Sticks and Stones (© 2008 Eileen Baker)
Sticks and Stones may break my bones but calling names won’t hurt me.
You might remember this from your childhood times. It is probably one of the greatest misconceptions in history, along with ‘I think, therefore I am’.
Calling names does hurt. The power of the word and its original intent – (where it comes from inside the one directing it) is as powerful as anything else to cause hurt and harm.
The pen is mightier than the sword. Is it? It depends really on which end of the pen or the sword you are at! But both can be either lethal or without guile. The instrument is at the behest of and utilised at the discretion of, its user.
Descartes’ famous, beloved and enjoyable statement is simply an expression of our ego-mind (I think) controlling the core of our being (I am). In itself, ‘I am’ suffices without the need to revert to thinking words. The core of our being is the ‘I am’ and most certainly, ‘You are’. You exist with or without thought.
The stick, the stone, the sword, the pen and the word and the thought can be as beautiful or as vile or political as the intent makes them. Should the intent come from the ego-directed thinking part of us, it can have the guile and cleverness of the devil himself and it can do great harm to ourselves and others. Should the intent come from the ‘I am’ at the centre of our being, then it can be without guile and cleverness and its delivery will do great good to ourselves and others. If we can encourage our being to control the thinking part, then we can bring even our ego under the control of the centre of the universe. We can shine the light of our being into the core of our ego and we can take back the control. This, in effect, is shining the light onto our shadows (from Jung) or pain bodies (from Eckhart Toll). We can shine the light into those parts of us that Heineken can reach but that we tend to want to hide because we are fundamentally (at our soul level) ashamed of them. But by hiding them we give them much more control over us as they can work out of the shadows, unseen and unchallenged.
Could we or Should we develop our speech and our writing skills?
Individual ways of expression are definitely encouraged in our modern societies wouldn’t you say? I mean, we can dye our hair pink or green, ladle massive lumps of wax or shiny stuff into it and then have it cut like a feather duster; or we can shave our heads completely if we want to, and we can say, with confidence: this is who I am. This is an expression of myself.
We can enlarge or diminish our mammary gland areas, we can have fat deposits sucked out of our thigh areas and we can have a huge circle of pure fat taken out of our abdominal area and we can say, with confidence: this is who I am. This is a much better expression of myself.
We can have our nose structure changed, we can have our teeth made to look like pearls in straight rows, we can change the colour of our irises with stick-on lenses and, if we feel so inclined to do, we can have our lips puffed out with some liquid which will make them pout at all times of the day or night, and during any kind of chore and we can say, with confidence: this is who I am. This is a tightened-up or puffed-up expression of myself.
We can have our faces injected to stop expression lines forming, we can have our whole face and neck lifted up, have a bit lopped off and then stapled into our head and even if we lose our front ear-flaps in the process, that is a small price to pay for our being able to say with confidence: this is who I am. This is a much enhanced model of me.
We can have our whole bodies painted and tattooed with pictures and words if we like, and we can have rings and studs inserted in almost any place and we can say with confidence, this is who I am. This is a better view for you to have of me.
We can say what we like and live as we like as long as it doesn’t materially or apparently affect anyone else. We can swear, mumble, be incoherent and be incapable of putting a complete sentence together and because this is what we have been taught to do or led to do, we can say with confidence: this is who I am. Take it or leave it.
And everyone should allow us to have this free expression of who we think we are and who we so desire to be, because this is what self-expression is all about. Self-expression is really the individualistic expression of our times, self and ego can have complete control and free range. And woe betide anyone who attempts to deny us our rights to do this. What right do they have to stop us doing as we so desire? It’s a free country and we have a right to our own expression and we can do as we like, so there.
Yet, should we seek to develop our speech so that the tempo, the sound and the actual vocabulary will develop and change over time, is that equally allowed its expression?
Amongst all of the fashion-led ideas to do and to be as you like, the actual fundamental facility to speak, which separates us from all other living things on this planet, is the one most likely to be subject to social and prejudicial control. In other words, you shouldn’t do it, unless you have an excuse. The excuse will relate to whether the social background or school you went to allows you to speak well. Speaking well, allowing the muscles to form the words properly through applied thought (that is being aware of what we are saying) will necessarily change what comes out of our mouths. It can even change the way we breathe, in the way that if you exercise your back, arm and thigh muscles it will change the way that you stand and the way that you walk; it will do this because the muscles are being stretched and they are correcting the skeletal framework by pulling it upright again, if gradually. Without exercise and stretching, the vertebrae in the back will have nothing to hold them up against the force of gravity, so they will drop, sometimes into each other (known as the slipped disc). Similarly, not exercising the mouth and facial muscles and incorporating control of our thoughts, many words are likely to be dropped altogether or damaged.
