On "Why" Logic

This Week's Questions

• Can understanding prevent injury?
• Is it possible for a couple to know if they are compatible?
• Is there such a thing as a BLock between two nations?

Do you know?

[Question 1] Is there any value in using why logic to figure out why things happen?
[Answer] Yes. Acquiring a comprehensive personal knowledge of why logic can help us to see past blame. How? We tend to blame most deeply in moments wherein we have just been shocked. Thus, each time we get shocked by a "why logic" we've never seen before, we run the risk of being seduced into participating in some new type of blame. Including that we may be seduced into some new way of hurting our fellow humans and our world at large.

On the other hand, the more we consciously witness the many insanely wicked varieties of why logic, the less we tend to get seduced by what is often, an absurdly beautiful "logos" within it. And some of the logic within it is absurdly beautiful, this despite the fact that it is simultaneously and insidiously hateful. For instance, Hitler said that nations should have wars every ten years or so in order to promote national growth by pruning what is outdated. And the Aztecs believed wars should be scheduled and end promptly when each side had acquired enough people to fill their sacrificial requirements. Insane ideas? Without a doubt. But there is also an inhumanly cold but beautiful logic beneath both of these insane ideas.

Finally, know too that in order for this personal knowledge of why logic to be completely useful, one must also have the corresponding compassion in place in order to compliment and complete one's understanding. Translation. Ignorance is not bliss after all. Thus being without a conscious awareness of the horror we humans can possibly perpetrate on each other, and on our world, means we are vulnerable to being seduced into participating in it. This is what makes being conscious of each given life situation in all ten layers the ideal goal for an Emergence Master Teacher.

[Question 2] Can why logic or understanding prevent us from being injured in the first place?
[Answer] Nothing can actually prevent injury except for having emerged from an already existing injury. In this case, re-injury is not possible, as both BLocks and their corresponding emergences permanently alter, and complete, personality. How? By tempering our consciousness in such a way as to permanently merge the wounding experience to the healing experience.

Even so, because why logic (and in fact any experience of the outer layers of personality) does decrease the average visual intensity of what we can see on the screen of our mind, it also decreases our chances for being in the only state in which we can be injured; the state of hyperawareness.

[Question 3] What is a quick fix to the cycle of why logic? Or is there never a quick fix?
[Answer] There is indeed a quick fix. The quick fix is emergence. However, having an emergence requires knowing you need one, and this knowledge rarely comes quickly to anyone, even to those lucky enough to have the assistance of a gifted guide.

[Question 4] When a way of doing something has become "natural" to us (as explained in the discussion of "natural why"), do we still have choices or does this inner programming mean we now have no choices?
[Answer] If I am correctly interpreting what you are saying, then yes, when we gain access to a natural way of doing things, we still have choices. Even more choices in fact. In a very real sense then, what emerges in us each time we heal a BLock is an unlimited access to our natural choices, including an access to the ability to freely choose to be loving and creative, this with little to no effort.

Said in other words, each time we emerge from a why logic program, we gain access to a group of previously unseen and unlimited choices, including an unlimited ability to love, at least in this one life area. This means calling "natural whys" an inner "programming" is a misnomer. The word, "programming" implies the lack of choice, while being our natural selves implies a literal and unlimited access to choices including to beautiful choices.

Lastly, beneath these ideas is a very old belief and something Socrates himself taught. He taught that [1] no one does evil of his or her own free will; [2] that if one knew the good, one would not hesitate to do it; and [3] that one commits evil only from ignorance of what the good is. Modern philosophers consider these statements to be a paradox and an obvious falsehood. Ironically, they are wrong only because they do not know the nature of the good. Emergence reveals this nature. Socrates was right.

[Question 5] Is it possible to use our personality theory to help people to know if they are truly compatible as a couple? Or would they not listen anyway?
[Answer] Let me answer the second part of your question first. Yes, it is entirely possible a couple would be unable to listen. Probable, in fact. Falling in love is both a wonderful motive to grow and simultaneously a powerful addiction. More over, seeing past an addiction is always hard.

