Posts Tagged wound
To deeply love, we must also be open to be deeply wounded. One can not love deeply without opening oneself to the sureness of becoming deeply hurt. To love deeply will require one to also hurt deeply. It is the wonder of love that it makes you vulnerable. To be vulnerable means to be open. Love lures us beyond our personal boundaries. It is the allurement of love that entices us out of our cocoons of isolation, and allows us to experience life. In the experience of life we taste and absorb experience as nourishment of the soul. Its sweetness and bitterness both alike enrich our being and creates depth to our insights and brings us wisdom that has grown through the tasting of life. It is through love that we realize the interconnectedness of everything. What touch you; touches me.
Not for one moment do I want to feel less vulnerable, than I feel in love. How can I regret being open, rather than closed in fear.
FROM David Whyte:
“We have the strange idea, unsupported by any evidence, that we are loved and admired only for our superb strength, our far-reaching powers, and our all-knowing competency.
Yet in the real world, no matter how many relationships may have been initiated by strength and power, no marriage or friendship has ever been deepened by these qualities. After a short, erotic honeymoon, power and omnipotence expose their shadow underbellies and threaten real intimacy, which is based on mutual vulnerability.
After the bows have been made to the brass god of power, we find in the privacy of relationship that same god suddenly immobile and inimitable to conversation. As brass gods ourselves, we wonder why we are no longer loved in the same way we were at our first appearance. Our partners have begun to find our infallibility boring and, after long months or years, to find us false, frightening, and imprisoning.
We have the same strange idea in work as we do in love: that we will engender love, loyalty and admiration in others by exhibiting a great sense of power and competency. We are surprised to find that we garner fear and respect but forgo the other, more intimate magic.
Real, undying loyalty in work can never be legislated or coerced; it is based on a courageous vulnerability that invites others by our example to a frontier conversation whose outcome is yet in doubt.
We have an even stranger idea: that we will finally fall in love with ourselves only when we have become the totally efficient organized organism we have always wanted to be and left all of bumbling ineptness behind.
Yet in exactly the way we come to find love and intimacy with others through vulnerability, we come to those same qualities in ourselves through living out the awkwardness of not knowing, of not being in charge.
We try to construct a life in which we will be perfect, in which we will eliminate awkwardness, pass by vulnerability, ignore ineptness, only to pass through the gate of our lives and find, strangely, that the gateway is vulnerability itself. The very place we are open to the world whether we like it or not.”
That which I desire most
I also fear most
Facing the Beloved
so utterly vulnerable
Facing the Beloved
the depth of my vulnerability
I know that my kiss
with my Beloved
will devastate me
rip away the fabric
of all I have known
fling me into the
chaos of the unknown
I will face the Other
In the face of the Beloved
I feel joy greater
than I have known before
yet I feel too
an ancient fear
I felt not even
in the face of death
In the nakedness of my vulnerability
I can cling blindly to the joy
or in full awareness
of my vulnerability
with eyes wide open
surrender to the kiss
the call of the Other
not close myself
in fear of the pain
I might face
then I transcend my fear
into the oneness
Only when I release my fear
abandon my safety nets
that I can experience
the true freedom
of no boundaries
To experience the transforming
union of love
I must enter my vulnerability
in full awareness
look the Medusa
straight in the eye
All that we know is nothing, we are merely crammed waste-paper baskets, unless we are in touch with that which laughs at all our knowing. -D H Lawrence
I received a post from “Seriously” on the subject of who is more stupid Idiots or Morons:
The first thing I did was to reach for my favourite dictionary (before I saw the rest of the post), Chambers’s Twentieth Century Dictionary (1901). To my surprise there was no word “moron” in it, only the word morology. Morology means foolish talk and comes from the Greek word moros, a fool. At first I thought something must be wrong with my eyes, otherwise why can’t I find it? Then I realized that the word moron must be relatively new.
So, I did a search to find out when it first came into common use;
Moron was originally a scientific term, coined around 1912 by psychologist Henry Goddard from a Greek word meaning “dull” or “foolish”, and used on the English version of the “Binet Scale” of human intelligence. The Binet Scale was developed in the early 1900’s by Alfred Binet, a French psychologist and inventor of the first usable intelligence test, the basis of today’s IQ test. The Binet Scale went approximately as follows:
Normal —– IQ 85-115
Deficient —- IQ 71-84
Moron —— IQ 51-70
Imbecile —- IQ 26-50
Idiot ——– IQ 0-25
The words were rather popular since 1970s until there came some changes. Today both of these words have been changed in the IQ test with mild, moderate and severe retardation which is not a great word either, from what I know we use the word physically challenged now and not retarded anymore.
Now the words, imbecile, idiot or moron are words that I personally never use, because lets face it no matter how brilliant you are, in some areas of life, you will act like an idiot, moron or imbecile. Idiot savant is another matter altogether.