But should you decide that you would like to develop your vocabulary for expression and your speaking, it can imply that you have to go outside of your social norm, your group and your family, if they decide that they cannot accept that you would want to develop this side of yourself. It is the greatest excluder and subject of non-discussion and, when discussed, it can bring out deep-seated prejudices and deeply-felt inadequacies. It is the most hidden yet the most damaging facet of a modern polarised society, as in Britain, where ‘class’ is determined often now by income not by how you speak, and it doesn’t actually allow people from certain geographic areas (the Chav expression being a derisory one related to this) to develop this side of themselves. Disregarding high society’s often affected, short-breathed, high-class speech where the need to distinguish the aristocracy from the plebs is still in vogue or is still required by our social structure, there remains a whole area of society where being able to articulate and speak well, is now definitely considered a thing that we should not do. Which is rather interesting when you consider that the BBC generally has news readers who are able to be understood by any one, not just those from specific regions. No wonder they often plump for readers with educated Scots’ accents to get around the regional accent ‘issue’ for national news! Whilst regional accents do not mean that good articulation is not possible – of course it is possible to articulate well and with accents and emphasis – there is a general tendency towards incoherent speech and uneducated utilisation of vocabulary – the more incoherent and uneducated the better. This, in itself, is an expression of ego-led fashion which controls and inhibits so many people and condemns them to a life of ever-diminishing circles. Even acting, which used to be a socially allowed ‘escape’ route for those who sought verbal and physical expression and development, nowadays brings us very often into the ever-thinning substance of the popular soaps where the more basic and narrow vocabularies take precedence, thereby reflecting and underpinning the social norms. Soap and real life integrate perhaps, and those programmes exhibiting the fly on the wall facet of watching people’s behaviour from a low desire to gape at the exposed shame of the participants is all part of the same ‘language’. Poking fun at and seeing people in indignities is part of the language of demeaning a person. This is not something new of course. Every age has had its opportunities both to develop or lend no dignity to its members and certainly malicious gossip and low intentions is documented well in plays and in historical circumstances alike. What distinguishes our modern age, however, is the fact that we can in no way blame lack of money today for a social and education system which actually desires that some people not aspire and therefore, not develop and, crucially, language is a key factor in keeping people in and out. It’s not a government directive to do this, it is a shadow social psychology of the group and we are all part of this.
Words and how you say and formulate them matter as much as it matters how you approach yourself and others. The intention behind whatever it is that you are doing will be driven by your own ego unless you actively become aware. This is part of the discipline of developing into the person that you really are and this is at the root of some of the greatest religious teachings of the world. The stark contrast of gradual development and discipline in a modern context of immediate gratification and passivity in that we do not have to engage to receive ‘fast food’ other than consume it, or where we do not have to use our own imagination when passively consuming television, is something that is so at odds with our everyday lives now, that even considering it as a notion can be met with genuine incomprehension. The notion of development or education as an end in itself, not as a means to a lifestyle where money flows and we can consume without hindrance seems to have gradually disappeared; and this is at great cost. The cost is to society as a whole but also to ourselves. Instead of reflecting inwards and becoming educated (which simply means to bring out what is already there in the context of the soul and the being) . Training courses are not educators, they are about developing skills. We reflect outwards; hence the massive focus on external expression to the degree that we will indeed change our material selves, in order to attain the material vision that we wish to project, including training to achieve the right income for our lifestyle as opposed to education as an end in itself and not for income and lifestyle reasons. All of this could be compared to the Dorian Gray portrait; whilst we are busy engineering our shells, our bodies, what is happening to our souls?
Yet it is internal focus which lies at the root of intent. Without developing this, every object we use and every facet we have including speech, will come under the control of the shadow in the ego. The intent, therefore, has the power to change our whole lives and our world, by taking the control out of the hands of the ego and giving it back to the being. It is a gradual process so we can expect still to live with all our faults; we can fall down often too. There is no need for immediate perfection. We do not have to panic and screech towards the goal, we just have to move forwards in the knowledge that our light, our being or our consciousness is now beginning to permeate our ego; our intent will change.
Winston Churchill once said that he would spend just a few minutes preparing a six-hour speech and six hours preparing a two minute speech. That’s how much words matter.
The Word became flesh.
When Jesus was in the wilderness and had fasted for forty days and nights he was hungry. “And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made into bread. But he answered and said, It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”. (Matthew,III,IV)
You might remember this from your childhood times. It is probably one of the greatest misconceptions in history, along with ‘I think, therefore I am’.
