skip to Main Content

Enemies are optional

“You might think I’m your enemy. But that don’t make you mine.” -Jack Johnson

As the saying goes, “it takes two to tango.”

People can vow to make our lives miserable, but their efforts are irrelevant unless we allow our inner state to become a vibrational match to their intentions.

Reality is objective, but our experience of it is subjective.

The world is not only composed of universal facts, but also of individual intentions, feelings, perceptions, and creative abilities.

We don’t get to choose the facts, but we do get to determine the net results yielded by our personal interactions with them.

People can choose to “give us hell”, but their mere ability to initiate a sequence of events doesn’t deprive us of our power to create the context which determines the identity, meaning, and impact of those events.

So, whether or not you’re my enemy, is entirely up to me.Β  And whether or not I am yours, is entirely up to you.

No one gets to make that decision for you. No one gets to make that decision for me.

As one baseball umpire said to an angry coach who disagreed with his opinion about a wild curveball thrown by the opposing pitcher: “The fans call it like they see it, you call it like it is, but it ain’t nothing until I call it.”

We, not our self-proclaimed and wannabe “enemies”, get to make the final call.

And it ain’t nothing until we call it.

That’s T.K.’s Two Cents.

Cheers,

T.K. Coleman

This Post Has 5 Comments
  1. TK…Although I like and agree with the factual (certainly to me at least!) subjective observation of this post. I believe this statement to be the other way round:

    “…Reality is objective, but our experience of it is subjective…”

    Actually…Reality is subjective. But its our experience of it which can be both subjective or objective according to our beliefs.

    Ironically, your explanations still support, without contradiction, this view

    Nice principle to follow though!

    1. Hi Kwamla,

      I like the way you articulated that. You point out a distinction that can be very fun and useful to be aware of.

      Judging from what I think I understand of your comments, I do not disagree with you at all.

      My personal philosophy is heavily influenced by the non-dual “perspective” of advaita. From this “point of view”, we can not only go beyond the notion of reality being objective, but we can add the idea that, ultimately, Reality is that which transcends, although encompasses, the subjective/objective distinction all together. One could say, from this “vantage point”, that all forms of quantification and qualification are phenomenal occurrences arising from and dissolving into Undifferentiated Being. It could be said that the ideas of “separation” and “otherness” are relative concepts and one might contend (although all language is ultimately inadequate here) that there is no “you” or “I”, but only Beingness expressing itself in a plurality of forms.

      As one of my favorite philosophers, Wei Wu Wei, stated β€œTHIS which is seeking is THAT which is sought, and THAT which is sought is THIS which is seeking.”

      When writing “self-help” styled writings of this nature, I tend to speak, at times, in terms of apparency as a scientist does when he refers to observations like the rising and setting of the sun. The sun doesn’t literally rise and set, but scientists will often adopt the colloquial descriptions of the common observer.

      So, for instance, when I say “reality is objective, but our experience of it is subjective”, I do not intend to advocate an ontological theory which proclaims that reality is conscious-independent or that the world has a separate existence. Nor do I intend to advance a dualistic doctrine involving metaphysical distinctions between the experiencer/experienced, subject/object, knower/known, etc. For my purposes here, I am simply making use of a linguistic convention to talk about the world from the vantage point of those who perceive it and speak of it as separate individuals who seem to observe entities and events that are external to themselves.

      Such language can be useful in describing things from the perspective of what Hume called “the man on the street”, but definitely leads to paradoxes of all sorts if the discussion is advanced far enough into the nuances of metaphysical analysis.

      For instance, in everyday life (as well as on this blog), I say/write things like, “Your boss may be an idiot, but how his idiocy affects you is up to you.”

      This statement allows me to make a concise point about the role of a positive attitude in one’s work environment. BUT, if we analyze it thoroughly enough, we find a critical flaw; Namely, that my language assumes or implies that the attribute of “idiocy” can be properly ascribed to a person. But that’s not true. “Idiocy” is not an objective quality that people have. “Idiocy” is a word we use to label people when we perceive them in a certain way. So, one has began on the wrong foot when he says “your boss may be an idiot, but…!”

      Nevertheless, I sometimes prefer to speak in that way, depending on the context, in order to conveniently arrive at the underlying component: That regardless of how you describe your circumstances (be it in the language of the objective or the subjective), everything in our world of experience is a projection of the Consciousness Field that You Are/I Am.

      So, although I may contextualize my thoughts in a different semantic framework, I wholeheartedly agree with what I perceive to be the essence of your outlook which, according to your words, affirms:

      “Reality is subjective. But its our experience of it which can be both subjective or objective according to our beliefs.”

      This also reminds me of Ken Wilbur’s language of choice when referring to The Ultimate Reality/True Self as “Absolute Subjectivity.”

      At a certain level of metaphysical understanding and practice, the coherence of any discussion on “enemies” or “opposing forces” (or ANY references to external realities for that matter) gets somewhat muddy because they employ words and concepts that are, at best, figurative approximations of That which is beyond language; fully present in, as, and through language; and yet All of and None of these things.

      Such is the challenge of those who savor the experience of philosophical verbalization and conceptualization. And yet, I find few activities to be more enjoyable. So, thanks for philosophizing with me and taking the time to express your always stimulating thoughts here. Thanks, also, for taking the time to read my comments to you as well.

      Much love, bro πŸ™‚

      TK

      1. Nice comments TK and dear I say a most thorough and detailed analysis. Lets just say I believe you “get it” and I also appreciate the “colloquial” way you attempt to communicate these sometimes difficult or challenging concepts to everyone. The essence of what you emphasize in all your communications, which I am bound to agree with, is CHOICE! And taking or accepting responsibility for our choices both collectively and individually.

        I admire your courage, tenacity and determination to promote these simple basic life enhancing principles which is much needed in these times of shifting changes and questioning of our societal dogmatic belief structures.

        I look forward to more continuing insights from you and please know its always fun for me to philosophize with you too!

        Love to you also bro

        Kwamla

Leave a Reply

Back To Top