Reacting to compliments

[Owledge]

I was wondering about your views on reacting to compliments. In parts by explaining my personal reactions, I'll try to make my point.

When someone compliments a person, a usual response is "Thank you!". I see two ways of interpretation here: Either it is thanking for giving the information about how someone perceives that person, thus helping in self-reflection, or it is a sign of the ego being booseted: gratitude that someone told you how he sees you, and you wanting to be seen in a positive light by other people.

When someone compliments you, I usually just comment based on my own view on things as if I were observing myself. So if I agree, I would hint at that with a short comment, and if I disagree, just shrug or signal my uncertainty in another way.

Because, is it wise to thank people for making you feel good regardless of the truth behind it? As I said, isn't that boosting the ego? If you thank them, you give their opinion about you meaning, and if their opinion is not based on any kind of truth that can be verified, won't you then start to define yourself through others? This is known as a very common kind of delusion or barrier to spiritual development.

What else is a compliment than a statement about likemindedness or attraction to someone?

[fiveelementtao]

When someone compliments you, I usually just comment based on my own view on things as if I were observing myself.

 

I used to do this too. Until someone who saw me doing it told me that I was being rude. This was a big shock to me.

 

I realized that people give compliments because it makes them feel good. So, even if I didn't agree with their viewpoint, I was being rude to someone who was just trying to enjoy giving me a nice gift. I know that when I give someone a gift and they refuse it, it hurts my feelings. So, I began simply smiling and saying "thank you" even if I disagreed. And, then after doing that for a while, I began to believe them too and it felt good and my viewpoint of myself began to change for the better.

 

I thought I was being humble by rejecting compliments I didn't agree with, but in reality, other people were experiencing me as being egotistical and rude by rejecting their compliments or intellectually analyzing their feelings. I realized that I was unintentionally hurting people when I thought I was being humble.

 

Instead of imagining me observing myself, I found it much more rewarding to try and UNDERSTAND why someone had a different experience of me.. For me this was a lesson in emotional maturity and a key to having happy relationships with others...

 

I also realized that by rejecting compliments, I was pushing people away who wanted to be closer to me and when I realized that I wanted to be closer to people, I stopped trying to analyze their feelings and just listen instead.

[Owledge]

I realized that people give compliments because it makes them feel good.

 

...

 

..., but in reality, other people were experiencing me as being egotistical and rude by rejecting their compliments....

Aren't those double-standards? Someone has a desire/need for complimenting you in order to feel good, so it, too, can be seen as egoistical. So while it may be nice to give them what they ask for (which includes you presenting yourself to them like they want to see you), if you don't it is rude of them to blame you.

 

I'm observing this dynamic in various situations, own and others', and I think it can involve an attempt at controlling other people. So when affirming their desired illusion, one should be aware of the possible consequences.

You apparently chose a different path than I, ready to sacrifice truth for causing an intended outcome (and it could be debated whether this is a shortterm-benefit-longterm-damage strategy, but I don't have the energy to go into that phisosophically). I on the other hand act out of an idea that can be expressed with a Jefferson quote: "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.". Maybe the difficulties I choose short-term will pay out long-term, thus it's all just different strategies, you know, like very different techniques like Kunlun and Kundalini can accomplish the same thing in the end, and if Kunlun and Kundalini were people, they probably would be strongly opposing each other.

Also, to clarify, don't see me as merely being a step behind you or something, for I don't see my reaction as being humble, but truthful. Humility might be a character trait, but when I become aware of that, label it and like it being like that, it can become an act. You know, we make energy flow to where we direct attention at, and that could be the mind meddling with character evolution, which appears somewhat unnatural or contrived to me. I think this has great implications concerning a duality of strategies: One being to let character evolve by itself (in lack of a more accurate description), the other using techniques like NLP to kinda make a plan about how we want to be (or see ourselves) and then execute that plan.