Calling names does hurt. The power of the word and its original intent – (where it comes from inside the one directing it) is as powerful as anything else to cause hurt and harm.
The pen is mightier than the sword. Is it? It depends really on which end of the pen or the sword you are at! But both can be either lethal or without guile. The instrument is at the behest of and utilised at the discretion of, its user.
Descartes’ famous, beloved and enjoyable statement is simply an expression of our ego-mind (I think) controlling the core of our being (I am). In itself, ‘I am’ suffices without the need to revert to thinking words. The core of our being is the ‘I am’ and most certainly, ‘You are’. You exist with or without thought.
The stick, the stone, the sword, the pen and the word and the thought can be as beautiful or as vile or political as the intent makes them. Should the intent come from the ego-directed thinking part of us, it can have the guile and cleverness of the devil himself and it can do great harm to ourselves and others. Should the intent come from the ‘I am’ at the centre of our being, then it can be without guile and cleverness and its delivery will do great good to ourselves and others. If we can encourage our being to control the thinking part, then we can bring even our ego under the control of the centre of the universe. We can shine the light of our being into the core of our ego and we can take back the control. This, in effect, is shining the light onto our shadows (from Jung) or pain bodies (from Eckhart Toll). We can shine the light into those parts of us that Heineken can reach but that we tend to want to hide because we are fundamentally (at our soul level) ashamed of them. But by hiding them we give them much more control over us as they can work out of the shadows, unseen and unchallenged.
Could we or Should we develop our speech and our writing skills?
Individual ways of expression are definitely encouraged in our modern societies wouldn’t you say? I mean, we can dye our hair pink or green, ladle massive lumps of wax or shiny stuff into it and then have it cut like a feather duster; or we can shave our heads completely if we want to, and we can say, with confidence: this is who I am. This is an expression of myself.
We can enlarge or diminish our mammary gland areas, we can have fat deposits sucked out of our thigh areas and we can have a huge circle of pure fat taken out of our abdominal area and we can say, with confidence: this is who I am. This is a much better expression of myself.
We can have our nose structure changed, we can have our teeth made to look like pearls in straight rows, we can change the colour of our irises with stick-on lenses and, if we feel so inclined to do, we can have our lips puffed out with some liquid which will make them pout at all times of the day or night, and during any kind of chore and we can say, with confidence: this is who I am. This is a tightened-up or puffed-up expression of myself.
We can have our faces injected to stop expression lines forming, we can have our whole face and neck lifted up, have a bit lopped off and then stapled into our head and even if we lose our front ear-flaps in the process, that is a small price to pay for our being able to say with confidence: this is who I am. This is a much enhanced model of me.
We can have our whole bodies painted and tattooed with pictures and words if we like, and we can have rings and studs inserted in almost any place and we can say with confidence, this is who I am. This is a better view for you to have of me.
We can say what we like and live as we like as long as it doesn’t materially or apparently affect anyone else. We can swear, mumble, be incoherent and be incapable of putting a complete sentence together and because this is what we have been taught to do or led to do, we can say with confidence: this is who I am. Take it or leave it.
And everyone should allow us to have this free expression of who we think we are and who we so desire to be, because this is what self-expression is all about. Self-expression is really the individualistic expression of our times, self and ego can have complete control and free range. And woe betide anyone who attempts to deny us our rights to do this. What right do they have to stop us doing as we so desire? It’s a free country and we have a right to our own expression and we can do as we like, so there.
Yet, should we seek to develop our speech so that the tempo, the sound and the actual vocabulary will develop and change over time, is that equally allowed its expression?
Amongst all of the fashion-led ideas to do and to be as you like, the actual fundamental facility to speak, which separates us from all other living things on this planet, is the one most likely to be subject to social and prejudicial control. In other words, you shouldn’t do it, unless you have an excuse. The excuse will relate to whether the social background or school you went to allows you to speak well. Speaking well, allowing the muscles to form the words properly through applied thought (that is being aware of what we are saying) will necessarily change what comes out of our mouths. It can even change the way we breathe, in the way that if you exercise your back, arm and thigh muscles it will change the way that you stand and the way that you walk; it will do this because the muscles are being stretched and they are correcting the skeletal framework by pulling it upright again, if gradually. Without exercise and stretching, the vertebrae in the back will have nothing to hold them up against the force of gravity, so they will drop, sometimes into each other (known as the slipped disc). Similarly, not exercising the mouth and facial muscles and incorporating control of our thoughts, many words are likely to be dropped altogether or damaged.
