Category: FALC

  • Normality in Ambiguity.

    What I got left with, after all the mind twisting and thought turning, was how does a 'kind' person show their boundaries?  If you can't step back or move away from things that insult your soul, then how can we, watching you, know how you truly feel or who you are?

    What can we trust about you when there isn't a clear you…an outline of boundaries that clearly define who you are?

    I was struck by the blurry vision or mixed messages that assaulted me…in the ambiguity of who my siblings really were.

    And, it then led me to wonder how this amibiguity was the image we were given of our parents; hence ourselves.

    That my father, due to his acting out in abusive ways, was not just one solid self, but a double vision.

    My mother also had two sides…one being a 'good' christian woman, but one who allowed an abusive man to live in her home.

    This ambiguity gave us the license to be two faced.

    That being two-sided was normal.

    And…kind.

    And…Non-judgmental.

    Even, loving.

    When I no longer have two sides, but one crystal clear out-line of me, I am not 'easy' to be with.  For, I won't flip to the 'easy' side, that allows anything.

    What I feel is that they want me to capitulate and roll over and be friendly…while inside I am not feeling that.

    This technique, of doing that which you don't feel, feels very abusive to me…or it has echoes of it.

    That you are doing that which you don't feel like doing, but you do it to make someone else 'feel good'.

    As I view my siblings and my mother, I can't see a clear picture of who they are, I see no out-lined set point of what they stand for and what they stand against.  They have no clearly set apart self, but move as a group.

    Either a group called family.

    Or a group called church.

    But, not as a one…character.

    I don't truly know who they are and what they stand for.

    What I feel is that they will fall for anything.

    In my new awareness or understanding…kindness has critical lines and boundaries.

    Kindness is solid.

    Value has one side.

    Respect, love, honor do not twist in the wind and become something else; when it is too hard or uncomfortable.

    I see the affects of living in a home with two-sided parents; whose real truth was covered up, to be that we learned to live without a clear sense of who we were….for we were asked to be something we were not.

    In abuse you are asked/demanded or bullied into something you don't want to do.

    I feel that my family now is subjecting me to the same tone of abuse.

    In that, they are wanting from me something I am not freely giving; due to their nature of being two-sided.

    Abuse in families adds the second side.

    It goes from normal…to abnormal and the combination is ambiguity.

    And Ambiguity's definition….

    Something that does not have a single clear meaning…

    Doubtfulness or uncertainty of meaning or intention: to speak with ambiguity; anambiguity of manner. 2. an unclear, indefinite…

    Something with ambiguity is unclear.

    What I feel is that my family is asking me to support and stand with ambiguity…to remain loyal and committed to ambiguity.

    For there is no clear message of love, with abuse tossed in on top.

    I do understand and appreciate where they are coming from….that living in the two faced world gives you a pattern and role model to follow. Where what you feel and how you act do not have to match…and who you are and how you act can be complete opposites. They find comfort and normality in ambiguity.


    IMG_1000
    I was so drawn to nature, for there was no ambiguity!  It was as it appeared; always.


  • The Reasons why.

    In the last pages of "I am Malala" she speaks of how quiet her country is about her book, and her message….and how they see her so incorrectly.  Amazingly, the very people she is speaking out for, are not able to appreciate her journey.

    She had an outpouring of support from around the world, except from her homeland…instead she receives misconstrued negative messages…or she would be welcome to come back, if she would stop spreading Western Ideas, that the people in power do not want.

    If she were to get back in line, hide under the burka and give up on education and women's rights, she can go home. Or so they say.

    Another part in her story is about her praying to be tall, for she is a very small girl, and after being shot by the Taliban…she feels that God made her so tall that the world can now see her.  They wanted to destroy and make her disappear and the opposite has happened.

    While there are many in her country that are not pleased with her, she is completely accepted by her family; who love and support her as she stands up for women's rights in a country where it has never been so.  She, one little girl, is trying to free thousands of women to create a more civilized society…and doing so has put her own life in danger. 

    And, the men in power feel her power.  Recognize that in empowering women they will lose their control…she is a threat to their uncivilized life styles.

    I can relate to her.  

    I am not in a life threatening climate, but I am feeling that I am fighting for women who are not able to appreciate my efforts. 

    Malala has a bigger dream for the women in her country…a dream most can't wrap their minds around. They have lived and were born in a country where women are not seen…they are not recognized with any value.

