To Control or Not, That is the Question

[Don]

A few thoughts on the subject of control. A deep examination of the whole issue has been of critical importance to our growth process, and we feel it may be of some assistance to share it with you.

What are we referring to here by the word, Control?

First of all there must be a controlling element and at least one other subject to be controlled.

In this case, we mean one energy, the mind/body, exercising some form of will power energy towards/against another energetic movement. This could be either all happening internally, or internal towards an external subject.

For example, it could be that there is an internal energy manifesting as psychological craving for something, like wanting an ice cream or a chocolate bar, and an exercise of ones own will saying no, don’t eat that, it’s not good for us, right? That’s all internal.

Another time you may ask someone else for or to do something, which they may agree to or decline. That’s internal towards an external example.

Now, isn’t this process of internal and external control a fundamental tool or mechanism we have all been taught to use commonly and in very many circumstances, times and places? It is so commonly used and accepted that most people never even consider whether it is a really good and effective approach to relationship. Certainly we have all had trouble with it’s use against us many times, but still have we really questioned the whole process deeply? Who of us is exempt from controlling and being controlled?

So what exactly is happening when there is a movement of control. First of all, it is one energy directed AGAINST another, is it not? That is one definition of conflict or even violence, isn’t it? And is conflict a good and effective use of energy? Is it productive or destructive? Does it engender harmony or disharmony?

Another aspect is this; what is Behind the process of control? There must be some philosophy or Motivation which engenders the process, not so? What is the basis of that? Isn’t it some form of Fear or Desire or Belief which is Pushing or Pressuring the will to act? Can that be the source of this whole process and can that ever lead to a good outcome? What do you say. A subject worthy of serious consideration?



blessings

[FirstGarden]

Originally Posted by Don

What are we referring to here by the word, Control?

First of all there must be a controlling element and at least one other subject to be controlled.

In this case, we mean one energy, the mind/body, exercising some form of will power energy towards/against another energetic movement. This could be either all happening internally, or internal towards an external subject.

For example, it could be that there is an internal energy manifesting as psychological craving for something, like wanting an ice cream or a chocolate bar, and an exercise of ones own will saying no, don’t eat that, it’s not good for us, right? That’s all internal.

Hi Don, I saw this post the other day. It caught my attn, but I didn't get a chance to read it. I'm with you so far..

Originally Posted by Don

Another time you may ask someone else for or to do something, which they may agree to or decline. That’s internal towards an external example.

Is this not a mere request directed toward free choice? Where does the control come in?

Control involves regulation and restraint, in some cases coercion or manipulation contrary to free will or one's wishes.

Or could you be applying a very broad definition of the word "control" here? This I've not heard before.

Originally Posted by Don

Now, isn’t this process of internal and external control a fundamental tool or mechanism we have all been taught to use commonly and in very many circumstances, times and places? It is so commonly used and accepted that most people never even consider whether it is a really good and effective approach to relationship.

Again, it depends on how we define control.

I think of branches connected on a tree, or plants in the ground. They derive their life and harmony by virtue of their nurturing source, in accordance to design. But there is no free will or moral choice exercised here. They can do no wrong.

Similarly, we are creatures meant to be self-governed by wise, intelligent choice, thereby needing a minimum of external regulation, restraint and control. I think, even in an ideal scenario, a minimum is needed for safety reasons, i.e. a fence, or dividing lines on a freeway, and other safeguards for the common good.

Too often in life, controls are needed for lack of Love on the part of humanity.
Where there is love and mature attitudes, all kinds of things work well, and an absolute minimum of regulation is required for the common good.

Where love and maturity lack, nothing works well for long in human affairs.

When Love and Maturity lack, first individually, then collectively in society, individualized self-government languishes or suffers, and society must gradually resort to a greater and stronger code of externals. (This is also greatly exacerbated by things like insecurity and greed, as we have all witnessed). Ultimately, if the moral landslide does not stop thru enlightenment or other worthy means, society plunges into a police state, total anarchy and decline.

Originally Posted by Don

Certainly we have all had trouble with it’s use against us many times, but still have we really questioned the whole process deeply? Who of us is exempt from controlling and being controlled?

We are all subject to some extent, as long as we choose to live around another human being or spirit being.

Originally Posted by Don

So what exactly is happening when there is a movement of control. First of all, it is one energy directed AGAINST another, is it not?

