I just came across this blog post from The Happiest Mom called Mother's Hierarchy of Needs. It reminded me of a friend who told me the story of her first day back at work after her oldest child was born. She was in her office sobbing, and a co-worker asked if she was sorry to be leaving her new baby. No, my friend replied, she was crying because she wasn't the kind of mom who wanted to stay home full-time with her kids.
Financially, my friend does not need to work. But her need to work is real, if not as compelling as the need of a woman who struggles to put food on her table to find paid employment. She is comfortably able to meet her family's physical and security needs and is therefore able to tend to her own higher needs.
Personally, I also struggle with the fact that I don't want to be at home with my kids all the time. I feel guilty that I envy (and I don't think envy is too strong a word) my husband every time he puts on clothes that are free of wrinkles and stains and walks out the door to spend time alone in the car, followed by stimulating adult conversation and more time alone in the car to listen to something that isn't Music Together on the radio.
I have my finger in a lot of projects, and I am often asked how I manage to do it all. This is a humbling and baffling question for me because I feel that I don't do much of it particularly well, and I feel that I may be not be offering my kids enough mommy time, especially when I have a lot of things all coming to a head all at the same time. I joke that it is ADHD and caffeine that keeps me going, but the truth is that I need to do what I do for my own sanity. If I don't get a chance to have time for contemplation and reading, to explore thoughts and have interesting conversations, I am miserable. And a miserable Mommy is...well, not a very good Mommy.
Am I depriving my children of something important? Maybe. I'll never know, but I also think I am giving them a gift. I am providing an example of curiosity, and motivation, and open-mindedness and commitment that maybe they will follow someday.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Humane Parenting, Lesson One
Now that I am done (DONE!) with my thesis, I am enjoying the opportunity to read for pleasure - though, strangely, my "pleasure" reading looks an awful lot like my "school" reading. Anyway, right now I am working through Education and the Significance of Life by J. Krishnamurti (nice, light reading, kind of like a Harlequin romance novel - NOT!), and I am loving it. It's short and surprisingly easy to read, and chock full of profound nuggets of wisdom.
One of the ideas that really caught my eye is this: "Fear perverts intelligence and is one of the causes of self-centered action." When I read this, I began thinking about Lawrence Kohlberg and the stages of moral development, and the idea that we cannot meet our higher needs for connection and development if our most basic needs, such as those for food, water, shelter and safety, are not met.
I began thinking about some of the more self-centered people I know. (Forgive the judgemental-sounding term, maybe ego-attached people would be better. Or maybe not.) I often find that these people are not "bad" or unkind people, it's just that their first reaction to situations is often to consider the impact on themselves. I began to consider the fact that this could be a reaction to some deep-seated fear: namely, the fear that if they don't look out for themselves, if they don't ensure that their needs are met, then no one else will. They don't trust the world to provide for them.
And I began thinking that, for all the consideration I've been giving to finding ways to teach children about diversity, and responsibility, and creativity, and all those things, maybe the first thing we should consider as humane parents is what I included last in my thesis: Respectful Parenting. Perhaps none of the teaching and lecturing and modelling will do any good if our children do not feel safe enough in the world to be able to turn their attention to the needs of others. Perhaps we need to, first and foremost, ensure that our children have confidence that they are loved and cared for in this world, no matter what, and know that compassion will grow from there.
One of the ideas that really caught my eye is this: "Fear perverts intelligence and is one of the causes of self-centered action." When I read this, I began thinking about Lawrence Kohlberg and the stages of moral development, and the idea that we cannot meet our higher needs for connection and development if our most basic needs, such as those for food, water, shelter and safety, are not met.
I began thinking about some of the more self-centered people I know. (Forgive the judgemental-sounding term, maybe ego-attached people would be better. Or maybe not.) I often find that these people are not "bad" or unkind people, it's just that their first reaction to situations is often to consider the impact on themselves. I began to consider the fact that this could be a reaction to some deep-seated fear: namely, the fear that if they don't look out for themselves, if they don't ensure that their needs are met, then no one else will. They don't trust the world to provide for them.
