Amy, do you remember in a previous thread where I said I was quite critical about the Newage movement and you replied that it was useful and has many benefits (well, words to that effect, paraphrasing)?

What you have posted is many reasons why I'm critical. I have this "your negative" attitude regularly chucked at me. Bless their cotton socks, many newagers wish the world to be beautiful, loving, and nice. But the reality is that if you wish such a world you have to create it from within and from without. Other wise it's just more empty words and more wishful thinking. Meanwhile the world we live in is being exploited beyond belief, and they are waiting for the aliens, angels and the galactic council to come and sort it out. Grasping for any cosmic astrological event to signal change, and when it often doesn't happen the level of BS for the reasons why is astronomical.

If it isn't using newage belief to hide from the realities of life, it's used as a stick to blame others as they created "this negativity". It really stinks of the one of the worse aspects of religion - sin and redemption!! They suffer from the mind set (western Judeo-Christian tradition) that they are often converting away from.

RP

Hi Amy

Although I can understand what you are saying and used in this context I agree with a lot of what you have said, but when this information is utilised not as a bypass but to address what is, then it becomes something else, before the new age, there was what is, when the new age has passed there will still be what is.

The positivity bypass (aka the bliss bypass)—The tendency to feign positivity/bliss in an effort to sidestep or rise above the unhealed shadow. Often associated with the ungrounded “It’s all Good” mantra.

Yes we come across this one often, but there is a big difference between putting a happy face upon the inner turmoil and telling the world that we are happy and life is good, as opposed to us actually being happy within the fullness of self because we choose to embrace our life experience in an open and non-judgmental way.

The All-One bypass—That is, remaining perpetually focused on unity consciousness in an effort to avoid our particular issues, challenges and practical needs. Often manifest as an ungrounded inability to meet grounded, basic needs while floating off into the great mystery.

The oneness is not a bypass for anything, it does not require us to constantly focus upon anything, it does not stop us being our self and choosing to have long hair or short hair whilst giving others the freedom to choose what they want, it is about accepting that within consciousness all is one, there is no mystery to this. Think of someone you know who is not with you, now relax and ask yourself how are they feeling right now? just allow yourself to form that feeling of how they are right now! this is the oneness in action.

The Non-Duality bypass—The tendency to self-identify as a non-dualist in an effort to transcend the human fray. Non-dual bypassers tend to conveniently remove everything that makes them uncomfortable from their unified framework- personal identifications, the unhealed emotional body, the entire ego, the self, the body- in an effort to transcend their humanness. Of course, there is nothing non-dual about it. Our humanness is the grist for the soul-mill. Without it, we can’t grow toward an authentic, sustainable experience of non-separateness.

This one goes with the oneness one, when we embrace the concept that all is one, then we have to embrace the fullness of self within the fullness of everything or the oneness, all that is required is to choose to replace our self imposed divisional judgments with acceptance of all that we are and all that is.

The Accountability Bypass- The tendency to use ‘mirror/reflection’ and ‘no judgment’ techniques in an effort to sidestep our own responsibility or the responsibility of others for wrong action. Lodged in the ungrounded notion that there is no wrongdoing, the effect of these practices is to condone and perpetuate unhealthy behaviors and to discourage victims from their rightful and necessary healing process.

Personal responsibility has nothing to do with being judgmental, though choosing to be judgmental will create a personal responsibility for the judgments that we choose to create.

Personal responsibility is to do with accepting the fullness of self and the the things that we choose to experience within our life experience in an open and non judgmental way.

The Karmic Contract Bypass—The tendency to attribute every single event on the planet to universal or soulular intentionality—that is, “you must have chosen it,” it was destined, it reflects your vibration, “everything happens for a reason”—in an effort to flee the painful, mysterious and misguided nature of many events and experiences. Those who participate in this bypass technique have a tendency to shame and shun their own experience, and to do the same to others where compassion and healing are required.

Before someone can embrace this one, then they will have had to embrace the judgmental concept of karma within their life experience.

People do not need to judge at all, everyone has a life experience that can be fully experienced as it happens, rather than it being viewed through the misted veil of judgment.

At the end of the day, we cannot use a bypass to become something, we just need to embrace something in order for us to be.

Hi Amy

Personal responsibility has nothing to do with being judgmental, though choosing to be judgmental will create a personal responsibility for the judgments that we choose to create.Personal responsibility is to do with accepting the fullness of self and the the things that we choose to experience within our life experience in an open and non judgmental way.

The way personal responsibility is seen as being interlinked with judgements is that there is seen to be no right or wrong. Indeed, on another forum, someone who embraces this has told me that there is no such thing as rape.