    My view of the women born into abusive homes…raised in religions where their freedoms are so limited…are on the spectrum of Malala's invisible women.

    Invisible in Self.

    Invisible…without value; unless they are serving the men or being victimized for the 'pleasure' of the abuser.  

    They are just instruments for power gain by the abuser.

    The men in her country are powerful because they control women.

    Doesn't that just seem insane?

    More powerful to overcome the weaker among them.

    But, isn't that what abuse is?

    The ideology of abusive families are similar to an uncivilized country.  Where the only power men have is to control those weaker than him.  Power gained by intimidating and victimizing, verbally and physically those who have no power.

    When one little girl who challenges their power….they try and shoot her, it shows them to be bullies. And, yet the people in her country blame her for speaking out.

    Not the reasons why.




  • As an Equal.

    "I Am Malala" by Malala Yousafzai, shows the hard struggle for something so simple; a woman's right to education.  

    What the girl couldn't understand, was why her being knowledgeable was something that threatened Armies and bad men. All she wanted was to go to school.  And, not only did they ban girls from going to school, they bombed the schools.  

    She does give the background climate and the beliefs and religious and various clans and tribes; the perfect backdrop for this to take place.

    This simple concept of no longer educating girls…then flows into other liberties being taken away.  Little by little they lost their rights…one right at a time….out of fear of what would happen if they refused.

    It isn't so much WHAT is taken away, but that they allow it.  Allow it by going along or believing in the religious leaders.  More often the Koran was misinterpreted in order to gain control over the people.

    There seems to be a common thread in what is going on her country and what I feel/sense/see in the strict religions.  The lack of personal freedom…given up out of fear.

    Imagine this young girl being the voice of women in her country….saying it is not okay, that I want to be educated. 

    Imagine using women as pawns to manipulate in order to gain control and power? Who else does this?

    And, who is speaking for the rights of women and girls?

    Her father carried this poem around in his wallet.

    First they came for the communists,

    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the socialists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.  by Martin-Niemöller

    At one point in her story, she says…that her whole country appears to have gone mad, for no one is complaining or striking against their rights being taken away…how they silently give up.

    There is a societal madness that seems to permeate and is spread by silence…upheld by fear.  Fear of NOT going along.

    Where is the fear of losing power or the control of their lives….and the lives of the women and children?

    In her country, male domination is completely in focus.

    And, I see that in the FALC, it is similar…women are being used, just differently.

    Malala said, "it is like they are trying to wipe out all evidence of women in our country" when they had to start hiding behind the burkas…

    The elder women in her country have been taught to disappear, unless they are serving men.

    Their lives are not their lives.

    They are but a parasite living upon the backs of men.

    I know that she lives on the extreme end of the scale, but there are religions where women have no voice in matters that matter.

    She has no freedom to say No.

    No freedom to her own body.

    I see from her story the loud display of control over women.

    The FALC is a quieter show…yet its visual is displayed in the large families and the downtrodden women.

    Malala was lucky to be born unto her father, who treated her like a son, from the moment she was born…she was never seen as less…due to her gender.  He encouraged her to speak out and supported her…while he himself spoke out for women's rights and value.  Most important he lived it…by seeing her as an equal.


  • When I moved away.

    In watching this video on Forgiveness,by Jack Kornfield,  

    It occurred to me that the old style of forgiveness is to restore things back to normal, that it doesn't mean you ever walk away or end something, but rather that things return back to 'normal'.  

    And, I am seen as being angry and full of hatred, when I am choosing to protect or to eliminate further abuse and hurt towards me…by ending relationships.

    I honestly don't feel angry or hatred inside of me, now.

    Now, meaning since I have forgiven in the sense that I am no longer holding on to the past being different, but accepting them as who they are.  In doing so, it has allowed me to decide IF I want to be in a relationship with them.

    Do I want to subject myself to being hurt again or do I not?

    It has nothing to do with hatred or anger.

    It does have to do with loving myself enough to protect me and act responsible for my feelings and honor and respect myself enough to want relationships where I am seen and heard.

    Hatred towards them or anger towards them is not inside of me….my choices are based, NOT on them, but on me.

    I tend to move away from folks who I no longer trust.

    My body doesn't feel safe with folks who lie.

    It is about me, not them.

