Originally posted by UnlimitedSky
reply to post by 1littlewolf
Hi Little Wolf,
Thanks for your reply and for clearing up my perception of you. Also, applogies for the harsh reply, perhaps my dark side, the side which is in fear,
reacted to your post. (I am of course not aware of this fear and am rather fearless in my perception of myself, I am a very strong she-wolf indeed,
but perhaps in my effort to deny my weak side wich fears rejection and being misunderstood, lashed out at you.) Sorry again.
Don't worry about it. When you're only communicating through the medium of the written word it's hard to judge how another comes across. You're not
the first person actually do react this way to what I type so maybe there's a lesson in it all for me too. I'm actually trying to be a lot more
patient and it seems to be paying off - even a few months ago I would have reacted quite nastily to your last post and initially I was going to but I
stopped myself, and lucky I did otherwise I would never have got your beautiful reply
My understanding of life on earth as an experience of the soul may be extremely different from yours. So I can only tell you what my view is. Not what
actually is.
My view is that the soul is that part that comes from a much higher spiritual region, it is in fact that part that is in His image. It is the God
Particle in each of us, that is the soul. However, as the soul descends to the physical region it is joined by the mind in which the ego presides. The
ego belongs to the physical world and is that part of every human (even new born babies) that develops the feeling of 'I am'. Not only 'I am' but also
'I am my world'. Without the ego the soul cannot be grounded on earth, as within the ego all aspects such as greed, pride, anger, attachment and lust
flows from. Without these aspcets the soul cannot be captured or 'held' in the physical world. While we reincarnate from life to life, body stays
behind, but ego does not seperate from the soul so that a baby is born with the same ego. Ego is almost like a permanent set of clothes that hides the
beauty of the soul. Until the soul goes back to it's origin, at which time the ego is left behind again.
But, we are not talking about my blelief system. We are referring to Debbie Ford's book in which she describes the persona something in the line of
the following:
Persona, ìis a much more temporary mask which is built up in this life, for this life only, and the formation of it depends very much on the
circumstances that you are exposed to in childhood. Persona is not personality. Persona is that facade (or face) which we put out to the world in the
hope that we will be accepted and loved. It is most often very artificial and a total illusion.
Your view of life seems very similar to mine especially in regards to the ego being necessary. I still can't help think that the persona is one of the
negative aspects of the ego as manifest on the third dimension, and perhaps stems from that same place that anger, greed and lust do. I am not sure
how much of these emotions we would retain in spirit, for I suspect that like the persona these would mainly be left behind.
I really like your idea that we do take the same ego with us from one life to another, and your metaphor of it being a 'permanent set of clothes', is
quite fascinating; and this is something I have never really considered.
I see what you are getting at. (Firstly, even 20 years ago, my fascination with the young child as a specie, my own lack of adhering to
standard views and judgments, the adoration of my son, and the delight in the things he says made it impossible for me to even experience chastising
as an option. The conductor was an older gent obviously with a great sense of humour, as we both laughed at the incident. I think he enjoyed it as
much as I did. I did talk to him out in the corridor alone and he really did not feel hurt. His eyes told me that he was honest in telling me that he
was not hurt.)
Nevertheless, a couple of years ago, while living in Italy, I studied 'The Aesthetic Subject'. I understand your confrontation and conflict with the
concept of 'what is beautiful' , because it is necesarry to re-evaluate that which society has classified as a norm of what is beautiful, at the end
of the subject I concluded (only in myself) that there must be a quality within man himself, an inherent aspect, which causes a natural affinity with
things that are 'normally' beautiful, and aesthetically pleasing. If a person likes dogs, naturally you find a puppy most pleasing to look at. However
much I rebeled agains 'them' telling me what should be good looking, at the end of the day, I had to admit to myself that most people (including me)
do respond favourably to certain visual stimuli as pleasant or unpleasant. My little boy has never been told at that point that people with bad skin
are ugly, that was merely his own natural reaction.
You are definitely right; to a certain degree that many aspects of beauty and ugliness are inbuilt into the human brain and I guess this comes from
our instinctual animal side which is programmed to identify sick individuals to avoid and healthy ones in order to find a mate. But I think in humans
this concept goes a little beyond that and has something to do with our spirituality and world view as well. I haven't fully fleshed out the idea
myself though so tha's about all I can say for now.
How I would handle it? Exactly the same. I am very deeply in touch with my child side (no, not referring to that airy fairy pshyco term, but to the
fact that I truly can relate to kids because I can instantanously think like they think, and therefore understand what it is they are experiencing,
thinking, feeling. My friends are no longer amazed, but I am known for this ablility. I am total adult, but can read children better than a book. I
can't explain.)
Your kids must be very lucky. It may have more to do with that airy fairy psych term than you might suspect though. You sound like a very well
balanced individual and the inner child is part of that. Children's instincts are a very good judge of character.
edit on 13/1/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)