But should you decide that you would like to develop your vocabulary for expression and your speaking, it can imply that you have to go outside of your social norm, your group and your family, if they decide that they cannot accept that you would want to develop this side of yourself. It is the greatest excluder and subject of non-discussion and, when discussed, it can bring out deep-seated prejudices and deeply-felt inadequacies. It is the most hidden yet the most damaging facet of a modern polarised society, as in Britain, where ‘class’ is determined often now by income not by how you speak, and it doesn’t actually allow people from certain geographic areas (the Chav expression being a derisory one related to this) to develop this side of themselves. Disregarding high society’s often affected, short-breathed, high-class speech where the need to distinguish the aristocracy from the plebs is still in vogue or is still required by our social structure, there remains a whole area of society where being able to articulate and speak well, is now definitely considered a thing that we should not do. Which is rather interesting when you consider that the BBC generally has news readers who are able to be understood by any one, not just those from specific regions. No wonder they often plump for readers with educated Scots’ accents to get around the regional accent ‘issue’ for national news! Whilst regional accents do not mean that good articulation is not possible – of course it is possible to articulate well and with accents and emphasis – there is a general tendency towards incoherent speech and uneducated utilisation of vocabulary – the more incoherent and uneducated the better. This, in itself, is an expression of ego-led fashion which controls and inhibits so many people and condemns them to a life of ever-diminishing circles. Even acting, which used to be a socially allowed ‘escape’ route for those who sought verbal and physical expression and development, nowadays brings us very often into the ever-thinning substance of the popular soaps where the more basic and narrow vocabularies take precedence, thereby reflecting and underpinning the social norms. Soap and real life integrate perhaps, and those programmes exhibiting the fly on the wall facet of watching people’s behaviour from a low desire to gape at the exposed shame of the participants is all part of the same ‘language’. Poking fun at and seeing people in indignities is part of the language of demeaning a person. This is not something new of course. Every age has had its opportunities both to develop or lend no dignity to its members and certainly malicious gossip and low intentions is documented well in plays and in historical circumstances alike. What distinguishes our modern age, however, is the fact that we can in no way blame lack of money today for a social and education system which actually desires that some people not aspire and therefore, not develop and, crucially, language is a key factor in keeping people in and out. It’s not a government directive to do this, it is a shadow social psychology of the group and we are all part of this.
Words and how you say and formulate them matter as much as it matters how you approach yourself and others. The intention behind whatever it is that you are doing will be driven by your own ego unless you actively become aware. This is part of the discipline of developing into the person that you really are and this is at the root of some of the greatest religious teachings of the world. The stark contrast of gradual development and discipline in a modern context of immediate gratification and passivity in that we do not have to engage to receive ‘fast food’ other than consume it, or where we do not have to use our own imagination when passively consuming television, is something that is so at odds with our everyday lives now, that even considering it as a notion can be met with genuine incomprehension. The notion of development or education as an end in itself, not as a means to a lifestyle where money flows and we can consume without hindrance seems to have gradually disappeared; and this is at great cost. The cost is to society as a whole but also to ourselves. Instead of reflecting inwards and becoming educated (which simply means to bring out what is already there in the context of the soul and the being) . Training courses are not educators, they are about developing skills. We reflect outwards; hence the massive focus on external expression to the degree that we will indeed change our material selves, in order to attain the material vision that we wish to project, including training to achieve the right income for our lifestyle as opposed to education as an end in itself and not for income and lifestyle reasons. All of this could be compared to the Dorian Gray portrait; whilst we are busy engineering our shells, our bodies, what is happening to our souls?
Yet it is internal focus which lies at the root of intent. Without developing this, every object we use and every facet we have including speech, will come under the control of the shadow in the ego. The intent, therefore, has the power to change our whole lives and our world, by taking the control out of the hands of the ego and giving it back to the being. It is a gradual process so we can expect still to live with all our faults; we can fall down often too. There is no need for immediate perfection. We do not have to panic and screech towards the goal, we just have to move forwards in the knowledge that our light, our being or our consciousness is now beginning to permeate our ego; our intent will change.
Winston Churchill once said that he would spend just a few minutes preparing a six-hour speech and six hours preparing a two minute speech. That’s how much words matter.
The Word became flesh.
When Jesus was in the wilderness and had fasted for forty days and nights he was hungry. “And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made into bread. But he answered and said, It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”. (Matthew,III,IV)
Labels: Contemporary Life, Words Matter
posted by edb at
12:18 PM
<< Home