    I can recognize how they can project different energies about me, but inside of me, is a calm pond of peace, love and joy. And, it becomes upset and rippled with anxiety when I am not honest with myself…when I don't honor how I feel.


    IMG_1089

    I make no appologies for how I feel inside when I am with folks who are not capable in honoring how I feel…who trample down my boundaries, who lie and holler and scream at how insane and mental I am.  It doesn't feel good inside, so I move away…keep my distance, ask for space.  

    Remember the definition of estrangement?

    "Estrange, alienate, disaffect share the sense of casings (someone) to turn away from a previously held state of affection, comradeship, or allegiance. Estrange often implies replacement of love or belonging by apathy or hostility."

    What many will fail to appreciate, is that I didn't change from love to apathy or indifference, but rather I felt it and moved away.

    The previous state of affection and comradeship between parent and child was destroyed when abuse entered into the picture.  It just took me 46 years to realize I needed to turn away.

    Each relationship I had/held changed the same way…

    The relationship changed from love to indifference or apathy.

    I never felt I left affection behind…it had already disappeared.

    Estrangement is not an unhealthy thing, but rather a very loving gesture within yourself; you are moving away from a relationship that changed. You are no longer pretending or trying to force or feel that which is no longer there.  You are honoring your body and feelings when love and belonging are replaced with indifference and apathy.

    It isn't about hatred.

    I do not hate.

    I accept the past as it was. 

    I believe I hated for many many years, in hating it could not be as I wanted it to be.

    I hated the past when I wanted it different.

    Once I accepted the past as it was, I found love.

    I did not find love in indifference or apathy.  I found love when I moved away.

  • Called it love.

    Can something be good and evil at the same time?  Is it possible that nothing is one way, but actually it can hold two diverse meanings at one time? Is one man's evil another man's love?  If so is love and evil ever changing as it is defined from man to man and woman to woman? Are the definitions the problem or is it in the perception or the eye of the beholder?

    As the discussion continues and labors forward between those in the church and those outside, those who had good experiences of the church and those didn't….as well as between my family of origin and I.

    Is there just one good church and then me bad mouthing it.

    Is there just one good family and, again…me bad mouthing it.

    Just where is the truth found?

    Is it possible that the truth is the truth for one and then the truth is the truth for the other, EVEN if those truths are completely opposite?

    How do we then know the difference between good and evil, right or wrong, love or abuse?

    Does it lie in the definitions or in the perceptions of those defining it?

    Is it possible that there is only one correct definition of love, abuse, and cult, but that each of us bring our own meaning to it by how we were taught.

    Could it be that we define love by how love was shown us?

    Not by its true meaning, but by our meaning.

    From my experience, my file managers were completely dyslexic.

    I had to look up the word "Dyslexic" to see if that makes sense.

    "a general term for disorders that involve difficulty in learning to read or interpret words, letters, and other symbols, but that do not affect general intelligence."

    Hmmm, not sure now if that works. From what I am reading, it is trouble with the letters more so than general intelligence.

    My file managers had trouble with definitions or were very creative and made them up as they went along.

    It left me with the wrong discernment of my world and the folks who I called family.

    There seems to be a wide gap between what is going on in reality and then what others see.

    I used to live in this surreal world, where it didn't touch reality…where my mind transposed definitions to create a kinder world.

    It didn't make the world kinder, but it had me Believing it was.

    I am not certain I can explain or articulate what happens to an abused child's mind.

    How its definitions get all messed up.  How it sees things but calls them incorrectly…and if untreated or unaware, they go through life NOT knowing the difference.

    Allowing them to believe that which they call love is love, when it actually abuse.

    It is like definition dyslexia…not letter and symbol dyslexia.

    You can't see correctly what is right in front of you….you define your world backwards.

    Where love doesn't mean freedom, respect, trust, etc….but it means controlled, disrespected and untrusting.  

    Love and abuse are completely flipped around.

    I know this will sound insane and completely nuts, but there is no other way to explain how so called intelligent folks are able to NoT see.

    They see, but their definitions are wrong.

    They were taught that the feelings of love, felt like neglect, disrespect, shallow, selfish, self absorbed…etc.

    How would a person know they were wrong, if the only love they ever known was abuse?  Wouldn't abuse not stand out?  

    Is it possible that if abuse was called love, that they don't know what love is?