And I began thinking that, for all the consideration I've been giving to finding ways to teach children about diversity, and responsibility, and creativity, and all those things, maybe the first thing we should consider as humane parents is what I included last in my thesis: Respectful Parenting. Perhaps none of the teaching and lecturing and modelling will do any good if our children do not feel safe enough in the world to be able to turn their attention to the needs of others. Perhaps we need to, first and foremost, ensure that our children have confidence that they are loved and cared for in this world, no matter what, and know that compassion will grow from there.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
International Aid
News of the devastating earthquake in Haiti is all over the airwaves, newspapers and Internet. Millions of people are suffering unspeakably due to lack of food, drinkable water, basic services, or the loss of a loved one(s). Aid organizations are mobilizing around the globe, and donations are pouring in.
My question is this: why is it that Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world and THE poorest in the western hemisphere, all of a sudden deserves the world's attention on Tuesday when it didn't deserve the attention on Monday? We should always help a neighbor in crisis, but Haiti has been in crisis for a long time.
Some of the reports that I've read argue that much of the devastation in the city of Port au Prince could have been avoided had the buildings there been built properly. However, they were not built well because there wasn't enough money to do the job right, or if there was money it went to corrupt government officials instead of to materials and labor. I cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of these reports not being a contractor nor having ever been to Haiti, but certainly that country's history suggests that this report is likely true. Haiti has been ruled by one militaristic despot after another for the past several centuries, and is isolated from the world by trade embargoes that do not seem to have a warming effect on the country's totalitarian leaders.
The pain and suffering the Haitian people are enduring right now is heartbreaking. I hope that many survivors are found and are given treatment, and that basic services are restored quickly. I am glad that so many people are finally having their eyes opened to the everyday living conditions of many of the people in Haiti, and that if anything good can come of this horrible tragedy it is that people are mobilized to help, not just in the short-term, but over time to improve the lives of these poor and downtrodden people.
My question is this: why is it that Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world and THE poorest in the western hemisphere, all of a sudden deserves the world's attention on Tuesday when it didn't deserve the attention on Monday? We should always help a neighbor in crisis, but Haiti has been in crisis for a long time.
Some of the reports that I've read argue that much of the devastation in the city of Port au Prince could have been avoided had the buildings there been built properly. However, they were not built well because there wasn't enough money to do the job right, or if there was money it went to corrupt government officials instead of to materials and labor. I cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of these reports not being a contractor nor having ever been to Haiti, but certainly that country's history suggests that this report is likely true. Haiti has been ruled by one militaristic despot after another for the past several centuries, and is isolated from the world by trade embargoes that do not seem to have a warming effect on the country's totalitarian leaders.
The pain and suffering the Haitian people are enduring right now is heartbreaking. I hope that many survivors are found and are given treatment, and that basic services are restored quickly. I am glad that so many people are finally having their eyes opened to the everyday living conditions of many of the people in Haiti, and that if anything good can come of this horrible tragedy it is that people are mobilized to help, not just in the short-term, but over time to improve the lives of these poor and downtrodden people.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Boys and Girls
Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending a Reggio Emilia roundtable at my daughter's school. This is a monthly event put on by the New Jersey Educators Exploring the Practice of Reggio Emilia and is held at a different location each month. They also organize trips to Italy to visit the schools where it all began - I'll add that to my To-Do list.
Anyway, yesterday's discussion was about how to manage long-term projects in the classroom, and one of the issues that came up was that of how boys and girls tend to segregate themselves at the younger ages, and how they tend to do things differently from each other. This is something that has become increasingly interesting to me as my kids have become older and I am seeing the differences between my son and daughter emerge. I'm sure many of the differences between them are particular to them as individuals, but there are also some highly stereotypical gender differences that are appearing and becoming stronger. My daughter is all about pink and sparkles and drama, and my son is obsessed with trucks and sports. Now, I am in no way a pink sparkles person, and while my husband is definitely a sports guy, cars and machines are of no interest to him whatsoever, so whatever proclivities my kids are showing in these areas are their own.
One of Bess' teachers used the opportunity to express her concern over the boys' attraction to guns, and her uncertainty about how to handle it. In striving for a child-led learning environment, she wondered, what do you do if the children want to do a project that the teacher does not want to do? Again, as a humane educator, this is something that is very interesting to me and something that I am asked about often - at nearly every talk I give, I am asked "Humane Parenting, blah blah blah - what do I do about my son's need to turn sticks, blocks, and slices of bread into a lethal weapon?" The ubiquity of the question, both in my reading and in my personal experience, leads me to this conclusion: boys' attraction to gun play is archetypal, and it is gender-specific. It is a way of dealing with questions of gender identity, of power and weakness, and of persuasion.
