Worry, anxiety and angsting

RedFox said:
There are two articles on SoTT at the moment that may help with breaking the "comfortableness of our known suffering".

Countering the excuses that prevent us from making life changes - for countering the narratives.
The common regrets of the terminally ill - for a change of perspective.

There is also this 15 beliefs and habits of highly effective and happy people.

Thanks RedFox, I am going to read/digest/sink/use those articles ... two days ago, I had a related dream, last thing I remember was that I was going to a beach, told my sister that there were nice waves to ride (I used to like to be at the sea diving waves, is been ages that I had not been able to do it), I remember helping my father going to the beach, I was awestruck by the height of the waves, at least 4 floor building height, and thought "I think I am not going to enter to the sea for the moment", then I woke up. When I dream with water, whatever form, usually is related to emotions. As if i was seeing this"clarifying" path bigger that I can take it, but, one/me being in "afraid" mode see things bigger as they in reality are, so is time to dive in it.
 
I had read the articles, and here is when ... I suppose, is my eternal lesson between my uncomfortable comfortableness of suffering to the comfortable uncomfortableness of not suffering, using the proportionally inverse of the inverse psychology, one is who take the choice.
 
Red fox thank you for a job well qualified .. I found it interesting that you talk about "leak and fight" that is mentioned in the book "In Praise of leak " the neurobiologist physician, psychologist, anthropologist and philosopher french published in 1976.

http://danslestesticulesdedarwin.blogspot.fr/2015/03/laborit-et-ses-rats.html
Take a rat and put it in a room with two compartments. Let us subject the rat plantar electric shock (that must hurt!), Preceded by a few seconds by a light and sound signal, while leaving the possibility to the rat to flee into the next compartment. What's happening? Note no surprise that the rat does not pray and seek refuge in the adjacent compartment (not electrified). Yep ... that's of Science 2.0!



"Conclusion of the experiment the rats do not like electricity ... that's science!"

But what happens if we close the door between the compartments? The rat undergoes electric shock obviously, but can not escape in the second compartment. It will then freeze, what Laborit called a motor inhibition behavior. Let us now experience the regular height of 7 minutes a day for a week. We find that the animal has high blood pressure, and even worse, is ulcerous! This does not stop there, if we take his blood pressure up to one month after the end of the experiment, we find that the animal is still pressure! Laborit speaks of a somatization of the body caused by stress.

You could say that the cause of somatization disorder is not the stress, but the shock itself. Yet this is not the case. Indeed, Laborit goes further: after each session if the animal is subjected to an electric shock convulsant which prevents the establishment of long-term memory, then there will be no blood pressure. The inhibition of memory prevents somatization. Memory is required for somatization because it is she who remembers the ineffectiveness of the action against the stimulus.

In other words, it is the memory that tells the rat he can do nothing to avoid the shock, and that's what creates somatization.





Wait! This is where it gets interesting (well, not if you're a rat)!

Now if we put two rats in the box, and we repeat the experiment electric shocks, what's happening? In this case, the rats begin to fight when they receive shocks. And the result is striking: no high blood pressure is measured, even during a week of experience or after! Laborit says here that rats each externalized aggression through action on the other. And it prevented somatization. Note also that the fight did not avoid electric shock.

Therefore summarize the experience:

Subjected to an electric shock, the rat has only 3 choices:

- Either he fled.

- Either he externalizes his aggression (by the action of others), even if this does not prevent the shock.

- Either he somatizes if he has no choice.

For Laborit Mass is said. Against aggression, people first think of flight; and if they do not, they pour out their aggression on others.

You see how this discovery can be used as a reading grid to the human psyche? Anyway for Laborit, there's no doubt. The human being, this enigmatic animal, can be decoded that is if we want well-submit it to the "coldness" of behavioral analysis. And everything goes, Love, Childhood, Liberty, Death, Happiness, but also Politics, Society and Faith! It is with great clarity that Laborit exposes us in Praise of the leak that might be called a unified theory of Man.

As for love and anxiety, it obviously raises controversy and destabilize our beliefs. As I have speculated in other posts we often take two loves:
1. passionate love that is linked to selfishness and "STS" (lover, mistress, husband or wife).
2. compassionate love that is related to altruism and "STO" (his neighbor, not distinction of judgment and affiliation).

Compassionate love is "STO" and therefore has a wider knowledge and do not fear. There is anxiety when we do not know a thing. And we can not be in leak or in the fight.

