that it's especially challenging to be honest when we're surrounded by dishonesty—including the kind that rooted in denial and self-deception.
Sep. 27 at 9:29pm | See in context
I think honesty is the number one requirement for just about anything good in life and I agree it's difficult to do it. It's actually the easiest thing in the world to do if you are around honest people but if you find yourself in with dishonest people it's nearly impossible. I'm glad honesty was brought up here because this is the first step towards any kind of personal healing.
Sep. 27 at 8:44pm | See in context
I believe its not hard to access our past in the sense of understanding what happened to us as babies and toddlers, but this is not important according to Hawkins. He recommends just dealing with the feelings as they come up and staying the course. Eventually those difficult ones from infancy and toddlerhood will surface but you don't have to know the circumstances, you just use the letting go technique.
Sep. 27 at 8:37pm | See in context
I should maybe clarify that I don't take "speak what we feel" to mean that we should always and wherever "spill our guts", without discretion. I think Shakespeare's dramatic context lends an important qualification. It was the weightiness of the moral moment they found themselves in that called for speech—and speech of a particular kind, viz. "from the heart."
There are other moments too—not particularly weighty perhaps—when we are asked (by people with a right to inquire) to give an opinion, to say what we feel. In those, moments, too, it seems to me, it's incumbent on us to say truthfully what we really feel, as opposed to saying what we think we should feel.
I've read only three or four Alice Miller books. I agree with you that she's brilliant. I've learned much from her. But I tend to find her anthropology not entirely sound. She seems to me to neglect reality of our falleness, and to be too optimistic about our ability to access our entire past.
Still. I'll take her over Freud.
Sep. 27 at 6:43pm | See in context
Hawkins actually says that you can talk about your feelings to alleviate the pressure if you are in a crisis, but only to a point where you can get out of the crisis zone, then go back to the methods that I described in Jules' post about subjectivity and objectivity of emotions. If this information helps anyone that would be great, if not I hope people can find something that works for them. I think Alice Miller is brilliant, but I found that her methods were asking too much in regards to the help that I was (not) able to find. I'm sure there must be some true "enlightened witnesses" out that may be helpful. Hawkins' thing about not talking about your feelings is that he says that when you do this it tends to increase the energy of the emotion rather than decrease it and that is not an effective way of letting the energy behind the emotion go. One last technique in this book is having the willingness to be open to higher states of being like courage, acceptance, forgiveness, love and peace. In doing this it helps facilitate the letting go of the negative emotions.
Sep. 27 at 5:59pm | See in context
I enjoyed the post. I read 10-11 of Alice Miller's books and studied them well. It took me two years to do it and I felt like I had a good grasp of her ideas. I tried to find an "enlightened witness" for the next 5 years, speaking with people, going to different therapists and trying out her ideas. Not one person out there understood her ideas as I did, or if they did, mainly after me explaining it to them, they became petrified that they would have to get on the same level with me about real feelings. No one I found could do it. I was pretty frustrated not only because no one could help me but because I was continually expressing my feelings at work and with friends, etc. and my it did not help my relationships or work life at all. I was at a loss for awhile and although I had been familiar with David R. Hawkins M.D., Ph.D. books ten years back, I had not read, "Letting Go, The Pathway of Surrender". I read the book and applied the methods and had good results.
Sep. 27 at 5:44pm | See in context
If, for the Catholic, all religions share the same God, then for the Catholic, what is left for all religions to hash out is merely language, culture, disparate historical references and philosophies and not differences in Gods. Is this true for the Catholic?
Sep. 27 at 4:36pm | See in context
You've a repeated a question that I don't understand. It makes no sense to me. Maybe you could try expressing your point another way?
Sep. 27 at 4:05pm | See in context
So the question remains:
For the Catholic is it merely a matter of language, culture, historical learning and selection of philosophies employed that amounts to preferences made by free choice, which define and therefore separate the world’s religions because it can’t be differences in Gods?
Sep. 27 at 3:56pm | See in context
Thank you for responding Katie.
"Yes, God is the God of all persons, not just Catholics. It doesn't follow that all persons understand Him rightly or follow Him truly."
I have already affirmed this above as being square with my conclusion that, for the Catholic all religions share the same God and that it doesn't follow from that that all persons understand him rightly or follow him truly.
"He is omnipresent, but He isn't all there is. There is also His creation, including demons, and human beings, who, being free, are capable of creating idols and false religions, and religions that are mixed bags of truth and error, good and evil."
I have already affirmed that to be square with my conclusion above.
Insofar as other religions are true, and insofar as any human person's religious acts are sincere, they are directed toward the One True God.
I affirm that comment to be square with my conclusion.
Sep. 27 at 3:55pm | See in context
Copyright: The Personalist Project 2014 | Contact us
519 North High Street, West Chester, PA 19380