I know this may sound strange coming from a militant feminist such as myself, but I am going to say it anyway. Boys and girls are different from each other. That's not to say that some boys don't do things that we typically consider feminine, and certainly not to say that girls can't do or be anything they want to. However, it is the height of hubris to think that millennia of natural selection, which designed female humans to serve different functions than male humans in terms of the survival of the species, no longer apply to humans. We may consider ourselves to be the most evolved of all animals, but we're still animals.
Female humans are designed to nurture new and growing life. Male humans are designed, from a physical, psychological, and social perspective, to do something different. They are better equipped to hunt game (a woman with a sometimes noisy and often cumbersome infant tied to her breast or a tantruming toddler hanging on her leg is not likely to have much success sneaking up on a gazelle) and to do other physical tasks. While some modern societies are increasingly expecting men to do some of the nurturing, and many of the physical tasks that used to be required for our species' survival are becoming obsolete, that does not necessarily change the way we are wired.
War is not inevitable, and I am in no way advocating violence as an acceptable conflict resolution strategy. I am a hard-core pacifist all the way. However, I do believe that it is inevitable - healthy, even - that young boys will be driven to explore their physicality and to express some of their aggressive feelings in a more physical way than many girls do, for whatever reason (biological, social, whatever - I don't pretend to know the answer to that one). I believe that by teaching our sons about the realities of violence, and giving them safe and constructive outlets for their curiosity about violence, we will raise them to be more kind, compassionate, and nurturing men.
Anyway, yesterday's discussion was about how to manage long-term projects in the classroom, and one of the issues that came up was that of how boys and girls tend to segregate themselves at the younger ages, and how they tend to do things differently from each other. This is something that has become increasingly interesting to me as my kids have become older and I am seeing the differences between my son and daughter emerge. I'm sure many of the differences between them are particular to them as individuals, but there are also some highly stereotypical gender differences that are appearing and becoming stronger. My daughter is all about pink and sparkles and drama, and my son is obsessed with trucks and sports. Now, I am in no way a pink sparkles person, and while my husband is definitely a sports guy, cars and machines are of no interest to him whatsoever, so whatever proclivities my kids are showing in these areas are their own.
One of Bess' teachers used the opportunity to express her concern over the boys' attraction to guns, and her uncertainty about how to handle it. In striving for a child-led learning environment, she wondered, what do you do if the children want to do a project that the teacher does not want to do? Again, as a humane educator, this is something that is very interesting to me and something that I am asked about often - at nearly every talk I give, I am asked "Humane Parenting, blah blah blah - what do I do about my son's need to turn sticks, blocks, and slices of bread into a lethal weapon?" The ubiquity of the question, both in my reading and in my personal experience, leads me to this conclusion: boys' attraction to gun play is archetypal, and it is gender-specific. It is a way of dealing with questions of gender identity, of power and weakness, and of persuasion.
I know this may sound strange coming from a militant feminist such as myself, but I am going to say it anyway. Boys and girls are different from each other. That's not to say that some boys don't do things that we typically consider feminine, and certainly not to say that girls can't do or be anything they want to. However, it is the height of hubris to think that millennia of natural selection, which designed female humans to serve different functions than male humans in terms of the survival of the species, no longer apply to humans. We may consider ourselves to be the most evolved of all animals, but we're still animals.
Female humans are designed to nurture new and growing life. Male humans are designed, from a physical, psychological, and social perspective, to do something different. They are better equipped to hunt game (a woman with a sometimes noisy and often cumbersome infant tied to her breast or a tantruming toddler hanging on her leg is not likely to have much success sneaking up on a gazelle) and to do other physical tasks. While some modern societies are increasingly expecting men to do some of the nurturing, and many of the physical tasks that used to be required for our species' survival are becoming obsolete, that does not necessarily change the way we are wired.