“The word idiot usually refers to a simpleton, in contrast to the word “savant” in French that means “learned one.” Idiot savants are a subgroup of a class of people called idiots with an IQ of about 25. Idiot savants are a group of humans that are incapable of learning, writing or reading, yet they have unlimited access to specific, accurate knowledge in the fields of mathematics, music, and other precise areas. Now the irony of an idiot-savant is that this group of individuals does not acquire knowledge by learning as the average human does. They mysteriously ‘know’ explicit, exact, correct information. One may wonder: “How do idiots savants know certain information or possess certain skills?” By whatever means they obtain this information, they undermine current definitions about intelligence. Does their knowledge show that a source of intelligence exists? Is it possible to tap into this source and not know of its existence?
Dr. Joseph C. Pearce states the following about the general nature of the idiot savant. “so far as can be observed, the savant has not acquired, could not acquire, and is quite incapable of acquiring, the information that he so liberally dispenses. If we furnish the savant with the proper stimulus, a question about the specialty, he gives the appropriate response, but can’t furnish himself with that stimulus, can’t develop the capacity as an intelligence and can’t move beyond his narrow limits (Evolution’s End, p. 5).”
There are all types of theories that try to explain how an illiterate and untrainable idiot can have access to unlimited accurate information in a certain field. Some theories try to explain the idiot savants by genetic and biological abnormalities. Howard Garndner in his book Frames of Mind believes that genetic and environment factors create idiot savants. Professor Garndner thinks that arithmetic calculations of the idiots savant are: “based upon the relative sparing or proliferation of certain brain areas: like hyperlexia, it represents an automatic, impossible-to-stop-process (p. 156),” This theory still does not explain how the people obtained this knowledge.
Other modern theories use the principles of quantum physics, specifically Bell’s theorem, to explain idiots savants.. Simply put, these theories define intelligence as “fields of potential,” in the same way that magnetic fields interact with iron filings. In this theory, an idiot savant’s brain receives this information directly from a non-local source forming these “fields of knowledge.”
Quoting Dr. Joseph C. Pearce in his book about the cause of the idiots savant, he says an idiot savant “is pre-disposed to the intelligence of his specialty through some early infant-childhood experience that activates a “field of neurons (brain cells) ” capable of translating from field of intelligence,” within narrow limits (Evolution’s End, p. 6).”
John Davidson in his book “The Formative Mind” writes about an idiot savant from Canada, Daniel. “Daniel’s forte is making electronic toys. But his methodology is bizarre. He simply sticks a transistor here, a resistor there, a capacitor somewhere else, a bulb in one corner and a switch in another. He does not even wire them together. They appear to be randomly glued on to a piece of perspex. Yet when he switches them on, the bulb lights up. In fact, when anyone switches them on, even when he is not in the room, and he is involved with something else, they light up. So any constant psychokinetic influence from Daniel’s mind is ruled out.
Clearly, Daniel can see, in his mind, the inner structure of energy patterns at the subatomic and vacuum state levels. Unhampered by preconceived ideas concerning what is and what is not possible, and working along the mind energy hierarchy into physical manifestation, he is simply rearanging the energy patterns of physical manifestation to do his bidding. From his point of view, he is simply playing with his toys and wants them to light up. With both a direct mental perception and manipulative capability, he arranges the structure of the vacuum state and its manifested subatomic particles to take on the patterns he desires.
Some of the scientists who have witnessed Daniel’s toys in operation and even taken them to their laboratories for testing, have been reduced to tears, stating that all that they had been taught and believed in appeared to have been turned upside down. – Perhaps, although he cannot explain himself as we might like, he is also trying to tell us something…”
(For more on Idiot savants see my post: Imago – Just my imagination)
I believe he is. So often we ignore people with disabilities, reject those who “dance to a different drumbeat”; but are they not showing us perspectives on our visions of reality that we could not have seen otherwise? They are giving us insights into our potential as Human beings. How clear it is how our differences help to reveal alternate aspects of our reality.
To add more food for thought on the subject of idiots and morons, I would like to quote from the following post.
But I always wonder if there is such thing as an IQ, I mean where would you place a person who works day and night, feeds his family, respects everyone, loves his family, does lots of great things for society, but at same time have a low IQ, to be honest for me the person would be a great living being compared to all the other people who have great IQ but are totally idiots.
Interestingly, ages are also added to the categories of classifying Idiots (below three years), Morons (seven to twelve years) and Imbeciles (three to seven years).
If we look at the areas of our lives where we act like idiots, Imbeciles, or Morons could it not point to the ages in our life’s passage where we received the wounds that we have not resolved in ourselves yet?
(See: The Wound – The Shadowlands)