    I think I thought, they knew both…but I forgot to remember I didn't know love until I was 46 years old.  I knew my own definition of love that I was taught as a child, but it and what I know today are not even close cousins. They are the complete opposites.

    Love's opposite was/is indifference.

    I had to look up "Indifference".

    "lack of interest in or concern about something"

    My definition of love from my childhood was indifference.

    From what I know of how my parents treated me, this is completely true.  I felt their indifference and called it love.


  • Away from them.

    In a discussion about the FALC church, and similar others, was…whether it is a cult, cult-like or how it would be defined. I found it remarkable how some will not see the forrest for the trees or maybe how they want to keep sweet or make nice; that which misses the mark 9 out of 10 times.

    It leads me to wonder how much off you can be, before you are really way off the mark? What does it take to change your mind about something?  And is it really the misses that count or the cost it would have for you to see things clearly?

    I wonder about the stubborn mind.

    I wonder about the mind who refuses to account for the negatives OR use the negatives to balance out the positives so you end up in a neutral place…of say cordial kindness…harmlessness.

    I was also challenged with this today, in a comment on the Ex-toots blog. "To simplify people is to abandon critical thinking; it is extremism from the other side of the fence."

    I looked up critical thinking to see what it had to say first, so I knew what was what.

    "Critical thinking is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false."

    Am I off the mark in seeing things as either true or false?

    Is there really an area in all things that is neither or both?

    What am I missing in this?  

    I don't believe I am simplifying folks, but rather the opposite.  To me simplifying is to not see the darkness.  

    Is it that we want to put the dark side and the light side and make them equal so we are both right?

    In the same comment, I was asked,  "I challenge you to ask yourself: what part of you wants to fault your siblings for accepting your parents as more than their bad acts, as worthy of love? What part of you wants them to be like you?"

    I am not certain about this whole tone of questioning, it almost makes it seem like it is my fault for faulting them. And, that It is my fault in that I don't see them (parents) worthy of love.

    I wonder when they get to be viewed?…and is there a mutual responsiblity in relationships?  

    I believe there is.

    I do not believe, anymore, in the onesided lopsided relationships where one person gives and loves and the other continues to mistreat and behave in abusive manners.

    And, there were a few more questions…."What would you lose by validating their complexity and humanity? Of embracing what you have in common instead of what separates you?"

    I am not certain I would lose by validating their complex humanity.  I would lose more by not validating it.  I do validate it.  I am under no illusion about the mind and its capabilities to distort and control the lives of humanity.

    And, what we have in common isn't so much what I see, but what they fail to see…or see with the same eyes. I see us as equals…coming from whence we all came.

    What always puzzles me is that I am challenged to make nice.

    I am challenged to see the complexity and humanity.

    I am challenged to see them worthy of love…..

    AND, they are not challenged to do the same….or even remotely equal.

    It seems to me these questions are being asked of the wrong person.

    What I have found is that more often than not, people will challenge me and my actions and never give a second glance at the actions of either the church and/or my parents…and siblings.

    The spot light shines upon the one who shines into the darkness…but the darkness doesn't have to explain its roles or behaviors….and certainly no one challenges it.

    Instead of asking me to be a critical thinker, perhaps ask that of yourself.

    I have done years and years of being a critical thinker and have faced truths and falsehoods along the way.  I haven't been extreme on one side or the other…well perhaps I am extremely interested in seeing the truth.

    To me, it just doesn't seem that the critical eye is upon the source of the agnst, but it is fully directed at me.  

    Where is the challenge to the abusers?

    Where is the challenge to the supporters…passive or aggressive…past or present?

    I don't know why I need to explain my side and they don't have to explain theirs.

    If you ask, will they answer?

    Is it easier to ask me…for you don't fear my answers?  Or are you just wanting the spotlight to fall away from them…



  • You don’t know who you are.

    "'No' can be a beautiful word, every bit as beautiful as 'yes', "writers John Robbins and Ann Mortifee declare. "Whenever we deny our need to say 'no', our self-respect diminishes," they tell us in In Search of Balance Discoverying Harmony in a Changing World. "It is not only our right at certain times to say 'no'; it is our deepest responsibility. For it is a gift to ourselves when say 'not' to those old habits that dissipate our energy, 'no' to what robs us of our inner joy, 'no' to what distracts us from our purpose. And it is a gift to others to say 'no' when their expectations do not ring true for us, for in doing so we free them to discover more fully the truth of their own path. Saying 'no' can be liberating when it expresses our commitment to take a stand for what we believe we truly need."  (from Simple Abundance, by Sarah Ban Breathnach

    No is one word that has gotten a bad rap, it is covered with negative feelings, when in fact it is the gateway to freedom.