War is not inevitable, and I am in no way advocating violence as an acceptable conflict resolution strategy. I am a hard-core pacifist all the way. However, I do believe that it is inevitable - healthy, even - that young boys will be driven to explore their physicality and to express some of their aggressive feelings in a more physical way than many girls do, for whatever reason (biological, social, whatever - I don't pretend to know the answer to that one). I believe that by teaching our sons about the realities of violence, and giving them safe and constructive outlets for their curiosity about violence, we will raise them to be more kind, compassionate, and nurturing men.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Teaching Empathy - Mission Impossible???
Lisa Belkin posted on her Motherlode blog the question, Can You Teach Empathy to Children? As someone who has spent the better half of the past five years trying to do just that, and the better half of the past year also writing about how to do just that, my answer is, "I sure hope so!" I see her point, but I think the question is better phrased this way: Can You Teach Empathy to Children by Requiring them to do Service Projects? To that, I think my answer would be "Not really."
In theory, service requirements are good, I guess. Get children out there, in the real world, and maybe they'll learn a bit about how good they really have it while making a positive contribution to their communities. The problem is, I think it often loses something in the translation. They see service learning as another thing to add to college applications, and don't really commit themselves to the cause. Instead of immersing themselves in a cause they really believe in, they often look for the project requiring the least commitment and effort they can get away with. The fact of the matter is that kids who would get something out of it would do it anyway, and the ones who wouldn't, well, I think the non-profit sector is often better off without them.
But as for the question of whether we can teach empathy to children, now that's something altogether different. Research shows that by modeling empathy and respect for self and others, by practicing autonomy-supportive parenting, by nurturing creativity and critical thinking among our children, they are more likely to be empathetic and to reach high levels of moral functioning. But it's not a six hour investment, please sign my time log and thank you very much. It's a lifelong investment that we, as parents, begin to make from the moment our children are born by treating them with empathy, respect and love.
In theory, service requirements are good, I guess. Get children out there, in the real world, and maybe they'll learn a bit about how good they really have it while making a positive contribution to their communities. The problem is, I think it often loses something in the translation. They see service learning as another thing to add to college applications, and don't really commit themselves to the cause. Instead of immersing themselves in a cause they really believe in, they often look for the project requiring the least commitment and effort they can get away with. The fact of the matter is that kids who would get something out of it would do it anyway, and the ones who wouldn't, well, I think the non-profit sector is often better off without them.
But as for the question of whether we can teach empathy to children, now that's something altogether different. Research shows that by modeling empathy and respect for self and others, by practicing autonomy-supportive parenting, by nurturing creativity and critical thinking among our children, they are more likely to be empathetic and to reach high levels of moral functioning. But it's not a six hour investment, please sign my time log and thank you very much. It's a lifelong investment that we, as parents, begin to make from the moment our children are born by treating them with empathy, respect and love.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Two Months? Really?!?!?!
Has it really been that long since I've been here? Shame on me!
Well, it's not like I've been sitting around eating bon-bons on the couch. Mostly, I've had my head down, plowing towards the finish line that is my Master of Education degree. I am proud and relieved to say that my Independent Learning Project is complete, all 100 pages and 30,000 words of it, and now I - Kelly Coyle DiNorcia, M.Ed. - am ready to re-commit myself to everything else that I've been neglecting.
The beginning of a new year is just the time to be doing that, right? New Year's Resolutions and all that jazz? At our house, we've taken a different path towards self-improvement. John got the family a Vision Board that we've hung in the dining room, with pen and paper nearby for whenever the inspiration strikes us. When something comes up that requires some work, personal development, or commitment, we manifest it in the physical Universe by writing our intention on a slip of paper and putting it in the board. I think I'm the only one who has used it so far, but that's okay. So far, I have set my intention to be more patient with my children (which I'm hoping will be a bit easier now that I don't have this huge deadline looming over my head), to commit myself to a regular spiritual practice, and to develop my ILP into a book. I also plan to recommit myself to blogging, because I love the opportunity to explore my thoughts, send them out into the Universe, and get feedback. I hope you'll join me!
Well, it's not like I've been sitting around eating bon-bons on the couch. Mostly, I've had my head down, plowing towards the finish line that is my Master of Education degree. I am proud and relieved to say that my Independent Learning Project is complete, all 100 pages and 30,000 words of it, and now I - Kelly Coyle DiNorcia, M.Ed. - am ready to re-commit myself to everything else that I've been neglecting.
