spe0.memo

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Mon Jul 1 06:06:02 EDT 2019



                       Acceptance Services Center, ntc.

                   P.O. Box 390696  Mountain View  CA  94039
                     Fax: 415/964-2090  Tel: 415/ 964-3436

                                 Speaker Allen
                                speaker at asc.org


                   -----------------------------------------
                     ASC/ Pre-emptive Defensiveness  Rev.1
                   -----------------------------------------
                       Non-commercial copying permitted.
                        All other copy rights reserved.
                           June 28 1994  July 8 1994



      There is no such thing as an SP.

      "SP" is a slur aimed at persons who seem to be operating with
      destructive intent.  It means Suppressive Person; one who
      suppresses the admirable efforts of others.  This may be the
      efforts of others to survive, or it may be their efforts to create
      or cause something.  Thus the "SP" is considered evil by those who
      fancy themselves suppressed.

      Whether or not this label may sometimes be misapplied is not
      addressed in this memo; the topic is the existence of such people.

      If you accept that people are basically good, that they will do the
      right thing whenever they can see that option, then you immediately
      see two things.

      First, there are no truly evil people.  There are just destructive
      acts.

      Second, if a person will always do the right thing if given the
      opportunity, then maybe that is exactly what the person is *always*
      doing.

      How can this be?

      The first one is simple.  Good people get confused and do things
      that others consider bad.

      The second one is also simple.  Good people get confused and do
      things that others consider bad.

      Right.  They are the same.  Both involve people who have become
      confused and are doing things that they think are right under the
      circumstances they perceive, but which are actually destructive.

      Sometimes even to themselves.

      This happens because of the modified perception of the persons in
      question.

      For example, a man who misunderstands the situation around his 
      relationship with his ex-wife.  He thinks that because they love
      each other, they will inevitably get back together.  And that
      certain territorial prerogatives therefore apply.  He thinks love
      equals marriage, and that a woman who loves you is both forgiving
      and loyal.  A=Ax2.

      So he drops by to surprise her one evening and finds her in the
      arms of another man.  He is shocked to the core by this, and feels
      deeply betrayed.  In his anger he kills both of them.

      But in his confused state he sees this as the right thing to do. 
      After all, he thinks, she is a liar, cheat and worse - a betrayer
      who cannot be trusted, who sets people up for crushing
      disappointments.  And the other man is seen as a calculated
      trespasser, a sneak who steals other men's most valuable things:
      the foundations of their happiness.

      So, he sees, the world is better off without these charlatans, and
      he can remove the source of his pain at the same time.  So he
      strikes.

      And he strikes hard because what he is trying to communicate is so
      important to him.  If this is how solid his reach has to be to get
      their attention, well....  

      But the message is too solid and it destroys the relatively fragile
      bodies of his antagonists.

      It's an almost spiritual act in that he is dealing directly with
      the beings.  He is taking a treasured possession from each of them
      in exchange for what he thinks they have taken from him.  His life
      is ruined by their betrayal, and he ruins theirs in his quest for
      balance.

      But society, believing the body to be the person, can't see it that
      way.  It sees two dead bodies and believes the people are dead. 
      And now, acting from its own confusion, society sets out to even
      the score - in body counts.
                                  __________

      But I've said that there are no SP's.  How can this be true when
      the victims' physical survival was so obviously suppressed?

      It's a matter of motivations.  Of intent.

      Our friend did not set out to harm these people.  He believed he
      was trying to get a message across.  And he helped them pay their
      debt as he saw it.

      Okay, you say, but that's not the same as someone embarking on a
      planned campaign of destruction against people who aren't hurting
      anybody.  Like the world's favorite villain, Adolph Hitler.  Am I
      saying he wasn't a monster, a truly evil person?

      Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.  And so must you, if you
      agree that all people are basically good.

      Yes, I know.  You can come back with the argument that maybe he is
      basically good, but that tiny bit of goodness is buried so deep it
      doesn't matter.

      What difference does it make to his victims if he is rotten to the
      core or only almost to the core?  After all, the slaughter did
      happen.  The actions and their consequences are what's important,
      you could say.

      Not!  If you argued this line, you would be so close to the truth
      but so misdirected that you would never see it.  And this is the
      line that is usually argued.

      We need to take the victims out of the equation if we are to
      examine what is happening with the so-called SP.  We need to free
      the subject of the intensity of our outrage and take a cold hard
      look at the "SP" point of view.
                                  __________

      The "SP" is someone who sees himself as the so-horribly-victimized
      effect of others that he can no longer discern which of the many
      people he now contacts is his potential next nightmare.