 

Specifically, one recent experience was where someone tried to cheer me up with a gift, and because I was depressed, I could only try to be as grateful and nice as possible in that state, but my depression was of no interest to that person and he blamed me for him being disappointed. So maybe you could say that playing an act (if possible) helps the person in one way, acting totally sincere towards him helps him in another way. Because maybe that experience brought an inner issue to the surface and thus made him aware of it. After all, aren't it the conflicts that show issues? When people just make sure that everything feels alright for you, you don't discover the shadows in you.

So as I said, different strategies.

Another situation I found interesting in this regards was in a TV series, where an insecure woman was hitting on a man, and the man was very attractive and didn't really respond positively to her advances, so she was kinda pessimistic about it. When she finally, through her very fire-like relentless approaches got him to open up to her (which might have been because he felt sorry for her not-so-covert despair), she began to act super-confident, playfully mocking him and doing all kinds of subversive control-games, e.g. by eventually making a drama when he backed off again.

So, in essence, when people interact with others with an expectation about an outcome, need-issues are bound to be brought to the surface, because by that they're not acting openly and sincerely, but are playing games because they lack confidence. And isn't it a defining part of confidence to do things decisively without connecting it to a certain outcome?

 

Don't you think that, also since truth is regarded so highly in spirituality, as a basic concept (again, difficult to express exactly what I mean), it serves as a catalyst for spiritual progress? Isn't it the objective truth of reality (experiences with our environment) colliding with our own illusions that facilitates it? Don't you think that a society where people are totally true, sincere and open all the time has the greatest power of spiritual evolution? ( There might be a lot of turmoil at first, but it will so much be worth it! That is, if you desire speed of evolution.)

Edited February 5, 2011 by Hardyg

[fiveelementtao]

You asked for other peoples' views on the matter.

I am sharing with you my own experience in this regard and what it did for me when I changed my behavior. Maybe it doesn't make sense. Maybe it's illogical... Oh, well... All I know for sure is that I am happier than before...

[NeiChuan]

I rarely compliment. I imagine that makes people think im intimidated/anti social.

 

I don't know though, I don't often like compliments for some reason. I Feel like if someone says "that's really good wow" at something I do, they're trying to keep me at that level.

 

Like the perspective is somehow "Wow that was really hard it looks like, guess you don't have to do anymore now".

 

But im weird like that.

[FT88]

If ur not used to recieving comments you can react skeptical asking yourself whats this persons motive behind the compliment. But ultimately i think its best to be indifferent to the compliment not swayed either way. When i recieve a compliment im coordial but i dont take any percentage of it into consideration same goes with the negative aspect of insults.

[Owledge]

@NeiChuan

Well, definitely shouldn't make it too hard figuring out what lies beneath that. At least in a general sense. Specific like experiences shaping that kind of perception might be more difficult to dig up, but probably not necessary as a first step.

E.g. it could be that you do connect unpleasant experiences with people trying to keep you below your optimum. It could also be that you feel a need to always outdo yourself because of some serious social conditioning at some time.

(Just recently I heard of an interesting dynamic: There can be cases where people are very successful, because they have a lot of ambition. And that ambition can be caused by a deep emotional issue. So even being successful doesn't have to mean you are untroubled. That's how confusing that whole self-improvement thing can be.)

 

@ft88

Good thing to mention insults, kinda being opposites of compliments. I can't really be insulted anymore, because I have an awareness about where they come from and am trying to figure out the reasons when someone tries.

I could write a lot about the dynamics of insults, but I guess it's quite trivial for people with a basic psychology knowledge.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Hardyg

[Otis]

I used to do this too. Until someone who saw me doing it told me that I was being rude. This was a big shock to me.

 

I realized that people give compliments because it makes them feel good. So, even if I didn't agree with their viewpoint, I was being rude to someone who was just trying to enjoy giving me a nice gift. I know that when I give someone a gift and they refuse it, it hurts my feelings. So, I began simply smiling and saying "thank you" even if I disagreed. And, then after doing that for a while, I began to believe them too and it felt good and my viewpoint of myself began to change for the better.