    I love that I can say no.  I love that I can signify no. I love that I use No.

    No is the word that is taken from us in abuse.

    No was also removed in Religion, where choices were sliced away.

    As Byron Katie says, "If you can't say NO, I don't trust your YES."

    I am not sure if you can maintain your own boundaries without the use of the word No. In fact, I would say it is impossible.  

    By removing a child's ability to say No, we are setting them up to live without boundaries. The greatest gift we can give our children is the ability to say no, especially to us.  Relationships without No, are not healthy.

    I honor the word No much more than the word Yes. Yes is typically used for something you like and is joyful and easy.

    No is a word that may come out shaky and filled with anxiety…as we begin to reclaim our lives and our choices.

    No is a word that signifies a choice.

    It means 'no thank you'…I pass.

    I will sit this one out.

    No is a word of power of empowerment…a vote for what you believe in, what you stand for or stand against.

    Without No, a Yes isn't so positive, but just a way to keep from kicking up dust or making a fuss.  Yes is easy it requires no self control or power.  It goes along to get along. It is to stay with the crowd and not stand out.  It is the weakest of the two words…and the path most traveled.

    Once No is an option…you are able to discern your preference.

    Without a preference you are held prisoner to another's wishes/dreams or commands.

    Imagine No is a way out of old habits…cults, abuse, bad relationships, etc.

    The ability to say yes OR no, is freedom.

    And, if you don't have the power to use No, you will not understand those who can and will feel their No affects you.

    Once you use No liberally, you will allow others to do so as well.  It separates and unhooks you from others.  You become a free unit.

    No has been my greatest gift to me.

    I do not trust anyone who can't say No.

    A person without the capabilities to say no, appear foggy to me; unclear.

    Definition is decided with No…and Yes….but not with just yes.

    Always saying yes, means you don't know who you are.

     


  • Believing in the Impossible.

    The following is the transcript from Diane Benscoter's talk at TED…"How Cults Rewire the Brain."

    My journey to coming here today started in 1974. That's me with the funny gloves. I was 17 and going on a peace walk. What I didn't know though, was most of those people, standing there with me, were Moonies. (Laughter) And within a week I had come to believe that the second coming of Christ had occurred, that it was Sun Myung Moon, and that I had been specially chosen and prepared by God to be his disciple.

    Now as cool as that sounds, my family was not that thrilled with this. (Laughter) And they tried everything they could to get me out of there. There was an underground railroad of sorts that was going on during those years. Maybe some of you remember it. They were called deprogrammers. And after about five long years my family had me deprogrammed. And I then became a deprogrammer. I started going out on cases. And after about five years of doing this, I was arrested for kidnapping. Most of the cases I went out on were called involuntary. What happened was that the family had to get their loved ones some safe place somehow. And so they took them to some safe place. And we would come in and talk to them, usually for about a week. And so after this happened, I decided it was a good time to turn my back on this work.


    And about 20 years went by. There was a burning question though that would not leave me. And that was, "How did this happen to me?" And in fact, what did happen to my brain? Because something did. And so I decided to write a book, a memoir, about this decade of my life.

    And toward the end of writing that book there was a documentary that came out. It was on Jonestown. And it had a chilling effect on me. These are the dead in Jonestown. About 900 people died that day, most of them taking their own lives. Women gave poison to their babies, and watched foam come from their mouths as they died.

    The top picture is a group of Moonies that have been blessed by their messiah. Their mates were chosen for them. The bottom picture is Hitler youth. This is the leg of a suicide bomber. The thing I had to admit to myself, with great repulsion, was that I get it. I understand how this could happen. I understand how someone's brain, how someone's mind can come to the place where it makes sense — in fact it would be wrong, when your brain is working like that — not to try to save the world through genocide.

    And so what is this? How does this work? And how I've come to view what happened to me is a viral, memetic infection. For those of you who aren't familiar with memetics, a meme has been defined as an idea that replicates in the human brain and moves from brain to brain like a virus, much like a virus. The way a virus works is — it can infect and do the most damage to someone who has a compromised immune system.