The beginning of a new year is just the time to be doing that, right? New Year's Resolutions and all that jazz? At our house, we've taken a different path towards self-improvement. John got the family a Vision Board that we've hung in the dining room, with pen and paper nearby for whenever the inspiration strikes us. When something comes up that requires some work, personal development, or commitment, we manifest it in the physical Universe by writing our intention on a slip of paper and putting it in the board. I think I'm the only one who has used it so far, but that's okay. So far, I have set my intention to be more patient with my children (which I'm hoping will be a bit easier now that I don't have this huge deadline looming over my head), to commit myself to a regular spiritual practice, and to develop my ILP into a book. I also plan to recommit myself to blogging, because I love the opportunity to explore my thoughts, send them out into the Universe, and get feedback. I hope you'll join me!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Can We Change the World?
A friend sent me this article this morning, called We Cannot Change the World by Changing our Buying Habits by George Monbiot:
Read the whole thing here.
So....huh. What about that? I have to agree with a lot of what he says in that people think that by doing some fairly simple and popular things, such as recycling, they can identify themselves as "green". Personally, I think that the whole idea of promoting things like recycling and eco-products as "environmentalism" is misleading at best, harmful at worst. By giving people the impression that recycling, for example (can you tell this is one of my pet peeves?) helps the environment they can continue consuming away without a thought as long as they separate their plastic and glass at the end of the week. In reality, though, while recycling is better than putting waste in a landfill, and better than mining or making raw materials, it requires just as much energy, if not more, to make something out of something old, not to mention that there is considerable waste produced in the process.
I also agree that personal action is not enough, and we need to advocate for human rights, animal protection and the environment every chance we get. However, I think that personal action is important, both for the positive impact it makes and for the positive psychological impact it has on activists. It can be frustrating to work for change, but as long as we can see ways that we are making a difference in our own lives we can continue to feel good and hopeful in a way we might not otherwise be able to.
So I think this article is right and wrong. For people not inclined to look more deeply into the issues, they may be lulled into a sense of green-ness by some relatively insignificant actions, but I think these actions are still helpful. And for those who are willing to look deeper, then I think personal action is the wellspring from which all change will flow.
• In a consumer democracy, some people have more votes than others, and those with the most votes are the least inclined to change a system that has served them so well.
• A change in consumption habits is seldom effective unless it is backed up by government action. You can give up your car for a bicycle - and fair play to you - but unless the government is simultaneously reducing the available road space, the place you've vacated will just be taken by someone who drives a less efficient car than you would have driven (traffic expands to fill the available road-space). Our power comes from acting as citizens - demanding political change - not acting as consumers.
• We are very good at deceiving ourselves about our impacts. We remember the good things we do and forget the bad ones.
Read the whole thing here.
So....huh. What about that? I have to agree with a lot of what he says in that people think that by doing some fairly simple and popular things, such as recycling, they can identify themselves as "green". Personally, I think that the whole idea of promoting things like recycling and eco-products as "environmentalism" is misleading at best, harmful at worst. By giving people the impression that recycling, for example (can you tell this is one of my pet peeves?) helps the environment they can continue consuming away without a thought as long as they separate their plastic and glass at the end of the week. In reality, though, while recycling is better than putting waste in a landfill, and better than mining or making raw materials, it requires just as much energy, if not more, to make something out of something old, not to mention that there is considerable waste produced in the process.
I also agree that personal action is not enough, and we need to advocate for human rights, animal protection and the environment every chance we get. However, I think that personal action is important, both for the positive impact it makes and for the positive psychological impact it has on activists. It can be frustrating to work for change, but as long as we can see ways that we are making a difference in our own lives we can continue to feel good and hopeful in a way we might not otherwise be able to.
So I think this article is right and wrong. For people not inclined to look more deeply into the issues, they may be lulled into a sense of green-ness by some relatively insignificant actions, but I think these actions are still helpful. And for those who are willing to look deeper, then I think personal action is the wellspring from which all change will flow.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
If I Ran the Zoo
(I'm on a kind of Dr. Seuss kick these days....)
Last week we took the kids to visit the Bronx Zoo. Therefore, I also got to re-visit my ambivalence about zoos in general.