So to make the link between anxiety and love, I would call this love scary "embryonic love" evolution inevitably goes through phases of anxiety and fear.

This fear is related to ignorance, and we have again the words of the professor Laborit three solutions. The first two are leak and fight, but when the factor of ignorance (unknown) is too large then the fear and anxiety appears.

I think the evolution is inherent in fear. Without fear there could be no evolution.
Fear is conducive, because as the saying Castaneda or "petty tyrants" is a chance to face the fears, they help us to enter at a higher level. Knowing face the predator.

And I would come to finish in concentration. We have seen that fear was linked to ignorance, and our mind not knowing tried searching without finding. This fruitless search for conséquance destabilize our mind and not be able to fix it. We can therefore say that fear is related to lack of concentration.
Besides in "The journey to infinity" Castaneda, he said that the leak against the predator must learn to concentrate more than him. Which included the predator (STS) have much more fear and anxiety that we humans. Do not they put us their mind?

To sum up:

The disappointment of our ignorance degrades love.
The degradation of love can stabilize by flight or can reinforce and develop through struggle.
If fear is permante love and energy are empty of man.
Fear is a weapon double trouchant, it can kill us, but it is the only one to make us evolve.
 
Thank you RedFox for this information, it is very helpful.

Chu said:
Thanks Redfox. All very interesting. I can definitely relate to some of it at least. I've gotten a bit better over the years (supposedly) but many times I've been called a "worrier". :-[

I think that another POV that hasn't been mentioned explicitly is something that the book Fear of Intimacy, by Robert W. Firestone and Joyce Catlett talks about. Although I don't think everything is absolute accurate in their analysis, I've found it to be SUPER useful and recommend it to you all. Here is the blurb:

Why is it that the relationships we care about most - those with our intimate partners - often seem doomed to fail? Why do we feel compelled to punish those closest to us who love and appreciate our real qualities? In ""Fear of Intimacy"", the authors bring almost 40 years of clinical experience to bear in challenging the usual ways of thinking about couples and families. They argue that relationships fail not for the commonly cited reasons, but because psychological defences formed in childhood act as a barrier to closeness in adulthood. A wide range of cross-generational case studies and powerful personal accounts illustrate how the ""fantasy bond"", a once-useful but now destructive form of self-parenting, jeopardizes meaningful attachments. Written in clear, jargon-free language, this book shows how therapists can help identify and overcome the messages of the internal ""voice"" that fosters distortions of the self and loved ones. Related issues such as interpersonal ethics and the role of stereotyping are also discussed. The authors' innovative approach should be of interest to therapists and couples alike.

One of their basic premises, as I understood it, is that as opposed to what many books on narcissistic wounds claim, such that many people tend to want to "repeat certain traumas in an attempt to make it all better/fix the past", many times we "worry, angst, etc." and don't change, or we fall back into the same damaging attitudes or dynamics, because we prefer that. Any time we have proof that there is no need to worry, that we are safe, that we can trust someone, etc., we feel the impulse to act in ways that will validate what our introject says, and make us and others miserable. In fact, the safer the scarier sometimes.

This is so true... and it's also true that it is an impulse, because we can just do it without even knowing why we are doing that.
I think I'll try to get that book.

Chu said:
It is easier to worry, to be angry, to feel unloved, a victim or whatever, than it is to accept positive feedback, have intimate relationships, etc. when the latter is something we never learned in the past. I think that that is a point that many tend to forget. We love our suffering! (Until we decide to stop, of course). Again and again, we fall back into behaviors that are self-destructive. But it's not always because "we hate ourselves". Sometimes it is because that's all we know, and new territory would be scary. Sometimes it's because if we were to actually let go, and feel safe when appropriate, then we would be in unknown territory. And that's scary. The problem is that by worrying and creating situations that validate those worries, we then miss the opportunity to be truly close to someone, truly accepted. And we go in circles, continuing to suffer and worry "unconsciously".

I think that this can be applied when reading some of the quotes you shared, and to me at least, it made a lot of sense that way.

My 2 cents.

Chu said:
Heimdallr said:
kalibex said:
RedFox said:
Chu said:
Sometimes it is because that's all we know, and new territory would be scary.
What came instantly to mind was "Without my suffering, who am I?"

Could it be that simple?