People do not need to judge at all, everyone has a life experience that can be fully experienced as it happens, rather than it being viewed through the misted veil of judgment.

I seem to recall we have had this conversation before (under the Walking The Talk thread I started on authenticity). To not judge feels a lot like not thinking to me, i.e. it is a natural process to discern. Life can still be fully experienced but also assessed!

Hi Amy

The way personal responsibility is seen as being interlinked with judgements is that there is seen to be no right or wrong. Indeed, on another forum, someone who embraces this has told me that there is no such thing as rape.

Personal responsibility is all about self and the way we choose to perceive the things that we experience or contemplate within our life experience.

I seem to recall we have had this conversation before (under the Walking The Talk thread I started on authenticity). To not judge feels a lot like not thinking to me, i.e. it is a natural process to discern. Life can still be fully experienced but also assessed!

There is a difference between assessing if we like eating one type of food or another and judging one type of food to be bad for us and another type of food to be good for us.

Yes it feels different to be in acceptance and not be driven by the emotional highs and lows that being judgmental often instigates, our life experience also feels different when we do not have the emotional baggage that being judgmental often colours what is happening within our life experience.

Amy said:

I seem to recall we have had this conversation before (under the Walking The Talk thread I started on authenticity). To not judge feels a lot like not thinking to me, i.e. it is a natural process to discern. Life can still be fully experienced but also assessed!

I agree and the more that we discern and consider and judge (technically not as an ego trip or projection), the more we can develop wisdom, understanding and compassion. Is it not what is often described as self-actuation?!

It like meeting up with a friend and debating the ways of the world and it's politics. Then laughing and saying, "Right that that put the world to rights!!" It's discussing and trying to understand life, situations and so forth. Not sticking the head in the ground and blaming others for their negativity. I meet a lot of new-age types and this is a common theme. It's like thinking in the head is bad and feeling from the heart is good in a very black and white way. Meanwhile their heart energy is so out of balance, they become ungrounded and suffer from insomnia. So the mood swings kick in. One day it's love n light, and the next day it's WFT grrrrrrrrr. To me a more complete action is using (listening to) the head, heart and hara (just using this as a paradigm).

And what gets me the most is that if you disagree with a new-ager that some (not all of course as some are nice people, because they are nice people) get amazingly violent, playing mind games and so forth, like for example karmic threats. Where's the unconditional love and non-judgementally now??!!

BTW, I don't have solutions to all of life's problems nor I'm I perfectly balanced Like it says somewhere (I think) in the Tao Teh Ching (Daodejing): when you are sick of being sick, you start to become well. Or if you like in Buddhism, when you really acknowledge that life is stressful and a pile of poo, then you can start getting the energy to make changes.

One thing I've been considering a lot recently is that it's ok to have spiritual beliefs, but belief isn't enough. What's needed in steady and continuous practice, practice and more practice, with a dose of loving kindness to prevent over practicing. And it's a total life time of practice that provides spiritual dividends (for what of another term). Not the quick weekend workshop.

Yes it feels different to be in acceptance and not be driven by the emotional highs and lows that being judgmental often instigates, our life experience also feels different when we do not have the emotional baggage that being judgmental often colours what is happening within our life experience.

Yes I agree with you Paul.

Hi Amy
Yes it feels different to be in acceptance and not be driven by the emotional highs and lows that being judgmental often instigates, our life experience also feels different when we do not have the emotional baggage that being judgmental often colours what is happening within our life experience.

Emotional baggage implies unresolved issues. One person's discernment can be another person's "being judgemental". Whilst labels like 'good' and 'bad' may be frowned on, there are such things as varying qualities, i.e. high and low vibes, yes?

Yes I was referring to unresolved issues, which is what we primarily deal with, mind you I have yet to come across an unresolved issue that does not have a judgment at the heart of it.

It is not the words good and bad, right or wrong etc that are judgmental in themselves, it is the judgmental beliefs that lie behind their use which creates people's problems, not the words themselves.

Amy said:
One thing I've been considering a lot recently is that it's ok to have spiritual beliefs, but belief isn't enough. What's needed in steady and continuous practice, practice and more practice, with a dose of loving kindness to prevent over practicing. And it's a total life time of practice that provides spiritual dividends (for what of another term). Not the quick weekend workshop.

Of course! It's the difference between talking the talk and walking the talk, i.e. putting beliefs into action - integrity, authenticity.

Yes I was referring to unresolved issues, which is what we primarily deal with, mind you I have yet to come across an unresolved issue that does not have a judgment at the heart of it.