    In 1974, I was young, I was naive, and I was pretty lost in my world. I was really idealistic. These easy ideas to complex questions are very appealing when you are emotionally vulnerable. What happens is that circular logic takes over. "Moon is one with God. God is going to fix all the problems in the world. All I have to do is humbly follow. Because God is going to stop war and hunger — all these things I wanted to do — all I have to do is humbly follow. Because after all, God is [working through] the messiah. He's going to fix all this." It becomes impenetrable. And the most dangerous part of this is that is creates "us" and "them," "right" and "wrong," "good" and "evil." And it makes anything possible, makes anything rationalizable.

    And the thing is, though, if you looked at my brain during those years in the Moonies — neuroscience is expanding exponentially, as Ray Kurzweil said yesterday. Science is expanding. We're beginning to look inside the brain. And so if you looked at my brain, or any brain that's infected with a viral memetic infection like this, and compared it to anyone in this room, or anyone who uses critical thinking on a regular basis, I am convinced it would look very, very different.
    And that, strange as it may sound, gives me hope.

    And the reason that gives me hope is that the first thing is to admit that we have a problem. But it's a human problem. It's a scientific problem, if you will. It happens in the human brain. There is no evil force out there to get us. And so this is something that, through research and education, I believe that we can solve. And so the first step is to realize that we can do this together, and that there is no "us" and "them." Thank you very much (Diane)

    What I understand the most is the circular brain and the memic virus in how it doesn't allow for a rational thought to come in.  It is the answer to how my family of origin can keep thinking and believing in something that is so insidious…as there is love where abuse lives.  And how the FALC and dysfunctional families are able to flourish with such insane beliefs.  A memic infection.  

    It is beyond reason…their circular thinking won't allow for critical thinking.

    My experience is that their brains will not allow another viewpoint.

    And, it would literally take someone to deprogram them.

    I totally get the brain that has been infected by a memic ideal and/or belief.

    And this paragraph alone explains their thinking…..

    It becomes impenetrable. And the most dangerous part of this is that is creates "us" and "them," "right" and "wrong," "good" and "evil." And it makes anything possible, makes anything rationalizable.

    In making anything rationalizable….is perhaps the most damaging part.  For it removes the critical discernment between where reality lies and fictional or improbable outcomes.  Leaving them believing in the impossible.


  • The War of Art

    "The War of Art" by Steven Pressfield


    "Fundamentalism"

    "The artist and the fundamentalist both confront the same issue, the mystery of their existence as individuals.  Each asks the same questions: Who am I? Why am I here? What is the meaning of life?"

    "At more primitive stages of evolution, humanity didn't have to deal with such questions.  In the states of savagery, of barbarism, in nomadic culture, medieval society, in the tribe and the clan, one's position was fixed by the commandments of the community.  It was only with the advent of modernity (starting with the ancient Greeks), with the birth of freedom and of the individual, that such matters ascended to the fore."

    "These are not easy questions. Who am I? Why am I here? They're not easy because human being isn't wired to function as an individual.  We're wired tribally, to act as part of a group.  Our psyches are programmed by millions of years of hunter-gatherer evolution.  We know what the clan is; we know how to fit into the band and the tribe. What we don't know is how to be alone. We don't know how to be free individuals."

    "The artist and the fundamentalist arise from societies at differing stages of development. The artist is the advanced model.  His culture possesses affluence, stability, enough excess of resource to permit the luxury of self-examination.  The artist is grounded in freedom.  He is not afraid of it.  He is lucky.  He was born in the right place.  He has a core of self-confidence, of hope for the future. He believes in progress and evolution. His faith is that humankind is advancing, however haltingly and imperfectly, toward a better world."

    "The fundamentalist entertains no such notion.  In his view, humanity has fallen from a higher state. The truth is not out there awaiting revelations; it has already been revealed. The word of God has been spoken and recorded by His prophet, be Jesus, Muhammand, or Karl Marx."

    "Fundamentalism is the philosphy of the powerless, the conquered, the displaced and the dispossessed.  Its spawning ground is the wreckage of political and military defeat, as Hebrew fundamentalism arose during the Babylonian captivity, as white Christian fundamentalism appeared in the American South during the Reconstruction, as the notion of the Master Race evolved in Germany following World War I.  In such desperate times, the vanquished race would perish without a doctrine that restored hope and pride.  Islamic fundamentalism ascends from the same landscape of despair and possesses the same tremendous and potent appeal."