Well, it's simple as an idea, but incredibly complex as a behavioral dynamic, especially for an individual engaging in unconscious suffering. That kind of behavior is typically very, very difficult to see in ourselves. But yes, a lot of people love their suffering. It becomes a part of who they are so much that to change would leave them with a feeling of annihilation. Which is true, but it's an annihilation of programs and behaviors that are detrimental to becoming aware and doing the Work.

Indeed... I don't know for others, but for me it was a big "aha" moment realizing this. Gurdjieff was onto something when he said that man had to have had enough of his unconscious suffering before actually suffering consciously.

If you think about it, why is it so hard to change some behaviors and beliefs? Sometimes we KNOW they are false, we've observed them and can't change them so easily. Maybe it's because part of us wants to go back to what we know, to the "comfortableness of our known suffering"?

Or, another way to look at it, is that when we set unrealistic goals, we know they are unrealistic, but we still have them, and later on we can say, see? I'm not worthy, I'll never make it, etc. But we knew they were unrealistic to begin with!

Or, sometimes we think we are too "broken/stupid/etc.". Well, then, what's the point in trying to do better? We stay in our "comfortable unconscious suffering".

Chu said:
RedFox said:
Both of these tend to come down to desperately Not wanting to feel helpless/not incontrol and/or alone. As with all emotion, they are part of life.

Yes. Though at least in my case, I realized that sometimes I would worry also for the opposite reasons, which came down to narcissism. It's not that I didn't want to feel helpless, but that I did, because that's what I was used to. Because spending too much time worrying about other people or things, you have an excuse to not do something about yourself, hence be helpless and then reaffirm that belief. (Notice that being worried is not the same as actually DOING something for others who ask. It's a passive state). It was not about wanting to feel in control, but actually feeling sorry for myself for NOT being in control (too busy worrying about others to take action for my life). Not a need not to be alone, but actually a reinforcement that I was alone, because by worrying I didn't need anybody, and others didn't really want my help. Does it make sense?

I think I just had one of those "aha" moments, but it is somehow shallow, because when I think I got it, it seems to disappear and I don't know if I really grasp it. It's like a gut feeling.

What I get is (correct me if I totally misunderstood it), our pain can be too painful to recognize, so we rather "suffer" for others and in that way we won't have space/time to face ourselves, to face our own suffering. Also, in my case, I feel that "suffering for myself" is selfish, and now I can see that this can be a narrative that also serves to avoid facing ourselves. So, we look at others, we try to solve others problems (even if they don't ask for it), we try to "save the world" even, because that keeps us busy and we rather "suffer for the world" than face ourselves, so we also create narratives such as the above, and we fall in love with our worrying. We prefer worrying.

Chu said:
Some people will defend the second version saying that it's more compassionate, that it's more human, and that seeing difficult circumstances without a negative emotional reaction would be an act of cold denial. {Defending a position is a sign of black and white thinking. Considering not worrying as hurting or rejecting the other person Is black and white thinking. And black and white thinking generally comes from emotional pain you don't know how to handle.} To the contrary, I think that seeing life as you believe it "should" be or is going to be is the act of denial. Seeing life as it is is an act of compassion. And when you see life this way, it opens you up to be human in a way that is far more sustainable and kind.

Yeps, and this is something that we should also remember to do for ourselves: See ourselves as we are, and face the challenge of suffering consciously.

I'm trying to grasp this here, so I ask, does facing our own suffering, our own pain mean conscious suffering?
I don't mean focusing only on ourselves and acting as a victim of that suffering, but accepting it and not being being so afraid to look at it and feel it.

---

About OCD, I also think it follows the same path of avoiding our own pain. The obsessive thoughts and worries come as helpers in our struggle to not face ourselves.

I have a question regarding OCD though. Can someone be a "smile and be nice" person, and when it comes to his/her environment, be an OCD with things such as order?

I ask because I'm a bit like this. It's getting better, but it's something like, outside I'm trying to please everyone, but in my little house it is MY space and I get a bit OCD with thing like cleaning the house and that my stuff should be in the right place, the bed must be tidy, etc... Sometimes I get angry if someone comes and leaves the stuff out the place it was, I don't say it, but I feel angry. I mean, as I see it, it is not really OCD because my house isn't all perfectly organized and clean, but I totally feel the difference after cleaning up and putting everything in its place.

So I thought that maybe, it's about worrying about "order and control" of my own space and feeling angry because that's easier than looking at what's happening in a deeper level. I guess that the cleaning and putting things in place isn't a bad thing, but getting angry comes from "my boundaries" and that person "should know it", and I don't want to say because it will be rude, but that could also be a narrative because I rather feel angry.. and things like that. Does it make sense?
 