Under a broad definition of control, this would be true. Otherwise, it might simply be one of Newton's laws of physics coming into play, such as an object at rest remaining at rest unless acted upon by another. Or walking in the grass stepping on the blades. This would not normally be thought of as control, though it is a voluntary action.

Originally Posted by Don

That is one definition of conflict or even violence, isn’t it? And is conflict a good and effective use of energy?

Usually not. Yet if my wife were attacked, or my baby was being abducted, I believe I would be morally obligated to defend, if no other means of persuasion were effective. This expenditure of energy, I would have to categorize as good. But that is an extreme case and a last resort scenario.

Far more questionable would be Augustine's "just war" theory. Most wars in history are sheer folly. War has been referred to as "always wrong and sometimes a tragic necessity." Others have said, there's no such thing as a "just war," only a "justified war."

Originally Posted by Don

Is it productive or destructive? Does it engender harmony or disharmony?

That depends on the moral impetus behind the action (a sense of right and wrong in accordance to the best light you have), but also upon the time-tested wisdom behind the act, or lack of wisdom thereof.

Originally Posted by Don

Another aspect is this; what is Behind the process of control? There must be some philosophy or Motivation which engenders the process, not so? What is the basis of that? Isn’t it some form of Fear or Desire or Belief which is Pushing or Pressuring the will to act? Can that be the source of this whole process and can that ever lead to a good outcome? What do you say. A subject worthy of serious consideration?

Good? Absolutely. Love moves. Love reaches out. Love acts. Love persuades. Love rescues. Love even coerces if it has sufficient reason. If people were poisoned and I had the antidote, I'd be out there coercing. And I'd be right in doing so, even if they didn't believe that what I offered was the antidote. If I truly knew that it was, then my action was right to rescue if one wanted to live. I could even be wrong not to, if such a person desires to live.

Originally Posted by Don

blessings

Multiple blessings on you, Don!

I hope to get to know you better and to mine the riches in that deep, wonderful mind of yours. I feel that I could learn much from you.

[Don]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don
Another time you may ask someone else for or to do something, which they may agree to or decline. That’s internal towards an external example.

Is this not a mere request directed toward free choice? Where does the control come in?

Control involves regulation and restraint, in some cases coercion or manipulation contrary to free will or one's wishes.

Or could you applying a very broad definition of the word "control" here? This I've not heard before.

Thank you for your considered reply, FG, and yes, we are kindred spirits for sure. And you caught me on this one. It wasn't the best example and should have noted that for this to be an attempt at control there would need to be some threat or other element of leverage behind it.

If you want to go a bit deeper into this, we could have a look at what we call Sovereignty, or absolute Freedom. It is our understanding that because the Mystery behind all things (God, if you want) is inherently GOOD (and as Krishnamurti has pointed out, "only Good can come from Good", as it is an absolute) IT (GOD) has bestowed Sovereignty on all of itself manifesting as sentient beings, because Freedom is a Good. Now this Condition of sovereignty (because it is an absolute gift from the Mystery) cannot be TAKEN by another sovereign being, but can only be 'GIVEN' or perhaps more accurately 'temporarily surrendered' under threat, coercion, manipulation or promise of reward etc. (and this is what happens to all of us as children born (from a 'just' karma, we are not innocent 'victims') into this currently monstrous human society - we must, from immature necessity, Depend on our parents/caregiver adults, who misuse that dependency by using its inherent leverage to get us to surrender our sovereignty. This is the mechanism, is it not, of what has been termed 'Conditioning'. Our challenge as adults is to do the necessary 'Work' to take/get back our rightful sovereignty.

Now, why are (so called) Kings/Queens called sovereigns? It is because (within that societal/religious system) they supposedly hold that position by divine decree (a perversion of Karma?) and only they (along with the Pope, ha ha) have a direct connection/communion with the 'Big G'. Every other 'subject' must be subordinate to them (allegiance) and therefor have no inherent sovereignty themselves! In our understanding this 'perverted system' is one of the key ingredients which keeps this whole societal mess going. (as proof, by the way, Canada is still Legally a 'possession' of the british 'crown', no less)

All this as background to demonstrate why we feel that, since we are all inherently sovereign, control can only be 'attempted' towards us and our sovereignty cannot be actually TAKEN, but we can, have, and often do (unless we are successful in the 'work') GIVE or Surrender it.

Looking forward to a productive exchange with you and other interested sovereign human beings (as opposed to human doings, as we say)

blessings