 

I thought I was being humble by rejecting compliments I didn't agree with, but in reality, other people were experiencing me as being egotistical and rude by rejecting their compliments or intellectually analyzing their feelings. I realized that I was unintentionally hurting people when I thought I was being humble.

 

Instead of imagining me observing myself, I found it much more rewarding to try and UNDERSTAND why someone had a different experience of me.. For me this was a lesson in emotional maturity and a key to having happy relationships with others...

 

I also realized that by rejecting compliments, I was pushing people away who wanted to be closer to me and when I realized that I wanted to be closer to people, I stopped trying to analyze their feelings and just listen instead.

Well said. What you're describing matches my own experience and realization.

[Owledge]

One other thing I wanted to comment on:

 

I know that when I give someone a gift and they refuse it, it hurts my feelings. So, I began simply smiling and saying "thank you" even if I disagreed. And, then after doing that for a while, I began to believe them too and it felt good and my viewpoint of myself began to change for the better.

 

When I give someone a gift and they refuse it, it doesn't hurt my feelings. And even if it did (one might always be surprised by oneself), I would try to figure out why it did, because as people so often stress being the right thing to do, I try to figure out what in me needs improvement so they can't hurt me anymore. I might be unsuccessful in that, but at least I acknowledge both sides of the interaction.

Also, the highlighted parts in the quote show self-indoctrination, a deliberate strategical unconditional believing, and as clearly stated, the view of oneself changed, not necessarily oneself. This creates belief-systems that tend to lead to self-justification. ( Ask a hedge fund manager who contributes to the starvation of millions of people about his view of himself. He can do those things without worry, because he feels good about himself and he will also believe that this self-image matches reality, because it has become his reality, cutting off ways to discover any differences between his worldview and the actual world.)

Buddhists tend to say we shouldn't judge ourselves, because that can lead to self-deception, sabotaging self-awareness, so maybe it's not the best thing to 'tinker' with your view of yourself.

 

I don't want to view me as I want me to be, I don't want to view me in a way that creates a certain emotional outcome, but I want to understand how I really are and then really change my whole being towards getting where I'd like to go.

[Sloppy Zhang]

What 5ET said.

 

Aren't those double-standards?

 

The sage does not expect that others use his criteria as their own.~Lao Tzu

 

(just one nicely worded translation I've come across)

 

Sometimes a compliment is just a compliment.

 

Sometimes it is a tool to feed the ego. Sometimes other people are using it like that. Who are you to step in and destroy their world? Don't remove people from the matrix unless they are ready Let them give themselves a pat on the back, wish them well, and move on.

 

Otherwise you are going to start a painful, uphill battle with very little chance of success.

 

When they are ready, they'll realize what's going on. But it's something THEY have to do.

 

At the very least, if you're determined to lead someone to some awakening, you could find a much better jumping off point than a compliment

Edited February 5, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[NeiChuan]

@NeiChuan

Well, definitely shouldn't make it too hard figuring out what lies beneath that. At least in a general sense. Specific like experiences shaping that kind of perception might be more difficult to dig up, but probably not necessary as a first step.

E.g. it could be that you do connect unpleasant experiences with people trying to keep you below your optimum. It could also be that you feel a need to always outdo yourself because of some serious social conditioning at some time.

(Just recently I heard of an interesting dynamic: There can be cases where people are very successful, because they have a lot of ambition. And that ambition can be caused by a deep emotional issue. So even being successful doesn't have to mean you are untroubled. That's how confusing that whole self-improvement thing can be.)

 

@ft88

Good thing to mention insults, kinda being opposites of compliments. I can't really be insulted anymore, because I have an awareness about where they come from and am trying to figure out the reasons when someone tries.

I could write a lot about the dynamics of insults, but I guess it's quite trivial for people with a basic psychology knowledge.