More important though, it is also entirely possible that even if given the best of advice, the couple should still ignore it. Why? I see falling in love with a person as perhaps the most powerful motive we humans have to grow. In other words, the intensely beautiful desire healthy people feel to connect to those who are our closest counterpoint provokes us into writing some of the best music we write in life.

More over, because we always fall in love most deeply with those who provoke our deepest injuries to the surface, the difficulties all couples experience are never dysfunction. Rather, they are perfectly designed by whomever created us to help us out of our complacency and to move toward personal growth.

As for the first part of your question; "Is it possible to use our personality theory to help people to see if they are truly compatible as a couple?" The truth? I would say everyone who falls in love is compatible, at least to the degree this addiction can lead to a desire for real love and healing. However, this does not mean our theory of personality has no place here. It simply means its place is to guide this growth and healing rather than to prevent it.

[Question 6] I know that fighting is often not logical between a husband and wife or between partners, and that the same dance is often danced again and again and again with no changes for the positive. Is it correct to say it a BLock between two nations, for instance, when they fight the same fight for decades even with many intentions for peace, the same? (Israel-Palestine)
[Answer] Yes. In fact, my compliments to you for such a deep insight. You have truly demonstrated one of the main qualities of a Master Teacher's insight; you have seen past the impediment of "scale" and seen the underlying "thread of similarity." To wit, a BLock is a BLock no matter how large or small the scale.

[Question 7] If BLocks exist between nations over decades, how are these wounds passed on from generation to generation?
[Answer] Start with this: all wounds have in common the same sequence of three experiences; [1] becoming hyperaware, [2] being startled, and [3] going into shock. This means each time young children witness their parents and caregivers going abruptly into shock, they risk being induced into the same sequence of experience their parents once experienced. In other words, because it is natural for young children to be very connected to their caregivers, young children often inadvertently get wounded by experientially witnessing their parents' BLocks while being in a state of personal connection. How? Because "personal connection" is simply yet another way to say they are in a state of hyperawareness.

[Question 8] Is it possible to teach an entire nation that there are choices?
[Answer] This is one of my most compelling dreams and one which haunts me sometimes. I believe this is possible. Not one person at a time, which is what has mostly been tried, and not by trying to change a whole nation all at once, something which always fails, but rather by seeing each person as a possible teacher and by teaching each person to be a teacher in their own right, one teacher at a time. This is why, in my most serious moments, I call myself a "teacher of teachers." Because in my most serious moments, I long for and dream of leaving the whole world better for my having passed though it.

[Question 9] What would this look like if it did happen?
[Answer] What would it look like? I have often deliberately chosen to visualize this. For instance, I have often pictured Emergence Master Teachers ministering to whole roomfuls of recently traumatized people, such as those who have just experienced an earthquake or a flood. I have also pictured whole elementary schools wherein the children and teachers make connecting more important than parroting information; where laughter fills the rooms; and where every child is brilliant. I have also pictured roomfuls of families wherein skins and traditions and peoples' sense of the divine varies as widely as the kinds of stars in the sky and despite these differences, each family remains both proud of their heritage and equally proud of the diversity of our humanity as a whole. In a sentence, it would look like and be literally a nation of people connected to their humanity, both proud of themselves and intensely interested in learning from their neighbors.

[Question 10] Why is it difficult for most people to choose permanent healing? Is it that people choose to feel less pain or is it that they don't have a choice?
[Answer] We all have the choice of permanent healing. At least on paper, that is. In real life though? Mostly we not have this choice. Why not?

Remember, we must know we have a BLock in order to heal this BLock. We must also know and believe that pain relief is not permanent healing.

In addition, we need also know how to heal our BLocks. Or at least be willing to let a guide who does know assist us in this healing.

My point? Most people do not even know "why logic" relief is temporary, let alone that a permanent healing exists. This makes choosing permanent healing (emergence) an unknown option, and leaves what is the default option, why logic, as the "automatically taken choice." Here too is yet another iteration of Socrates' wisdom; [1] no one does evil of his or her own free will; [2] that if one knew the good, one would not hesitate to do it; and [3] that one commits evil only from ignorance of what the good is.

To not chose healing is evil. But it is not peoples' fault. They literally do not see the choice, each time they experience a BLock.