Intense sadness
- Thread starter Trajan
- Start date
eoste said:
Eoste, there's no need to react emotionally to what Gimpy said, she called it correctly IMO. The whole 'natural' thing is actually not a big deal at all, and I can't see why it has been given so much attention here. Obviously everything is 'natural' in a sense, unless you think that the vastness of Creation did not have the foresight to imagine human beings and their inventions. Some technology is 'bad', from our perspective, and some is 'good'.
You might want to read up on the Law of Three. This is a basic concept that everyone should understand if we are to be a colinear group.
G
Gertrudes
Guest
Births, parental care, and adoption, are very complex subjects. I don't see a problem in adoption per se, but rather in how the way adoption is being handled seems to address symptoms rather than the root problem. And the root problem runs deep, and has many tentacles, as I see it, including our over sexualized society, abandonment of self responsibility, poor when not complete lack of core values, greed for money, the list could go on forever. It's the rapid decay of a society, a cancer that grows fast and manifests externally in practically all aspects of our civilization, sheer number of unwanted births being simply one of them, imo.
On adoption, specifically, many children are successfully raised by adoptive parents, but I can see Guardian's point in that the governing bodies are too fast to acquiesce to the idea of "oh, let's just give the child to someone else and pretend it never happened". It is, to me, the same problem we have with sex education as it is taken these days. Girls as young as 12 are given condoms and some discourse on sexually transmitted diseases, instead of being sensitized, in an age appropriate manner, to what sexuality really means. Once again, addressing symptoms rather than root. It also reminds me of the whole "gun control" issue in which, yet again, rather than addressing the problem from its core and actually educating people in a way that would prevent violence in the first place, there's a feeble attempt at fixing external manifestations from the problem. Ironically this tends to feed back into it and make the problem bigger.
There are a number of reasons for a mother to give her child for adoption, for some it is a very difficult decision, others do it out of sheer carelessness. Should people be made accountable for their acts? I certainly believe so, although accountable can take different forms, depending on the situation and its unique context, and it won't necessarily involve a mother keeping her child. Do we have a problem with lack of accountability and traceability? It surely seems so, although I'm not so sure that solving it would be that simple. Up to which degree can we make people accountable for something of which they are themselves, a product of? How to make a mother, born and raised in a society that made her wear high heels and make up, and dance like lady gaga at age 8, that taught her that not only was she allowed, but that in fact, it was right for her to give free reign to her every whim and tantrum, how to make her accountable for behaving from the values she was made to feel proud of? The question isn't, to me, whether she should be made accountable, but rather how, and to what degree? I wish I would have an answer.
Considering how ill our society has become at its core, and at the same time how exceedingly good it has gotten at addressing symptoms, it would/will take an entire re framing of its very foundation. Not an easy feat...
On adoption, specifically, many children are successfully raised by adoptive parents, but I can see Guardian's point in that the governing bodies are too fast to acquiesce to the idea of "oh, let's just give the child to someone else and pretend it never happened". It is, to me, the same problem we have with sex education as it is taken these days. Girls as young as 12 are given condoms and some discourse on sexually transmitted diseases, instead of being sensitized, in an age appropriate manner, to what sexuality really means. Once again, addressing symptoms rather than root. It also reminds me of the whole "gun control" issue in which, yet again, rather than addressing the problem from its core and actually educating people in a way that would prevent violence in the first place, there's a feeble attempt at fixing external manifestations from the problem. Ironically this tends to feed back into it and make the problem bigger.
There are a number of reasons for a mother to give her child for adoption, for some it is a very difficult decision, others do it out of sheer carelessness. Should people be made accountable for their acts? I certainly believe so, although accountable can take different forms, depending on the situation and its unique context, and it won't necessarily involve a mother keeping her child. Do we have a problem with lack of accountability and traceability? It surely seems so, although I'm not so sure that solving it would be that simple. Up to which degree can we make people accountable for something of which they are themselves, a product of? How to make a mother, born and raised in a society that made her wear high heels and make up, and dance like lady gaga at age 8, that taught her that not only was she allowed, but that in fact, it was right for her to give free reign to her every whim and tantrum, how to make her accountable for behaving from the values she was made to feel proud of? The question isn't, to me, whether she should be made accountable, but rather how, and to what degree? I wish I would have an answer.
Considering how ill our society has become at its core, and at the same time how exceedingly good it has gotten at addressing symptoms, it would/will take an entire re framing of its very foundation. Not an easy feat...
Guardian
The Cosmic Force
Oxajil said:
The exact same thing we do if the natural birth parents of a child are found unfit for whatever reason. First a placement is looked for WITHIN the family, maternal or paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. IF none is available, then you look at outside guardianship.
We treat ALL children the same whether or not the mother wants to get rid of the child secretly or keep the child.
Choosing no contact is NOT the same as stealing a person's identity. I have NO desire to meet my birth mother, if she is still alive. Quite frankly, I hope she rots. This is about truthful information, not relationships.
Maybe? You seem to think I want to meet and have a personal relationship with my blood relations? If so, I do NOT. I barely have enough time for the family I've got.
I want the DATA. It's mine, it was STOLEN from me when I was too young to do anything about it, and I want it back!
Gimpy
The Living Force
See also:
child·ish (chldsh)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or suitable for a child or childhood: a high, childish voice; childish nightmares.