Of course, the Bronx Zoo is one of the better ones. Most of the enclosures (with the notable exception of the polar bear exhibit - YIKES!) are not so bad, and they are given some enrichment activities. They have animals there that do not exist any more in the wild, and I had lots of chances to talk with Bess about extinction, and habitat loss, and hunting, and "do you think the animals like being here?" and respect. I do think there is nothing quite like the experience of hearing a lion roar twenty-five feet away from you to help people get a very real connection to the natural world.
That said....they're still in cages (okay, "enclosures"; To-may-to, to-mah-to). They're still away from their natural habitats, and unable to exhibit many of their natural behaviors. It may be good for the species, but I don't think anyone could argue that the individual animals benefit from their captivity. I just don't know.
As for Harry, he was in a pretty foul mood that day. I don't really blame him, he got two molars the next day:
I'll try to get up some more photos later, but Blogger isn't feeling cooperative today and I'm done fighting with the computer for right now.
Last week we took the kids to visit the Bronx Zoo. Therefore, I also got to re-visit my ambivalence about zoos in general.
Of course, the Bronx Zoo is one of the better ones. Most of the enclosures (with the notable exception of the polar bear exhibit - YIKES!) are not so bad, and they are given some enrichment activities. They have animals there that do not exist any more in the wild, and I had lots of chances to talk with Bess about extinction, and habitat loss, and hunting, and "do you think the animals like being here?" and respect. I do think there is nothing quite like the experience of hearing a lion roar twenty-five feet away from you to help people get a very real connection to the natural world.
That said....they're still in cages (okay, "enclosures"; To-may-to, to-mah-to). They're still away from their natural habitats, and unable to exhibit many of their natural behaviors. It may be good for the species, but I don't think anyone could argue that the individual animals benefit from their captivity. I just don't know.
As for Harry, he was in a pretty foul mood that day. I don't really blame him, he got two molars the next day:
I'll try to get up some more photos later, but Blogger isn't feeling cooperative today and I'm done fighting with the computer for right now.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Cultivating Compassion
I have been a little spotty on the blogging lately. I am focused on my thesis, which is about how parents can help their young children to be humane. I just sent my introduction to my advisor, who gave me some phenomenal feedback as to a major element missing from my project.
Namely, this: why bother? Why do we want to teach our children to be humane? What's in it for them?
Good question. I've been giving it a lot of thought, and quite honestly I'm coming up seriously short on answers. It feels good to be compassionate, in my opinion, but why? Is it some complicated "Selfish Gene" calculus that tells us if I'm nice to someone today, they'll be nice to me when I need them tomorrow? Is it a social construct, related to religion or a secular Golden Rule? Why does being nice make us happy?
I'm open to suggestions, but in the meantime I turned up something worthwhile in my research:
A Guide to Cultivating Compassion in Your Life
Check it out. I especially like #3, the Commonalities Practice. "Just like me, this person is seeking happiness in his/her life," etc. Good stuff.
Namely, this: why bother? Why do we want to teach our children to be humane? What's in it for them?
Good question. I've been giving it a lot of thought, and quite honestly I'm coming up seriously short on answers. It feels good to be compassionate, in my opinion, but why? Is it some complicated "Selfish Gene" calculus that tells us if I'm nice to someone today, they'll be nice to me when I need them tomorrow? Is it a social construct, related to religion or a secular Golden Rule? Why does being nice make us happy?
I'm open to suggestions, but in the meantime I turned up something worthwhile in my research:
A Guide to Cultivating Compassion in Your Life
Check it out. I especially like #3, the Commonalities Practice. "Just like me, this person is seeking happiness in his/her life," etc. Good stuff.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Hate Doesn't Heal Anything
Yesterday I went to the Natural Living Conference put on by the Holistic Moms Network. It's a wonderful, inspiring event every year and this one was no different. Naomi Aldort spoke in the morning, and though I think she can be a little hard-core on the Attachment Parenting thing sometimes (especially her view on schooling) I got a lot of great ideas from what she had to say. There were lots of great vendors and it was nice to connect with some friends during lunch that I don't get to see very often.
The first afternoon session was a breakout session, and I attended a talk by Pamela Rich about the Heal Your Life work of Louise Hay. I was so impressed by the speaker - she was genuine, real and funny. She said a lot of thought-provoking and profound things, but one thing really stuck out in my mind. She asked us to think of a limiting thought we have, and one woman volunteered that she often thinks about how polluted our world is.
