Got some time this afternoon.
My recent readings are "Travels with UG" by Claire Thayer, "Lazy Guide to Enlightenment" by Thaddeus Golas. And an ACT book in french.
Also another source that I'll divulge when I'm done with my summarizing the books / translating them in english for you all.
[ I'm telling that, as ACT is heavily "scientific", and I'll be throwing some "spiritual" quotes. I'm planning a thread to put them side by side, putting everything together and see how well they compare before 2022 ]
- "that whatever you value, even 'being romantic', if its fulfilling and enjoyable for you, then you are being your best self, and if you are not doing it to get anything out of someone else (manipulative) then you are by nature being indifferent."
- "Maybe there are some values I'm not thinking of here that could be badly chosen?
I can't think of any myself."
- "I think cultivating them (character traits) is far more difficult than knowing what they are."
-> Again, for me it's about, how do you know that "being romantic", is really fulfilling and enjoyable FOR YOU?
And not because society / culture has told you to value / choose that? That it's good FOR YOU?
I don't care whether you are indifferent and enjoy your values. Are they really YOUR values? How do you define "fulfilling"?
At no point in ACT book do they ask people to question what they value, where the values come from.
For the last quote, it goes with cultivating traits as something your are not (not yet, as you want to cultivate it, rather than accept / know your current values [based on actual past behaviour, see very last quote]). Thus below quotes also apply.
Here's a suitable image in French imo (all the conditioning, Family, Religion, Culture, School, Media, Entertainment that you have to remove in other to find your "True Self") : https://i.imgur.com/Hzg2VUq.png
Three quotes by UG:
This was my problem as a little boy: “Do I have anything to want other than what they want me to want, whether it is my family, or the religious teachers, or the society around me? What is it that I want? Whatever I want is what they want me to want.” But at that time it never occurred to me that not to want what they wanted me to want was also a want.
Then it hit me like a shaft of lightning ...
When once we are free from the demand to be something other than what we actually are, and if that energy is released, it becomes very, very simple and easy for us to function in this world sanely and intelligently.
The basic question which mankind has to pose is what kind of human being is wanted on the planet.
The concept that man can be adjusted to the value structure is just that, a concept, and this value structure is the cause of all neurosis and misery.
What they, it (the value structure) wants us to be is false, cannot be, and so what we're left with is suffering.
One by Thaddeus Golas:
All agreements of action are equally pleasurable. In this respect, there is no standard of value by which to judge realities or states of consciousness.
We can be happy anywhere in the universe or unhappy anywhere, depending on whether or not we agree readily with the behavior of those around us.
--> When doing the "60 value questionnaire" two or three weeks ago, I got those 6 : Self affirmation, Authenticity, Freedom, Honesty, Responsibility, Trusting.
I'm not sure I'll have the same next year. The point is, it's probably a good indication / exercise, to put concepts / values into words, but it would be all so simple to hold on to them as truth / self / EGO.
It helps me to further dig why I value those so much now, instead of just accepting those as MY values.
A quote from French ACT book about defusing from values / definitions :
Let us imagine a professional who considers himself to be "a frank and sincere therapist". If he is in fusion with this definition of himself as a therapist, he can be trapped in wanting to explain all his hypotheses to the patient, without taking into consideration the interest of the latter. He then acts to preserve the definition he has of himself, to follow the rule he has set for himself, and no longer to ensure that his patient advances in the commitment to what matters to him. The risk is then to destabilise the therapeutic relationship, from an exchange centred on the patient's difficulties to a monologue that aims to preserve what the therapist thinks of himself. By maintaining flexibility in relation to who they think they are and what others may think of them, the therapist thus serves as a model of self-acceptance for the the patient.
@Hineini - "To some extent I don't think we have free choice over our values. There is more 'discovery' involved in what feels 'right' to us, in what deeply aligns than in what we could choose consciously."[/quote]
-> Agree totally. We discover our values.
AND they change over time, as YOU (as the collection of past behavior, thoughts, feelings, history) evolve.
Hence, values are indeed a compass, not a strict thing to hold on to.
One Quote by Thaddeus Golas:
Meanwhile we should realize that we tend to return to the vibration level where we feel stable, something we can "live with."
It's the level of stability, the level where we feel ourselves to be comfortably on the same vibration with others, that needs to be changed.
And that can be done only through an unresisting state of mind, a constantly expanding love.
Reminds me of Matrix:
“Do not try and bend the spoon, that’s impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth … There is no spoon. Then you’ll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.”
From a French ACT book:
The deterministic approach of ACT
In the behavioural approach, it is the history of behaviours and consequences that determines future behaviour.
Each of our actions is the product of the behaviours we have performed and the consequences that followed.
Although the number of interacting variables is immeasurable and it is impossible to predict exactly what will happen, everything we do is determined by and flows from our behavioural history and the context in which we operate.
In a way, then, everything that each of us does is determined by our behavioural history and the context in which we live. In a way, therefore, everything we do is causally determined independently of our will. of our will.
But determinism should not be confused with fatalism (just as acceptance should not be confused with resignation).
The causal relationship between the individual and the environment is not unidirectional and each person has real room for manoeuvre.
When we commit ourselves to behaviours, we- behaviour, we regain some control over what happens to us, even if this choice even if this choice is ultimately the product of a history of interactions with the of interactions with the environment.
This is the subtlety of the ACT approach: while recognising that we are the product of a history and that this history cannot be changed, we can act in the here and now towards values that reflect our past history... but also future.
In computers, it's very difficult / impossible to have Confidentiality, Integrity, & Availability at the same time.
My point is, there might come a point where YOUR values, will go against what culture / society values.
At this stage in your life / evolution / consciousness, better be prepared for a shock / reevaluation of EVERYTHING you valued before.
I think I may have gotten way off, my bad.
Not sure there's any significance to this post. But curious enough as to not delete it.