    "What exactly is this despair?  It is the despair of Freedom. The dislocation and emasculation experienced by the individual cut free from the familiar and comforting structures of the tribe and the clan, the village and the family."

    "It is the state of modern life."

    "The fundamentalist (or, more accurately, the beleaguered individual who comes to embrace fundamentalism) cannot stand freedom. He can't find his way into the future, so he retreats to the past.  He returns in imagination to the glory days of his race and seeks to reconstitute both them and himself in their purer, more virtuous light. He gets back to the basics.To Fundamentals."

    "Fundamentalism and art are mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as fundamentalist art. This does not mean that the fundamentalist is not creative. Rather, his creativity is inverted.  He creates destruction. Even the structures he builds, his schools and networks of organizations, are dedicated to annihilation, of his enemies and of himself."

     "But the fundamentalist reserves his greatest creativity for the fashioning of Satan, the image of his foe, in opposition to which he defines and gives meaning to his own life. Like the artist, the fundamentalist experiences Resistance. he experiences it as temptation to sin. Resistance to the fundamentalist is the call of the Evil One, seeking to seduce him from his virtue. The fundamentalist is consumed with Satan, whom he loves as he loves death. Is it coincidence that the suicide bombers of the World Trade Center frequented strip clubs during their training, or that they conceived of their reward as a squadron of virgin brides and the license to ravish them in the fleshpots of heaven? The fundamentalist hates and fears woman because he sees them as vessels of Satan, temptresses like Delilah who seduces Samson from his power."

    "To combat the call of sin, i.e., Resistance, the fundamentalist plunges either into action or into the study of sacred texts. He loses himself in these, much as the artist does the process of creation. The difference is that while the one looks forward, hoping to create a better world, the other looks backward, seeking to return to a purer world from which he and all have fallen."

    "The humanist believes that humankind, as individuals, is called upon to co-create the world of God.  This is why he values human life so highly.  In his view, things do progress, life does evolve; each individual has value, at least potentially, in advancing this cause. The fundamentalist cannot conceive of this. In his society, dissent is not just crime but apostasy; it is heresy, transgression against God Himself."

    "When the fundamentalist wins, the world enters the dark age. Yet still I can't condemn one who is drawn to this philosophy.  I consider my own inner journey, the advantages I've had of education, affluence, family support, health, and the blind good luck to be born American, and still I have learned to exist as an autonomous individual, if indeed I have, only by a whisker, and at the cost I would hate to have to reckon up."

    "It may be that the human race is not ready for freedom. The air of liberty may be too rarefied for us to breathe. Certainly I wouldn't be writing this book, on the subject, if living with freedom was easy. The paradox seems to be, as Socrates demonstrated long ago, that the truly free individual is free only to the extent of his own self-mastery. While those who will not govern themselves are condemned to find masters to govern over them."  Steven Pressfield.

    I find this very interesting how the "fundamentalist" is looking to go backward and the artist to go forward.  One is dancing with the devil.  How similar is the FALC to the fundamentalist.

     

  • Who Believes in Me.

    The kick I had in my gut, I at first named it fear….and then, I thought maybe it was guilt…but today, after letting this sensation ride along for a few days, it felt more right calling it the feelings of Not Being Believed.

    To have oodles of writings, musings and prose excavated from my soul, only to have it doubted or disregarded…to be challenged or simply not believed.

    I more than likely will not have face to face confrontations, but rather be silently ignored.

    The fear of not being believed feels right to me, that my outspokenness will not be heard.  That life will continue on and my voice muted…echoes of my childhood.

    Will my ladies bring enough attention?  Is it hard to disregard when Art is carrying my words?  

    While the general public and perhaps other victims gaze upon my Art, I wonder what the Believers (FALC Members and other similar churches)will see?  Will siblings wander by…and glance?  What will they see?  

    The Story Line quilts and the Lady quilts for that matter, are the essence of me…the vessel that allowed me to express myself, they were the catalyst that allowed me to see inside of me.

    When there is doubt and disbelief, it is to not see me…again.


    IMG_9322
    And maybe, the most important person this Art was meant to reach, was me!

    Guess it doesn't matter who believes, hears or sees….for I am the most important one who believes in me.