 

Hm may be. It may be that these challenges to out do myself may lead me to burn the problem away. Say exercise that is healthy and creates improvements in ones well being/outlook.

 

So what was a problem may be a blessing.

[Owledge]

@Sloppy Zhang

Yes, in a philosophical sense I'm aware of what you describe. But as I see it, it is always depending on both sides.

Who am I to destroy someone's phantasy world?

Well, I'm just me. But why did they choose me to talk to and not someone else? It takes two people to destroy a phantasy, you know.

If you apply the same philosophical view to the whole picture, then people clashing with me on issues based on my personality chose me/the interaction for a reason. You could say they needed it or asked for it. (But in my view this is just a way of justifying events, so I'm not using it under normal circumstances, because it could contribute to a solidification of my current personality.)

Edited February 5, 2011 by Hardyg

[三江源]

I think is a great question, Hardyg.

[Owledge]

A little off topic...

Other things, one acquires, yet somehow they are not recognised as acquistions.

Society's value systems. I had the most interesting but also most disappointing experiences with how easy it is to dominate/control people when you play an act based on (or outside of) their value system. Like when someone was threatening me with physical violence, saying that some of his friends might pay me a visit. I just repeatedly made it clear to him that I'm totally unimpressed by that. And he became surprisingly subservient. Which enabled me to show him that I'm not a tyrant, but just want things to run properly.

I don't know whether he was bluffing, but anyway, he probably took my unimpressedness serious and assumed that I must be very powerful and actually became afraid of me. Based on some things he did, I think his worldview and/or social environment was based heavily on the belief in authority. So you see, you can use people if you play their beliefs. But I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that intentionally.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Hardyg

[devoid]

[...]

What else is a compliment than a statement about likemindedness or attraction to someone?

 

Hi Hardyg,

 

I can think of some other reasons for passing a complement:

• Empathy (either as an act, a display, or both)
  
• To help boost the spirits / mood of the person whom one is passing the complement to
  

 

In other words, a complement can well come out of completely selfless acts and concern. As with most things in life, they can also be used as tools of manipulation.

 

I also wanted to add something about cultural patterns in acceptance of complements as there are great differences dependent on the cultural context. As I can see you have already begun contemplating that ultimately it is up to the eye of the beholder. I don't disagree with this, but cultural contact has a greater impact in my opinion: To illustrate it, I would like to explain how complements are used in a typical business context in China: Complements are seen as a face giving opportunity and given the right circumstances it would be a vice not to use the opportunity to pass a complement. The receiver on the other hand is expected to act slightly apologetic about it and is expected to try to give the impression that the words of complement are much too kind and exaggerated.

[Owledge]

...typical business context in China: Complements are seen as a face giving opportunity and given the right circumstances it would be a vice not to use the opportunity to pass a complement. The receiver on the other hand is expected to act slightly apologetic about it and is expected to try to give the impression that the words of complement are much too kind and exaggerated.

Appears to me like mere theater play, reinforcing empty rituals. Empty, because in rituals, the original purpose is very easily forgotton, since the whole emphasis lies on the acting.

[JohnC]

I used to do this too. Until someone who saw me doing it told me that I was being rude. This was a big shock to me.

 

I realized that people give compliments because it makes them feel good. So, even if I didn't agree with their viewpoint, I was being rude to someone who was just trying to enjoy giving me a nice gift. I know that when I give someone a gift and they refuse it, it hurts my feelings. So, I began simply smiling and saying "thank you" even if I disagreed. And, then after doing that for a while, I began to believe them too and it felt good and my viewpoint of myself began to change for the better.

 

I thought I was being humble by rejecting compliments I didn't agree with, but in reality, other people were experiencing me as being egotistical and rude by rejecting their compliments or intellectually analyzing their feelings. I realized that I was unintentionally hurting people when I thought I was being humble.