It is not the words good and bad, right or wrong etc that are judgmental in themselves, it is the judgmental beliefs that lie behind their use which creates people's problems, not the words themselves.

Of course...the label just depicts the perception. I still feel that it is a natural thinking process to have opinions about people - inevitable really. This is not to say it results in pointing the finger, i.e. a value judgement though since allowances can be made for why people are the way they are. I always try and see the bigger picture.

Actually a perception is completely different to a judgment, we all perceive the things that are around us to one extent or another all of the time and as you say that is completely normal, these perceptions are normally quite brief and as soon as we have checked our memory to identify what we have encountered in an open and non-judgmental way, then we soon forget about them as we perceive something else.

But if we perceive something that triggers an underlying judgmental belief or unresolved issue, then that is something else, now rather than observing something in an open and non-judgmental way, we are now judging it and that judgment is complete with the feelings that we originally associated with the judgment, that we chose to set up whenever.

As for making allowances, this is not necessary if we deal with life in an open and non-judgmental way.

Actually a perception is completely different to a judgment, we all perceive the things that are around us to one extent or another all of the time and as you say that is completely normal, these perceptions are normally quite brief and as soon as we have checked our memory to identify what we have encountered in an open and non-judgmental way, then we soon forget about them as we perceive something else.

But if we perceive something that triggers an underlying judgmental belief or unresolved issue, then that is something else, now rather than observing something in an open and non-judgmental way, we are now judging it and that judgment is complete with the feelings that we originally associated with the judgment, that we chose to set up whenever.

As for making allowances, this is not necessary if we deal with life in an open and non-judgmental way.

Yes perceptions can trigger beliefs or, indeed, new thoughts that can later consolidate into beliefs. Beliefs reflect our values and morals. I can't imagine being without them.
Psychopaths have no morals...not being able to discern behaviour is problematic.

Are you sure that a person who is judged to be a psychopath does not have any moral judgments? They might be a different set of moral judgments to the ones that society sets, but they will non the less be working within a judgmental thought framework of some kind that help them to self justify whatever they do.

Obviously if a person who is judged to be a psychopath had no moral judgments, then how would they judge one person as being worthily of receiving action from them as opposed to another person who is judged as not being worthy of their judgment so they leave them alone?

Are you sure that a person who is judged to be a psychopath does not have any moral judgments? They might be a different set of moral judgments to the ones that society sets, but they will non the less be working within a judgmental thought framework of some kind that help them to self justify whatever they do.

Obviously if a person who is judged to be a psychopath had no moral judgments, then how would they judge one person as being worthily of receiving action from them as opposed to another person who is judged as not being worthy of their judgment so they leave them alone?

Yes I am absolutely sure. Having no morals is seen to be a key characteristic that most helps define psychopaths. I studied them (as part of attaining my psychology degree) since I realised that I was dating someone who made me seek out further knowledge on this. There are various degrees of psychopathy - ranging from full blown to a passive psychopath (the latter being what my ex boyfriend was - he had every single symptom/behavioural trait).

Also people can have psychopathic tendencies without being an actual psychopath....and guess what the no. 1 profession is for these types - banking!
There was a recent documentary (on psychopaths) which revealed this, e.g. manipulating/controlling people's lives in a cold, callous way.

So through your personal and professional understanding Amy, what would you consider to be the underlying thought patterns and beliefs, that would create within someone what is described as psychopathic tendencies?

I could put it in my own words but, far better I feel, would be to read the words of a professional in this field.

I would have preferred to have read your own understanding on what you perceive to be the underlying thought patterns and beliefs that creates what is termed a psychopath, I have read it and apart from the fact that it does not address my question, it is full of holes, a moral judgment is basically a judgmental belief that surrounds what someone believes to be right or wrong.

So for someone to have a 'Grandiose sense of self-worth' requires them to make a moral judgment that they are far superior to everyone else.

When I read that list of what depicts a psychopath, then it seems to fit a good percentage of society, or should I say anyone who is a non conformist.

Perhaps you missed the key point then Paul....most of society is not amoral, i.e. without any morals or conscience.