As background....the Heal Your Life work (as I understand it, anyway) is based on the idea that our thoughts are creative, and that we can transform our experience of reality by changing the way we think about it. I believe this to be true; however, the participant had a valid question. The world just is polluted, no matter what we think about it. In fact, perhaps by choosing to ignore the pollution around ourselves, we may even contribute to the problem. How can we transform this thought in our lives into something positive?
I thought Pam's answer was fantastic, and something that we all can incorporate into our lives. We cannot change other people's behavior, but what we can do is hold people in compassion and understand that they are doing the best they can with the knowledge and information they have in the moment. Nothing, she said, has ever been healed by hate. The only way we can heal anything is through love.
Wow. How true.
What an amazing lesson this is for parents and for activists. We may not like what someone is doing - hitting her brother, eating meat, dumping toxic chemicals in a local river - but the only way we can ever make a positive difference is by choosing love. Getting angry at our child for hitting someone else only escalates the anger - instead, we can choose to feel compassion for a child who is so angry or frustrated that her only way of expressing herself is through violence. We can judge someone for eating something we wouldn't, but that only closes off our hearts (and theirs as well, probably) - instead, we can choose to be thankful to the animal who sacrificed his life to become another person's food. Waging a war of words with a corporation over their polluting practices will most often result in a stalemate, where we judge them as irresponsible and they judge us as fanatical - instead, we can choose to find common ground and start to build a friendship from there.
As Pam said, forgiveness does not imply in any way that the other person's behavior is at all okay with us. It simply means that we let go of our anger about it, and accept the situation for what it is, and move on. I love that - it goes along with the whole Buddhist idea that suffering comes from our failure to live in the moment. The past and the future are not real, but when we remain attached to what happened in the past, or what might happen in the future, we suffer. If we can let go of that and simply live in the present, our anger disappears. What a beautiful, peaceful, sustainable world we would live in if everyone did this!
The first afternoon session was a breakout session, and I attended a talk by Pamela Rich about the Heal Your Life work of Louise Hay. I was so impressed by the speaker - she was genuine, real and funny. She said a lot of thought-provoking and profound things, but one thing really stuck out in my mind. She asked us to think of a limiting thought we have, and one woman volunteered that she often thinks about how polluted our world is.
As background....the Heal Your Life work (as I understand it, anyway) is based on the idea that our thoughts are creative, and that we can transform our experience of reality by changing the way we think about it. I believe this to be true; however, the participant had a valid question. The world just is polluted, no matter what we think about it. In fact, perhaps by choosing to ignore the pollution around ourselves, we may even contribute to the problem. How can we transform this thought in our lives into something positive?
I thought Pam's answer was fantastic, and something that we all can incorporate into our lives. We cannot change other people's behavior, but what we can do is hold people in compassion and understand that they are doing the best they can with the knowledge and information they have in the moment. Nothing, she said, has ever been healed by hate. The only way we can heal anything is through love.
Wow. How true.
What an amazing lesson this is for parents and for activists. We may not like what someone is doing - hitting her brother, eating meat, dumping toxic chemicals in a local river - but the only way we can ever make a positive difference is by choosing love. Getting angry at our child for hitting someone else only escalates the anger - instead, we can choose to feel compassion for a child who is so angry or frustrated that her only way of expressing herself is through violence. We can judge someone for eating something we wouldn't, but that only closes off our hearts (and theirs as well, probably) - instead, we can choose to be thankful to the animal who sacrificed his life to become another person's food. Waging a war of words with a corporation over their polluting practices will most often result in a stalemate, where we judge them as irresponsible and they judge us as fanatical - instead, we can choose to find common ground and start to build a friendship from there.
As Pam said, forgiveness does not imply in any way that the other person's behavior is at all okay with us. It simply means that we let go of our anger about it, and accept the situation for what it is, and move on. I love that - it goes along with the whole Buddhist idea that suffering comes from our failure to live in the moment. The past and the future are not real, but when we remain attached to what happened in the past, or what might happen in the future, we suffer. If we can let go of that and simply live in the present, our anger disappears. What a beautiful, peaceful, sustainable world we would live in if everyone did this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