 

Instead of imagining me observing myself, I found it much more rewarding to try and UNDERSTAND why someone had a different experience of me.. For me this was a lesson in emotional maturity and a key to having happy relationships with others...

 

I also realized that by rejecting compliments, I was pushing people away who wanted to be closer to me and when I realized that I wanted to be closer to people, I stopped trying to analyze their feelings and just listen instead.

 

 

This. Spot on.

[The Observer]

I wholeheartedly agree with Fiveelementtao as well! I once got a fortune cookie that said "Things in life should be simple". I tend to agree.

 

I try not to be burdened with an "ego" construct that I need to destroy. Walking around with that kind of stuff in my head makes life quite complicated. I think the way to liberation is not shadowboxing with madeup enemies!

 

In general I try to just be a practical and more importantly good (well, I try ) person. So yes accept their gift with a smile and heartfelt thanks!

[Owledge]

I try not to be burdened with an "ego" construct that I need to destroy. Walking around with that kind of stuff in my head makes life quite complicated. I think the way to liberation is not shadowboxing with madeup enemies!

I don't see the ego as an enemy that has to be fought. I just realize in examining the dynamic that I agree more to what I do naturally than the alternative. Once I accepted truth as a building block in spiritual progress, my behavior was shaped accordingly, without me having to figure out strategies about how to react to compliments.

[The Observer]

I don't see the ego as an enemy that has to be fought. I just realize in examining the dynamic that I agree more to what I do naturally than the alternative.

 

What do you do naturally? Reject compliments? (I'm genuinely curious, I hope I don't sound mean.)

 

Once I accepted truth as a building block in spiritual progress, my behavior was shaped accordingly, without me having to figure out strategies about how to react to compliments.

 

What is your truth? How did you come across it?

[Owledge]

What do you do naturally? Reject compliments? (I'm genuinely curious, I hope I don't sound mean.)

No, you just sound like someone who hasn't read my initial posting.

 

What is your truth? How did you come across it?

Interesting question, which might reveal how alien that concept still is to many spiritual seekers. I didn't say my truth, or a truth, but truth. Something that can be sought and the search for it honored.

Logical action (producing desired results) can be seen as based on truth. The universe provides certain rules, has certain mechanics of cause and effect. That's truth. It doesn't matter what you regard as your version of it, eventually the success of every system in that system depends on how well it can act according to the truth.

 

For example, if you think that you can prevent being run over by a car by imagining it being transparent, and you still got run over by it, you failed at acknowledging truth. You had a theory and it proved wrong. Then you might create a self-justifying illusion, like saying someone else's imagination sabotaged yours, or your imagination wasn't pure enough. Then when you continue to take the same approach and get run over again and even amplify your illusions in order to keep the initial thesis alive, you dishonor truth.

 

That is why I at least have the theory that when you speak a 'white lie', you might cause a short-term benefit with a long-term harm. A white lie might come out of a personal weakness, not being ready to accept the alternative. Also, sometimes when people lie in order to - let's say - prevent a suicide, it means that the suicide-candidate was already so deep into disregard of truth (due to weakness/pain) that he couldn't handle any truth well.

 

So, in essence I'm merely observing fundamental mechanisms of nature and extrapolate into detail. Like the basic truth of the need of food (of any kind) for survival. This remains a truth no matter how much you trace it into detail. Super-high-quality luxury food still has to be food. A Rolex watch won't provide any nourishment.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Hardyg

[The Observer]

No, you just sound like someone who hasn't read my initial posting.

 

Well lol technically no...I just became a bit confused as to what it was you were saying. Although to be fair I could have tried a little harder to understand, instead of being lazy and just asking!

 

Interesting question, which might reveal how alien that concept still is to many spiritual seekers. I didn't say my truth, or a truth, but truth. Something that can be sought and the search for it honored.