      From his point of view, he has been hurt so deeply and so many
      times that he has finally reached a point of blind rage about it.

      How intense is his rage?  The answer lies in its source.  It
      represents the accumulated value of every failure he has ever
      suffered at, he believes, the hands of others.  The entire volume
      of emotional charge generated by his fundamental resistance to each
      and every loss, failure of purpose and denial of identity that he
      has ever suffered now seethes within this once-magnificent
      expression-of-beingness turned vigilante.

      The only thing he knows for certain becomes his one singleminded
      operating policy: "Don't ever let anyone hurt you again".

      But how can he follow through on that policy?

      He can't trust anybody.  He can't let anybody get close.  He can't
      have any contact with anybody.  Unless.

      Unless they do not have the power or ability to hurt him.

      And from that comes his first solution: Seek out people who are so
      weak they can't hurt you.

      But even that one fails now and then.  Some people will surprise
      you.

      So he goes a step further: Make certain that no one has the power
      or ability to hurt you.

      But he dares not let them see him as he really is, or they'll
      certainly turn on him in a violent instant.

      So he acts in advance with each person he meets, covertly disabling
      them to the point that he will be safe.

      He has become what we can call Pre-emptively Defensive (PD).

      In defense mode, he acts first to pre-empt the other person's
      attack, "just in case".

      And now he looks like he's trying to keep other people down,
      because he is.  But he's not doing it because he wants to harm
      them.  He's doing it because he believes it's the only way he can
      defend his own existence.

      And he's not doing it for pleasure, no matter how much he seems to
      enjoy it.  His pleasure comes not from the pain of others but from
      his fleeting sense of being safe as he disables yet another
      potential enemy, undermines yet another potential betrayer, or
      weakens the underpinnings of yet another inevitably disappointing
      organization.
                                  __________

      But wait, some might still say.  Even given all this, it's his
      actions that we must deal with.  That's got to be our immediate
      priority, because if we let him slide and feel sorry for him, he'll
      work his way through huge numbers of truly good and well-behaved
      people, destroying them as he goes.

      After all, this argument goes to its logical conclusion, we can't
      just let some crazy run down the street swinging an ax at everyone
      he meets.  We can't even let his less-disturbed cousin continually
      disrupt the peace of our society, if we want life to be worth
      living.

      Of course we can't.  But that's not our immediate concern.  Those
      arguments come from the other side of the story, our concern for
      the victims and ourselves.  Our topic at this moment is primarily
      the motivations of the PD, the pre-emptively defensive person.

      But shouldn't we be concerned about the victims and potential
      victims?  Yes, by all means.  But we must not be concerned
      exclusively for them.

      And that's where the problem I am really addressing here comes into
      play. 

      If we don't understand the pre-emptively defensive person's
      situation, we can't help him.  And if we can't help him, we can't
      remove the threat he represents from the environment in a
      respectful and constructive way.

      After all, the cost of believing in "SP's" and other evils is paid
      in fear and insecurity.  This is a ticket to the so-called
      "dangerous environment".

      And that leads to putting men in cages for the rest of their lives,
      to cutting up their brains with drugs, surgery and electricity to
      subdue them, and to execution.

      Every one of these solutions suffers the same nasty drawback. 
      Sooner or later (the later the better if we can't help the guy
      right now), the guy gets loose (even if just by dying
      unrehabilitated) and comes back with a vengeance, more convinced
      than ever that everyone is his tormentor and enemy.

      (What, you don't believe in multiple lifetimes?  Okay, but can you
      Prove they don't happen?  What if you're wrong?  Remember, over
      half of the world's population disagrees with you.  How can you be 
      certain?  Thus, I'll take the conservative approach and proceed as 
      though the guy just might be back.)

      In fact, it's worst if he dies, because we have no way of knowing
      where he will show up next or how his rage will demonstrate itself
      then.

      Which gives us two serious problems.  It makes the environment
      itself seem dangerous because you never know where your next
      executioner is.  And it guarantees the PD at least one more victim
      every time it happens.

      I ask you, who is really helped by such a situation?

      The solution is to become oriented to an affirmative perspective
      that allows for destructive acts and the necessity to be prepared
      and willing to take corrective action.  Not vengeful action, and
      not hateful action, just corrective action.