Yas said:
I think I just had one of those "aha" moments, but it is somehow shallow, because when I think I got it, it seems to disappear and I don't know if I really grasp it. It's like a gut feeling.

What I get is (correct me if I totally misunderstood it), our pain can be too painful to recognize, so we rather "suffer" for others and in that way we won't have space/time to face ourselves, to face our own suffering. Also, in my case, I feel that "suffering for myself" is selfish, and now I can see that this can be a narrative that also serves to avoid facing ourselves. So, we look at others, we try to solve others problems (even if they don't ask for it), we try to "save the world" even, because that keeps us busy and we rather "suffer for the world" than face ourselves, so we also create narratives such as the above, and we fall in love with our worrying. We prefer worrying.

Pretty much, yes. That's how I see it too, FWIW. Not that ALL that is bad, of course. Sometimes we legitimately suffer for others, we worry about them, etc. But when it becomes a habit, a "martyr" attitude, and a way to avoid dealing with our own issues, then it's a problem. Worrying is also often not living in the present.

I'm trying to grasp this here, so I ask, does facing our own suffering, our own pain mean conscious suffering?
I don't mean focusing only on ourselves and acting as a victim of that suffering, but accepting it and not being being so afraid to look at it and feel it.

I would say yes. Or at least, it's a part of what conscious suffering means. Because that's doing what "it" doesn't like. It is facing things you tend to want to hide. It is recognizing that even if in the past those strategies helped you survive, in the present they make you manipulative, needy, and miserable.

About OCD, I also think it follows the same path of avoiding our own pain. The obsessive thoughts and worries come as helpers in our struggle to not face ourselves.

I have a question regarding OCD though. Can someone be a "smile and be nice" person, and when it comes to his/her environment, be an OCD with things such as order?

I ask because I'm a bit like this. It's getting better, but it's something like, outside I'm trying to please everyone, but in my little house it is MY space and I get a bit OCD with thing like cleaning the house and that my stuff should be in the right place, the bed must be tidy, etc... Sometimes I get angry if someone comes and leaves the stuff out the place it was, I don't say it, but I feel angry. I mean, as I see it, it is not really OCD because my house isn't all perfectly organized and clean, but I totally feel the difference after cleaning up and putting everything in its place.

So I thought that maybe, it's about worrying about "order and control" of my own space and feeling angry because that's easier than looking at what's happening in a deeper level. I guess that the cleaning and putting things in place isn't a bad thing, but getting angry comes from "my boundaries" and that person "should know it", and I don't want to say because it will be rude, but that could also be a narrative because I rather feel angry.. and things like that. Does it make sense?

Yes, it does. Being "OCD" about things like that gives us a sense of control, which we don't think we have in other aspects of life. I think it's ok, but as long as you are able to see it for what it is, and say "Sorry, I'm a bit stressed and having a tidy space makes me feel better", or understand that for others, the coping mechanisms aren't the same, and you'll have to respect that. If you want to be a "nazi" about your own space, you are entitled to;), just try not to identify too much with it and remember that yes, there may be underlying reasons for feeling like you need to control something.

Here are some excerpts about conscious suffering, from In Search of the Miraculous which read in the context of this thread, can be useful IMO.

From early childhood 'buffers' begin to grow and strengthen in him, taking from him the possibility of seeing his inner contradictions and therefore, for him, there is no danger whatever of a sudden awakening. Awakening is possible only for those who seek it and want it, for those who are ready to struggle with themselves and work on themselves for a very long time and very persistently in order to attain it. For this it is necessary to destroy 'buffers,' that is, to go out to meet all those inner sufferings which are connected with the sensations of contradictions. Moreover the destruction of 'buffers' in itself requires very long work and a man must agree to this work realizing that the result of his work will be every possible discomfort and suffering from the awakening of his conscience.

"But conscience is the fire which alone can fuse all the powders in the glass retort which was mentioned before and create the unity which a man lacks in that state in which he begins to study himself.

[...]

"Conscience is a general and a permanent phenomenon. Conscience is the same for all men and conscience is possible only in the absence of 'buffers.' From the point of view of understanding the different categories of man we may say that there exists the conscience of a man in whom there are no contradictions. This conscience is not suffering; on the contrary it is joy of a totally new character which we are unable to understand. But even a momentary awakening of conscience in a man who has thousands of different I's is bound to involve suffering. And if these moments of conscience become longer and if a man does not fear them but on the contrary cooperates with them and tries to keep and prolong them, an element of very subtle joy, a foretaste of the future 'clear consciousness' will gradually enter into these moments.

