[Main Blog Post] [Book] Thoughts on The Gentle Art of Blessing

[jprussell]

This week I've written up my thoughts on Pierre Pradervand's The Gentle Art of Blessing. If you're already familiar with the Modern Order of Essenes blessing work, you might not find a ton new here, but if not, this is a pretty ready practice that can be added onto just about any religious approach without too much trouble.

Comments

[thinking_turtle]

Thanks for your blog! The permission question is interesting. How is a conditional blessing better than an unconditional blessing? Flirting is a form of magic, and asking permission before flirting seems impractical. And what is the default? You can't really stop influencing the consciousness of others. It would be like asking for permission to exist. What about the Christian approach, treat others as you would like to be treated yourself? I do not mind a spontaneous blessing or curse.

With regards to anger, I am always surprised to read how you see anger as bad. There can be no delight without anger. Daughters will explore their father's limits and try various approaches and map them unto various levels and types of anger. That seems natural and good, and certainly something that is better learned inside a family than outside it.

It seems to me there is good anger band bad anger and every shade in between. The good type of anger burns brightly towards a positive change. Why would I want to "deprive the transmitters of charge"? I love my anger.

[jprussell]

Well, the idea behind a conditional blessing being better than an unconditional one is that it's up to the other person whether to accept it or not. To go with your example, while you don't ask for permission before you start flirting, the flirting is an offer, and it's understood that it can be rejected. To further your metaphor, I'd say it's the difference between flirting and groping someone by surprise (that's a bit rough as a metaphor, but hopefully it gets the point across).

And yes, it's true that you can't stop influencing the consciousness of others, but when it comes to willfully, intentionally trying to influence the consciousness of others, it makes sense to me to put some ethical rules up around it. I can't help it if a woman walks by me and finds me attractive, but I can help whether I flirt with her, follow her around, stalk her, or whatever, and obviously some of those are better than others, ethically speaking.

As for "the Golden Rule," while I think it's pretty good, I find the "Silver Rule" a better ethical guide: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." There tends to be more agreement on what to avoid than what to do more of. I'll give you a silly example. Say you love fruit, and so you make me a big fruit salad. For some weird reason, I hate fruit. I don't eat it (this is true, not making it up for the example). If you gave me a fruit salad, I would, of course, be thankful and appreciate the gesture, but if you insisted on my eating it right there in front of you, I would now be faced with the unpleasant decision between explaining to you that your thoughtful gesture was actually unwanted, or choking down something that would likely make me gag, and trying to hide that to avoid offending you. So, while I agree that a "properly done" blessing (genuinely wishing well on the other person without too many strings attached about what "well" looks like or how it affects you) ought to be welcome to everyone, it might not be, and I'd rather err on the side of caution. Also, avoiding giving unwanted blessings helps further buffer me from giving "bad" blessings - if I'm not sure if someone would welcome something, that might stop me from giving them a blessing that is somehow not as clean in intention as it ought to be. But reasonable people disagree on this (like John Gilbert and JMG).

As for the anger, well, there's likely a lot wrapped up there, and we'll have to see if continuing the OSA work helps me unpack it. You're right that I generally view anger as "bad," or at least usually as "unhelpful." I don't like feeling angry, and usually when I get angry, eventually, at least a part of me, if not all of me, feels like there was some other way it could have been handled that might have been better. I'm not saying I'm right about this, just that's how I tend to approach it. I also very much dislike other folks being angry with me, and so I likely avoid anger when I can to avoid provoking counter-anger in response. Obviously there are times where anger is appropriate, useful, or even necessary, but the times where I feel like that's definitely the case are few and far between, and far more often I look at a situation and realize I could have achieved what I wanted without anger, if I had been more self-aware, reflective, insightful, or whatever.

For what it's worth, I agree with your example about my daughters, at least in theory: if I try to avoid getting angry with them at all, the inevitable result is that I'll blow up at arbitrary times that don't actually help them map out normal human reactions to their behavior like you're talking about (The Last Psychiatrist has several good blog posts on this). They need to learn that some behaviors are a bit annoying, some are grating, and some are unacceptable, and as you say, learning that within the context of a relationship where the person made angry can explain what happened, fully forgive them, and love them through the whole process is far better than someone without that support. On the other hand, it is also true that I am a normal, fallible human being, and sometimes I get more angry than I should about things, whether due to circumstances (tired, hangry, already upset about something else, whatever), my own hang-ups, or whatever else. I worry that if I tell myself "it's okay, they need to learn what makes folks angry, and better me than someone else," that might become a blank check to not be as reflective or self-regulating as I ought to be.

All of which is to say, I agree that anger is not intrinsically, always "bad," hence my use of scare quotes here and at times in the essay, but much of the time, I perceive it as that way, whether correctly or not, so I can't say, as you do, that I "love my anger."

Anyhow, thank you for your kind words and your thoughts!
Jeff

[thinking_turtle]

Thanks for your reply! You write effortlessly. I appreciate your comments on permission.

To me it seems anger is one of the horses my soul is given to manage. If I mistreat it, by suppressing it, interrupting it or calling it names, it will misbehave. Yet things created with anger seem better than things without. I assumed all followers of Thor enjoy anger and embrace it or even surrender to it, so it your writing about anger remains a surprise.

Looking forward to the next blog!

[jprussell]

Well, thank you again for the kind words! There are some downsides to having a mainly verbal way of thinking, but writing quickly in my native language is one of the perks!

As for your further thoughts on anger, fair enough. I don't suppose I had considered Thor's anger as something to emulate and learn from Him, but now that you say it, it seems pretty obvious. I guess I have too much of the Stoic in me, seeing "unwanted" emotions as something to be reasoned into submission, rather than harnessed and learned from. I'll have to give that one some thought.

And glad to hear it, I'm hoping to have it ready soon!

Jeff