2.
a. Marked by or indicating a lack of maturity; puerile: tired of your childish pranks.
b. Not complicated; simple.
c. Affected mentally by old age; senile.
childish·ly adv.
childish·ness n.
I'm going to bow out of the conversation now.
child·ish (chldsh)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or suitable for a child or childhood: a high, childish voice; childish nightmares.
2.
a. Marked by or indicating a lack of maturity; puerile: tired of your childish pranks.
b. Not complicated; simple.
c. Affected mentally by old age; senile.
childish·ly adv.
childish·ness n.
eoste said:
I'm going to bow out of the conversation now.
ella
Jedi
Trajan said:
Trajan, the way I understand your problem is that some external (or internal, just like remembering something) situation triggers “the sad part” in you. Then “another part” of you comes out and tells you for example: “If only I could have a wife and kids, things would change, I would never feel sad again”. But actually this could not be the case. It is just this “another part” of you believing it, the part that takes over you at the moment and you identify with it. These are the different “Is” Gurdjieff talked about. After you had a wife and kids, “the sad part” would still be the part of you and sometimes would be triggered.
I know it by experience. I also wanted to have a relationship (a husband in my case) and kids, which I had and “the sad/depressive part” did not disappear, it still surfaced from time to time.
The same is true with “the not confident” or “dense” parts of you. They were created in you when you were a child and will stay with you till you do something about it. This is what The Work is about.
Having kids would not change it, but you would most probably pass them (these traits of insecurity) onto them (your kids). All of these have to do with our inner child.
As Laura once said, in order to do The Work and observe ourselves we first need to know, what to look for. I have read “Trapped in the mirror” and “Myth of sanity”, which greatly changed my understanding of myself. For example I had a narcissistic father and I believed myself to be totally different from him. Now, after reading the books, I can see myself doing exactly the same things he was doing, without realizing it.
But later I came to the thread: Healing the fragmented self in the IFS therapeutic model:
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,20872.0.html?PHPSESSID=e963068b7aaf00d72bc539404013706e
and I read the book: " Self-Therapy: A Step-By-Step Guide to Creating Wholeness and Healing Your Inner Child Using IFS, A New, Cutting-Edge Psychotherapy " by Jay Earley.
For me that book was a real eye opener so I do recommend it to everyone that wants to better understand, how our human machine works, especially to not yet advanced practitioners of The Fourth Way, as I am. At least for me it is totally compatible with Gurdjieff teachings about our false personality.
cubbex
The Living Force
eoste said:
Oh jesus I can't believe it, either you are playing or you are doing this seriously :P
The point is not if it is a problem of vocabulary, but how much you give from yourself to avoid creating misunderstandings from others. How much you really considerate others.
And yes you are jumping to conclusions, some weird conclusions by the way, is like you can talk in english but understand the meaning of words and phrases in a weird manner. I was able to understand the point anart did to you and you wasn't, even when it was one of the simplest thing you will ever read. I'm curious, if you can't understand that, how you are able to understand the concepts of looking to the left and to the right, or external considering?
And no you didn't step on a sacred cow, they've been destroyed long ago.
Carlise said:
No, I don't think is about the concept of nature as much as it is to try to explain eoste, that he's applying or understanding incorrectly the concepts. Read the comments from others, everyone were able to understand it except him.
Guardian
The Cosmic Force
whitecoast said:I'm just posting to thank you, Guardian, for sharing your views on adoption. You've brought to light so many instances of injustice that I previously had no idea existed.
It gets worse, we've barely sctrached the surface...mainly because I feel bad about hijacking Trajan's thread.
One final thought, instead of imagining how the Birth Mother MIGHT feel, try and imagine what it's like to wonder if you're related to someone every time you feel an attraction to a person.
Up until DNA testing became available adoptees never even knew if they were having sex with a relative....and DNA testing is still cost prohibitive for MANY adoptees.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507588/Shock-married-couple-discovered-twins-separated-birth.html
"Shock for the married couple who discovered they are twins separated at birth"
"Neither knew they had a twin and when they met as adults they did not realise they were related but felt "an inevitable attraction"."
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
eoste said:Just one small and quick noise to add from one of my false self still alive :
The comments on mine in this thread have been an eye opener...
The All Natural Nitpicker Bigot
eoste, if you were sincere about participating here, you would take the input given to you sincerely and attempt to see what others see in you - rather than completely disregarding it and making a joke about it. I think, at this point, it is rather obvious that your time would be better spent at another forum. Perhaps it's time for you to move along to a forum where you can actually respect the other forum members enough to sincerely attempt to listen to what they are saying to you?
At this point, your posts here aren't just a distraction and noise, they're embarrassing to you.
eoste said:Just one small and quick noise to add from one of my false self still alive :
The comments on mine in this thread have been an eye opener...
The All Natural Nitpicker Bigot
It sounds like all that's been said has been reaching you in a sort of insulated form. This self-depreciation looks more like a defence than an acknowledgement. It feels like you're here more for your own entertainment, although you tell yourself you're here for growth. If you were sincere, as Anart said, you would be taking a step back and thinking more carefully about what you say and how you come across, rather saying whatever comes to mind and being defensive and provocative when people call you out.
"One last bit of noise" is not tolerable since you acknowledge your mistake and yet you do nothing about it. Don't you see the lies you tell yourself? Are you not ashamed at all?
