tschai said:
To EsoQuest-I think I see what you are saying-that it is not A specific genetic trait, one that would be inherent in a certain group, but rather IS genetic-I.E. in certain people THEIR genetic make-up naturally resists the Work or anything contradictory to their "normal" view of reality-and this resistance requires these individuals to have to exert rather more effort to assimilate the material, which in turn requires more nuerons to connect which in turn "forces" the DNA to evolve. Did I come close to understanding your explanation?
Close. What I was trying to say is that this trait (or most likely an accumulation of traits) may be prevalent in everyone (or most), but what differs is HOW it is expressed. And I believe it is closely tied to our vibrations of specialization (how we deal with life in our own particular manner), which is tied to who we are.
This we can correlate with archtypal images, like the warrior, the scientist, the monk, the artist etc. Each of these modes of how we approach life have their pros and cons. Basically, our real being is more than all of those modes, just like a man is more than his career. He may be, however, so identified with that carreer that there is nothing else to his identity. When that happens, this man (or woman) may be excellent in that carreer, but will have a hard time approaching other aspects of life (relationships, family, spirituality etc).
It's actually a matter of overspecialization toward our special "talents". The tendencies for these talents have genetic foundations, and beyond them there are also other tendencies that lie latent. It's like this: Imagine having exceptionally strong arms. So you go to the gym and instead of exercising the weaker portions, you just focus on those arm to make them even stronger.
You take pride in them and ignore the rest of your body, because it is too much of a hassle. Imagine, you admire your arms and admire how much weight they can lift. Now maybe you try to exercise legs and other parts, but that makes you feel like a wimp, because the differential between what you are good at and what you are not good at is high.
The more you emphasize what you are good at, the more the rest of you atrophies. Esoteric development demands we exercise our whole being. And specialized as we all are with our particular talents, there will be inevitable resistance when we try to go beyond them. After all, we are winners where our talents are concerned, and seem like incompetents outside of them. Who wants to address their "looser" side, especially when they can ignore it and keep focusing on what they are good at, what rewards them the most and the fastest?
And because we are more than just what we are good at, there is a price to pay for focusing on one aspect over others. The same price the weightlifter pays when only working out the arms: The whole distorts in trying to adapt to the imbalanced situation. Undistorting oneself and having the atrophied parts catch up to the well-exercised ones is what is challenging.
The effects of overspecialization include all aspects, even those that seem the most appropriate for inner development. The scientist has a particular way of approaching reality. This is quite useful, and really a must for maintaining an objective stance with regard to the vast inner world, and also provides a powerful foundation to gain understanding. However, that mode alone is not enough, and it has its limitations.
Real esoteric development incorporates the subjective with the objective to provide a totally new basis with which to assess experience, a basis of synthesis. The scientist tends to rely on certain predetermined premises for what constitutes objectivity, and his/her conclusions depend on these premises. Esoteric development, however, may demand an expansion of what is defined as valid input. The five senses are not enough. Logical associations are not enough. Inner senses may need to be recognized as valid information sources as the outer senses, etc.
Much of esoteric development, furthermore, tends to be an art rather than a science so the definitions regarding the learning process may need to expand. I have to add here that I am not advocating total generalization where one is jack of all trades and master of none. The primary talent or way of appraoch may still remain the central pillar of how we view ourselves, but a pillar does not make a house, and individuals are a synthesis of many possible expansions of the central talent incorporating other directions with it.
So a scientist or a warrior can remain that, for example, but they have to expand former definitions and understandings of what a scientist and a warrior is. The artist has to come into play, the mystic has to come into play, the dreamer, the builder, the philosopher etc, all need to participate and complement the central talent, which actually becomes enhanced not by bloating itself at the expense of the rest, but by allowing other aspects to support it in a greater synthesis of being. Or the individual may come to a point where they realize they are becoming more than a sum of parts and directions and discover totally new horizons of identity.
Since our talents have a genetic basis, the atrophy of our unknown potential also corresponds to physiologic adaptations that generate reactions when we try to reverse them. That's my view, anyway.