Logical action producing desired results can be seen as based on truth. The universe provides certain rules, has certain mechanics of cause and effect. That's truth. It doesn't matter what you regard as your version of it, eventually the success of every system in that system depends on how well it can act according to the truth.

 

 

Well all that presumes, for example that is physical reality is the only one that exists/matters. Yes certain things are true, in a relative way however.

 

Generally speaking you are talking about absolute truth/absolute reality, which I don't think exists per se. I think it's more along the lines of, you manifest your own reality.

 

 

 

For example, if you think that you can prevent being run over by a car by imagining it being transparent, and you still got run over by it, you failed at acknowledging truth. You had a theory and it proves wrong. Then you might create a self-justifying illusion, like saying someone else's imagination sabotaged yours, or your imagination wasn't pure enough. Then when you continue to take the same approach and get run over again and even amplify your illusions in order to keep the initial thesis alive, you dishonor truth.

 

That is why I at least have the theory that when you speak a 'white lie', you might cause a short-term benefit with a long-term harm. A white lie might come out of a personal weakness, not being ready to accept the alternative. Also, sometimes when people lie in order to - let's say - prevent a suicide, it means that the suicide-candidate was already so deep into disregard of truth (due to weakness/pain) that he couldn't handle any truth well.

 

So, in essence I'm merely observing fundamental mechanisms of nature and extrapolate into detail. Like the basic truth of the need of food (of any kind) for survival. This remains a truth no matter how much you trace it into detail. Super-high-quality luxury food still has to be food. A Rolex watch won't provide any nourishment.

 

Interesting you use these examples because in the first car example, I genuinely believe if your focus is powerful enough/you've many decades of meditative experience or spiritual training you can literally manifest things (instantly) in your reality. Shoot, you even manifest your reality in more subtle ways, all the time!

 

From my personal experience, the dream state and reality are not that different from each other. My take is this:

The dream state is a sort of a trainer version of physical reality, in that it is very easy to manifest and create various things. Reality (waking/physical awareness), however requires more muscle (IE greater concentration, focus) in order to change things.

Edited February 6, 2011 by The Observer

[Owledge]

Well all that presumes, for example that is physical reality is the only one that exists/matters. Yes certain things are true, in a relative way however.

 

Generally speaking you are talking about absolute truth/absolute reality, which I don't think exists per se. I think it's more along the lines of, you manifest your own reality.

I see this as an approach that can only approximate, or has levels of detail. Some truths are simpler or more easy to assume as sufficiently accurate.

That's why I mentioned the search for truth, not the knowing of truth. You can try to act according to truth, and according to my theory, the outcome will depend on how well you do that, regardless of how aware you are of any truths.

 

Interesting you use these examples because in the first car example, I genuinely believe if your focus is powerful enough/you've many decades of meditative experience or spiritual training you can literally manifest things (instantly) in your reality. Shoot, you even manifest your reality in more subtle ways, all the time!

Yes, when you have mastered the ability to 'desolidify' your body, you will experience this happening, and then you have/can act according to the truth, which is the possibility of desolidification. But when you then assume that because you did it one time, you will be successful at it all the time, you might again disregard the truth, or you dare to think you understand it more deeply than you do.

That's why logic is a tool for truth: Logic will tell you that success one time doesn't equal success all the time, thus help you survive by not doing foolish things. But instead you might choose to disregard truth because you might have a strong emotional need to feel all-powerful, thus you create an illusion that might get you killed.

 

From my personal experience, the dream state and reality are not that different from each other. My take is this:

The dream state is a sort of a trainer version of physical reality, in that it is very easy to manifest and create various things. Reality (waking/physical awareness), however requires more muscle (IE greater concentration, focus) in order to change things.

Interesting side topic. Sadly, I have little experience from observation whether what we dream about helps us in the coming days. Instead, in my personal experience, it seems to be the case that dreams process things that I might otherwise have processed in the waking state. Which - in a way - goes contrary to what people say, that you have to affirm what you want to dream about in order to make it happen. When I want to dream about something, that topic has to briefly occur in my waking state, creating a desire to ponder on it that is then left unfulfilled until I go to sleep.