      The guy is running down the street swinging an ax, stop him however
      you must, but leave your anger and outrage somewhere else.  This is
      a tortured soul, and it deserves as much respect as the next guy. 
      And for your own future good as much as his, try to do it without
      killing him.

      This is the true meaning of loving your enemies.

      The same is true in social situations.  The guy who works
      constantly to undermine your authority isn't trying to destroy you,
      he's trying to make sure you can't hurt him.  Don't take it
      personally.

      It really isn't personal, you know.  The pre-emptively defensive
      person has everybody so generalized in his mind, so categorized by
      threat potential that he never actually sees the real you.  Or
      anyone else.

      So it's not about you.  You are not the target.  You're just
      convenient, and if it isn't you it will be the next guy.  We're all
      the same to him.

      So write the PD off and treat him as an enemy - at your own peril. 
      Declare him too much trouble to help today, and spend tomorrow
      looking over your shoulder.

      And consider this: If we don't help people, who will?  Who can?

      If we don't help people, we should expect them to be upset with us.

      In fact, we should expect that every tortured and demented soul in
      the universe will eventually arrive on our doorstep.  Word gets out
      quickly among the desperate.

      If we turn them away, we are asking for trouble.
                                  __________

      So how do we handle the pre-emptively defensive individual?

      First, by educating as many people as possible about this
      phenomenon, so they will know it when they see it, and get out of
      the guy's way.  That will remove most potential victims from the
      PD's reach.

      Next, as practitioners we must address the PD's problem whenever 
      possible.  Our job, after all, is to help people.  Why should we 
      discriminate in a manner that leaves intact the most corrupted and
      dangerous individuals around?

      Does this make sense?

      Of course, this will require us to raise the level of our ability
      to confront real spiritual travail and agony.  The things you hear
      in session with one of these guys can curdle tomorrow's breakfast
      if you're not holding your position firmly as a practitioner.  
      You'd better have your communication skills down cold!
                                  __________

      But what do we do with the ones who won't go into session?

      We can simply shun the ones who are not a threat to person or
      property.  We must still allow them the protection of law.  We just
      don't have to deal with them socially or professionally.  If they
      want the benefits of society, they'll come around sooner or later. 
      If they don't, that's their choice.  Respect their right to choose 
      their own hells.

      And the violent ones?

      We'll have to put them out of harm's way.  Isolate them from their
      better-behaved brethren and keep them safe until they are ready to
      accept help.

      Catch them, preferably alive, and lock them away until they're
      ready to be responsible again.

      To that end, we should develop new self-defense tools that are
      effective but not lethal.  Like stun guns.  And the willingness to
      use an ability in a proactive manner, such as projecting your own
      intention into a berserker's body to disrupt his motor control (if 
      you happen to have some extra psychic ability).

      Once we have them contained, however, we certainly can't force our
      help on them.  That would violate their free-will right of choice. 
      It may seem that such people should be forfeit of that kind of
      liberty, but that is simply not true.

      First, our only right in dealing with them is to protect ourselves
      from their insane actions.

      Second, the only kind of help available to them is what we do, and
      it simply doesn't work unless the individual wants it.

      And third, most will eventually settle down in a safe environment. 
      There's a high probability that they will ask for help somewhere
      down the line.  After all, if they come to see that it is the right
      thing to do, they will want to do it.

      And if they never get straight?

      They never get out.
                                  __________

      All this requires several bits of attitude adjustment.

      We must stop making of other people's difficulties the "reasons"
      for an us-n-them mentality.

      We must find it in our hearts to forgive and be firm and helpful at
      the same time.

      And we must change our society and the way people deal with one
      another to something based a little more on a better understanding.

      Which means that we need to realize that not everyone who disagrees
      with us is a bad guy.

      After all, look around you.  You're still here, they're still here. 
      You're all in this mess together.

      The only viable resolution to this mess is to create a real
      civilization where everyone has rights and true rehabilitation of
      self and ability is available to all.

      Because together is the only way you're ever getting out of this
      mess.

Allen, Speaker for Acceptance        |        Acceptance Services Center
speaker at asc.org                     -0-       Box 390696 Mtn Vw CA 94039
http://www.asc.org                   |                    (415) 964-3436
Moderated email list: Accept-L at asc.org  Inquiries, faq requests invited.
               Latest ftp/web addition or update: 5/23/95

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jul  1 06:06:02 EDT 2019 
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/speaker/spe0.memo
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.comSend mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but 
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.



More information about the Clear-L mailing list