Just for clarity the list on the website that portrays psychotic tenancies and you interpret them as being amoral or without morals is:

[INDENT]1 Glibness/superficial charm.&nbsp
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth.
3. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom.
4. Pathological lying.
5. Conning/manipulative.
6. Lack of remorse or guilt.
7. Shallow affect.
8. Callous/lack of empathy.
9. Parasitic lifestyle.
10. Poor behavioral controls.
1 . Promiscuous sexual behavior.
1 . Early behavior problems.
1 . Lack of realistic, long-term plans.
1 . Impulsivity.
1 . Irresponsibility.
1 . Failure to accept responsibility for own actions.
1 . Many short-term marital relationships.
1 . Juvenile delinquency.
1 . Revocation of conditional release.
20. Criminal versatility (Hare 1986, 18).[/INDENT]

Now if I was to ask 1000 people to assess that list according to their personal moral judgments, then I would end up with 1000 different interpretations that would suit each individual's moral judgments and where they perceive themselves to be within the society they live.

Do you think that the outcome would be any different if I was to ask 1000 people who had been judged to be psychopaths the same thing, that I would not still end up with 1000 different interpretations, that depended upon their own moral judgments and where they perceive themselves to be in their own society?

Psychosis is a category that defines those who have lost touch with reality, e.g. having hallucinations and delusions. However, a psychopath is a personality disorder marked by anti-social behaviour.

As it does not look like I am going to get an answer Amy, I will leave it at that.

As it does not look like I am going to get an answer Amy, I will leave it at that.

I would have thought it was apparent that there are no specific underlying thoughts and beliefs that constitute a psychopath but rather an absence of these e.g. morals that are more the defining features. It is the lack of empathy that enables them to act as callously as they do although they often appear to be charming (manipulative).

To someone who understands that everything starts and finishes with a though, then the assumption that anyone can work without any underlying thought patterns and beliefs to direct the surface thoughts that are creating their actions is not apparent at all.

Moral judgments are different in different areas of the world and in different cultures, in the UK people who marry more than one person are morally judged by others to be immoral, yet in some parts of the world, people can marry as many people as they like.

In some parts of the world people who have sex before marriage are morally judged by others to be immoral, yet in other areas of the world it is quite acceptable to prove your virility to gain a marital partner.

Some people judge it to be morally wrong to eat meat, but there are still some tribes of cannibals in the world who do not believe there is anything morally wrong with eating someone they have managed to capture.

As for empathy, in my life experience I can say that is something that few choose to exercise because it reflects back upon them, it highlight problems in self through identifying with others.

Please consider all of the wars that we have had in the last decade or so, how were these normal everyday people able to put aside their moral judgments and go and create the carnage and atrocities to other human beings day in and day out, then for those who survive, to go home and reassert their moral judgments and continue on with their everyday lives as though nothing out of the ordinary has happened.

At the end of the day we do nothing without a underlying thought pattern/belief to drive us within our life experiences, just because one person works with a different set of moral judgments to someone else, that does not mean that they have none, for they do, they are just different.

Studies of psychopaths have indicated that they do not choose to have different moral judgments to most people, but that they lack something that enables them to understand what moral judgments are.

Studies of psychopaths have indicated that they do not choose to have different moral judgments to most people, but that they lack something that enables them to understand what moral judgments are.

Yes precisely....that was the case with my ex-boyfriend (who was revealed to be a passive psychopath). It seemed as if he had no way of gauging the reference for morals....like something was missing. Perhaps lacking a conscience and being relatively unfeeling are the influencing factors in this.

Hi Crowan

I understand what they are saying, but without some form of moral judgment, they would not behave differently with different people, the problem with moral judgments is if one person believes that it is morally wrong to do something and someone else believes that it is morally right to do it, then they will both believe that the other person has no moral judgments, whilst the reality is that they are both working to different moral judgments.

Social adaptability has little if nothing to do with morals. Are you saying that the experts in this field have got the amoral diagnosis wrong?

Behaving differently with different people requires a judgement. It does not require a moral judgement.

HI Amy

Absolutely. Moral judgments of right and wrong differ from person to person, so anyone that attempts to set a bench mark set of morals, will only be dealing with what they or their associates believe themselves, that will only apply to people who have similar moral judgmental beliefs to them, anyone whose thought patterns and beliefs does not fit in with that set of moral judgments will be judged to be wrong and in need of correction, so they will earn themselves a judgmental label!

If someone was not capable of making a moral judgment then they would be incapable of modifying their behavior at all, irrespective of who they were around, they would not be able to perceive themselves as superior or inferior or anything else, because they would not have a moral judgmental benchmark to measure themselves and other people against.

Hi Crowan

A moral judgment, is a judgment between right and wrong, in this case between what is acceptable behavior around different types of people.

So for someone to deem it acceptable to portray one way of being when around one section of society, but to modify their behavior when around a different section of society, requires a moral judgment on their part, otherwise they would not be able to change or adapt.