[The Observer]

That's why I mentioned the search for truth, not the knowing of truth. You can try to act according to truth, and according to my theory, the outcome will depend on how well you do that, regardless of how aware you are of any truths.

 

So your theory implies different levels of truth from individual to individual?

 

Yes, when you have mastered the ability to 'desolidify' your body, you will experience this happening, and then you have/can act according to the truth, which is the possibility of desolidification. But when you then assume that because you did it one time, you will be successful at it all the time, you might again disregard the truth, or you dare to think you understand it more deeply than you do.

That's why logic is a tool for truth: Logic will tell you that success one time doesn't equal success all the time, thus help you survive by not doing foolish things. But instead you might choose to disregard truth because you might have a strong emotional need to feel all-powerful, thus you create an illusion that might get you killed.

 

Personally I think truth is just your input of rules (mental programming) into a system (reality). Logic is a useful tool, but only in appropriate situations. Just as I say, wouldn't use a wrench to hammer a nail into the wall, I wouldn't say use logic to write a poem or tell my girlfriend I love her.

 

 

Interesting side topic. Sadly, I have little experience from observation whether what we dream about helps us in the coming days. Instead, in my personal experience, it seems to be the case that dreams process things that I might otherwise have processed in the waking state. Which - in a way - goes contrary to what people say, that you have to affirm what you want to dream about in order to make it happen. When I want to dream about something, that topic has to briefly occur in my waking state, creating a desire to ponder on it that is then left unfulfilled until I go to sleep.

 

I guess it's different because I've had a few poignant lucid/semi-lucid experiences that make it a personal knowing for me. But I agree with what you say about subconscious projection onto dream states; who's to say I wasn't doing it either?

Edited February 6, 2011 by The Observer

[Owledge]

So your theory implies different levels of truth from individual to individual?

Funny that you only quoted the second paragraph, because the first one is my explanation that I can't abridge in a few words:

"I see this as an approach that can only approximate, or has levels of detail. Some truths are simpler or more easy to assume as sufficiently accurate."

Maybe you can rephrase your question so that I understand it better.

 

Personally I think truth is just your input of rules (mental programming) into a system (reality). Logic is a useful tool, but only in appropriate situations. Just as I say, wouldn't use a wrench to hammer a nail into the wall, I wouldn't say use logic to write a poem or tell my girlfriend I love her.

Let me point you to the 'fact' of multi-layered logic: Our brain works based on logic (except maybe when it's damaged), but even brain damage follows a higher logic than the one seen as confined to a brain. Logic can be seen as the process that executes truth in the universe. In a way it's simply cause and effect.

So when you write a love letter to your girlfriend, there's so much logic involved that you seem to be unaware of: You have to find the right words that you expect will cause a desired effect. And even if you choose to disregard that (consciously) and just pour out your feelings into words no matter how it would make her feel, then you did this because you weighed your desire for free expression of your feelings higher than the well-feeling of your girlfriend. Again, maybe the only thing that can work against this logic is illusion, because it will make you act against what you yourself want. (But even in self-sabotage, you just have to alter the focus to that dynamic and you will see the logic in that. Illusion is based on fear, so it has an underlying strategy, thus it has a logic behind it.)

And when you hammer a nail into the wall using a wrench, this is perfectly logical when there's no hammer available. And if there is, but you still use the wrench, there's a perfectly logical reason for doing that. For example, you could feel a strong desire to do unconventional things in order to spiritually gain from the experience, so using the wrench for the nail would be a logical choice in this regards; using the hammer wouldn't. (It probably would be caused by habit and you would rightfully notice afterwards that you didn't do what you intended to do.)

 

I think, ultimately, on the highest level, the Taoist view that everything that happens serves a purpose and is alright is a belief in ultimate truth.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Hardyg