[...]

"We have already spoken enough about the meaning of being 'born.' This relates to the beginning of a new growth of essence, the beginning of the formation of individuality, the beginning of the appearance of one indivisible I.

"But in order to be able to attain this or at least begin to attain it, a man must die, that is, he must free himself from a thousand petty attachments and identifications which hold him in the position in which he is. He is attached to everything in his life, attached to his imagination, attached to his stupidity, attached even to his sufferings, possibly to his sufferings more than to anything else. He must free himself from this attachment. Attachment to things, identification with things, keep alive a thousand useless I's in a man. These I's must die in order that the big I may be born. But how can they be made to die? They do not want to die. It is at this point that the possibility of awakening comes to the rescue. To awaken means to realize one's nothingness, that is to realize one's complete and absolute mechanicalness and one's complete and absolute helplessness. And it is not sufficient to realize it philosophically in words. It is necessary to realize it in clear, simple, and concrete facts, in one's own facts. When a man begins to know himself a little he will see in himself many things that are bound to horrify him. So long as a man is not horrified at himself he knows nothing about himself. A man has seen in himself something that horrifies him. He decides to throw it off, stop it, put an end to it. But however many efforts he makes, he feels that he cannot do this, that everything remains as it was. Here he will see his impotence, his helplessness, and his nothingness; or again, when he begins to know himself a man sees that he has nothing that is his own, that is, that all that he has regarded as his own, his views, thoughts, convictions, tastes, habits, even faults and vices, all these are not his own, but have been either formed through imitation or borrowed from somewhere ready-made. In feeling this a man may feel his nothingness. And in feeling his nothingness a man should see himself as he really is, not for a second, not for a moment, but constantly, never forgetting it.

"This continual consciousness of his nothingness and of his helplessness will eventually give a man the courage to 'die,' that is, to die, not merely mentally or in his consciousness, but to die in fact and to renounce actually and forever those aspects of himself which are either unnecessary from the point of view of his inner growth or which hinder it. These aspects are first of all his 'false I,' and then all the fantastic ideas about his 'individuality,' 'will,' 'consciousness,' 'capacity to do,' his powers, initiative, determination, and so on.

[...]

"Another thing that people must sacrifice is their suffering. It is very difficult also to sacrifice one's suffering. A man will renounce any pleasures you like but he will not give up his suffering. Man is made in such a way that he is never so much attached to anything as he is to his suffering. And it is necessary to be free from suffering. No one who is not free from suffering, who has not sacrificed his suffering, can work. Later on a great deal must be said about suffering. Nothing can be attained without suffering but at the same time one must begin by sacrificing suffering. Now, decipher what this means."

[...]

Sins are what keep a man on one spot if he has decided to move and if he is able to move. Sins exist only for people who are on the way or approaching the way. And then sin is what stops a man, helps him to deceive himself and to think that he is working when he is simply asleep. Sin is what puts a man to sleep when he has already decided to awaken. And what puts a man to sleep? Again everything that is unnecessary, everything that is not indispensable. The indispensable is always permitted. But beyond this hypnosis begins at once. But you must remember that this refers only to people in the work or to those who consider themselves in the work. And work consists in subjecting oneself voluntarily to temporary suffering in order to be free from eternal suffering. But people are afraid of suffering. They want pleasure now, at once and forever. They do not want to understand that pleasure is an attribute of paradise and that it must be earned. And this is necessary not by reason of any arbitrary or inner moral laws but because if man gets pleasure before he has earned it he will not be able to keep it and pleasure will be turned into suffering. But the whole point is to be able to get pleasure and be able to keep it.
 
[quote author=Yas]
I'm trying to grasp this here, so I ask, does facing our own suffering, our own pain mean conscious suffering?
I don't mean focusing only on ourselves and acting as a victim of that suffering, but accepting it and not being being so afraid to look at it and feel it.
[/quote]

G mentioned 4 states of consciousness in ISOTM.

[quote author=ISOTM]

"In all there are four states of consciousness possible for man" (he emphasized the word "man"), "But ordinary man, that is, man number one, number two, and number three, lives in the two lowest states of consciousness only. The two higher states of consciousness are inaccessible to him, and although he may have flashes of these states, he is unable to understand them and he judges them from the point of view of those states in which it is usual for him to be.


"The two usual, that is, the lowest, states of consciousness are first, sleep, in other words a passive state in which man spends a third and very often a half of his life. And second, the state in which men spend the other part of their lives, in which they walk the streets, write books, talk on lofty subjects, take part in politics, kill one another, which they regard as active and call 'clear consciousness' or the 'waking state of consciousness.' The term 'clear consciousness' or 'waking state of consciousness' seems to have been given in jest, especially when you realize what clear consciousness ought in reality to be and what the state in which man lives and acts really is.


"The third state of consciousness is self-remembering or self-consciousness or consciousness of one's being. It is usual to consider that we have this state of consciousness or that we can have it if we want it. Our science and philosophy have overlooked the fact that we do not possess this state of consciousness and that we cannot create it in ourselves by desire or decision alone.


"The fourth state of consciousness is called the objective state of consciousness In this state a man can see things as they are. Flashes of this state of consciousness also occur in man. In the religions of all nations there are indications of the possibility of a state of consciousness of this kind which is called 'enlightenment' and various other names but which cannot be described in words. But the only right way to objective consciousness is through the development of self-consciousness. If an ordinary man is artificially brought into a state of objective consciousness and afterwards brought back to his usual state he will remember nothing and he will think that for a time he had lost consciousness. But in the state of self-consciousness a man can have Hashes of objective consciousness and remember them.
[/quote]

We suffer ordinarily in the second "waking-sleep" level of consciousness. When we face that suffering, and accept it, we can potentially move from the second to third state of consciousness. In the third state of self-consciousness, we can separate ourselves from the suffering and observe it. Through such observation, we can come to an understanding. The understanding can lead to changing of external circumstances or change of inner attitude or both. Certain types of suffering can drop away while some other types of suffering can be lived with. The latter type of suffering which may stay on in a less potentiated form perhaps belong to the essence pattern or individual fate. It is different for different people. But this needs very careful study as it is easy to substitute it with mechanical suffering and indulge oneself due to tendencies of laziness and attachment to suffering.

Intentional suffering in its proper form belongs to the fourth state of consciousness. In the 4th state of consciousness, one can not only see one's own pattern of possibilities but also the possibilities of the whole of which he is a part. Then he knows what he has to do to serve the whole and courts any suffering that comes from doing what he sees must be done. That is why in G's writings, the terms "conscious labor and intentional suffering" occur together.
 
Chu said:
Yes, it does. Being "OCD" about things like that gives us a sense of control, which we don't think we have in other aspects of life. I think it's ok, but as long as you are able to see it for what it is, and say "Sorry, I'm a bit stressed and having a tidy space makes me feel better", or understand that for others, the coping mechanisms aren't the same, and you'll have to respect that. If you want to be a "nazi" about your own space, you are entitled to;), just try not to identify too much with it and remember that yes, there may be underlying reasons for feeling like you need to control something.

Here are some excerpts about conscious suffering, from In Search of the Miraculous which read in the context of this thread, can be useful IMO.

Thanks Chu, those excerpts are very useful.

obyvatel said:
We suffer ordinarily in the second "waking-sleep" level of consciousness. When we face that suffering, and accept it, we can potentially move from the second to third state of consciousness. In the third state of self-consciousness, we can separate ourselves from the suffering and observe it. Through such observation, we can come to an understanding. The understanding can lead to changing of external circumstances or change of inner attitude or both. Certain types of suffering can drop away while some other types of suffering can be lived with. The latter type of suffering which may stay on in a less potentiated form perhaps belong to the essence pattern or individual fate. It is different for different people. But this needs very careful study as it is easy to substitute it with mechanical suffering and indulge oneself due to tendencies of laziness and attachment to suffering.

Intentional suffering in its proper form belongs to the fourth state of consciousness. In the 4th state of consciousness, one can not only see one's own pattern of possibilities but also the possibilities of the whole of which he is a part. Then he knows what he has to do to serve the whole and courts any suffering that comes from doing what he sees must be done. That is why in G's writings, the terms "conscious labor and intentional suffering" occur together.

I understand it better with your words, thanks Obyvatel
 
Thanks Redfox for putting those articles together. Here's another article that was on SOTT recently that I think goes along with overcoming the compulsion for worry and anxiety.

http://www.sott.net/article/299360-Learning-to-set-healthy-boundaries
 
Back
Top Bottom