As I mentioned in my newsletter last week, these are challenging times for many people. And the question of whether humanity is moving forward or backward is not necessarily obvious. We have clearly made huge advances in many areas of human experience, but are also facing potentially disastrous outcomes from directions humanity has gone in, and continues to go in.
A couple of people responded to the invitation I gave last week for dialog. And their responses are in the previous blog post. My own perspective on this actually requires far more space than I can use in a newsletter article, and is in fact a major focus of my 12-week “Life is Meant to Work” tele-seminar. And so, in my below article, I’ll give you an overview of some of where I’m coming from, which as always is based on the principle that life is meant to work.
I invite you to participate in further dialog about this or any other topic that seems important to you, by going to my contact form — click here.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Jane Ilene Cohen
Intuitive & Transformational Counselor
(760) 753-0733
The Challenge in Front of Us
An Overview by Jane Ilene Cohen
Up until now, in the human evolutionary process, we have been making progress toward increasingly more consciousness, intelligence, truth and love. And now we are being faced with a shift that is a quantum leap beyond where we have been before. It seems clear to me we are in the midst of a transition period, in which there is increasingly more pressure to make this shift. And eventually the shift is going to just happen, ready or not. For those who have not prepared themselves for it, it will probably be a much rougher transition.
Up until a certain point, humanity’s idea of progress was more or less working, as we hadn’t yet reached a tilting point. But it has been based on some fundamentally false premises. These are that the physical world is the basis of actual reality and is the source of real power, and that the source of our well-being and survival therefore is the physical world and people outside of ourselves. And therefore we believe that they are also the sources of our individual and collective problems. And so this is where we are focusing our efforts for solutions. We have been using our considerable resources to gain increasingly more control of the world around us, and to amass more and more power and resources based on this. Our goal becomes having more and controlling more, as if that will give us what really matters to us. But the result is actually the opposite.
It appears to me that it takes us having pushed this old paradigm to its limits (so that there is nowhere further to go with it), and getting to the point where the disastrous outcomes of doing so are so apparent that we can no longer ignore them — before we are willing to make this shift that feels to us like jumping off of a cliff. It’s giving up the idea that our safety lies in our human control, and instead relying on something we have no control over, based on the recognition of the totally benevolent nature of reality (the Universe, Life….).
It is making the shift into a new survival system, as radically different as shifting from breathing water, to breathing air. Rather than, from within a limited human perspective, relying on controlling the world and people external to ourselves for our safety and well-being — it’s coming into a co-creative relationship with a larger non-physical source, which can only be accessed from inside of each individual soul. It is a recognition that the nature of reality works wonderfully well, when it isn’t distorted by human control.
The bottom line is that none of us is at the mercy of what others of us do or don’t do. We can’t rely on other people to do what is good for them, or for us, or for our ecosystem; and we also can’t force them. Putting our energy and focus in that direction is not moving toward actual solutions, but in the opposite direction. It is standing on the ground that caused the problem in the first place. The basis of greed and corruption is believing the physical is the source, which is inherently a framework of limits, leading to power-struggles or sacrifice.
Where I believe the solutions lie is in each of us moving toward recognizing how we are using our own individual, non-physical power. (By non-physical I mean what motivates or gives life to the physical, such as love, truth, spirit, intelligence, consciousness — or the unhealed, unevolved aspect of it, such as manipulation, lies, fear, avoidance, and so on.) And it takes recognizing where the source of our well-being and survival really comes from, and moving toward a co-creative process with that larger source. This requires letting go of the control.
What is in the way of this is a fundamental power-struggle that humanity is engaged in. And it has to do with us focusing on substitutes for what really matters to us, and building up substitute worlds as a part of this power-struggle. It also keeps us from accessing our real power. (This last paragraph, in particular, is a large subject that I only have just touched on.)
To learn more about the “Life is Meant to Work: Prepare Yourself for a New Reality” 12-week Tele-seminar, click here.
“Do you believe that we, as humanity, are moving forward? Or do you believe we are going backwards. What makes you believe what you believe about this?
As we are approaching 2012 and as we keep getting ecologically more out of whack, and the weather gets more freaky, and as the global economy keeps being on shaky ground, and as unemployment is still high, and as terrorists seem to get increasingly more sophisticated and hard to control — many people believe we are going backwards, and feel increasingly more hopeless. Now is the time to get conscious about how we are feeling about all of this. It is time to take a good look at what this all means and where we are heading.”
Response from Scott Grace: “My answer is we are moving forward, and there is a reaction to progress that is extremely fearful by many who want things to stay in the dark. The more many of us expand, the more some folks contract.
And with the internet and all the ways people exchange information, the darkness and greed that has always been there is getting exposed, reported about, brought to the light. So it only seems that things are getting worse. The truth is, the bad stuff is getting exposed and revealed so it can be healed. We are evolving! Yes there is hope.”
Response from Mark Moran: “It seems the moral decline in my opinion is in the hands of the current media and dishonest politicians. The apathetic consumers that don’t boycott bad books, film, etc. are equally to blame. A positive higher ground is the path to pursue tempered with reason. Are we going backward? I have asked myself that same question over and over… “
Do you believe that we, as humanity, are moving forward? Or do you believe we are going backwards. What makes you believe what you believe about this?
As we are approaching 2012 and as we keep getting ecologically more out of whack, and the weather gets more freaky, and as the global economy keeps being on shaky ground, and as unemployment is still high, and as terrorists seem to get increasingly more sophisticated and hard to control — many people believe we are going backwards, and feel increasingly more hopeless. Now is the time to get conscious about how we are feeling about all of this. It is time to take a good look at what this all means and where we are heading.
Starting in my next newsletter (Wednesday (Sept. 15th) I’ll begin a dialog about this subject. I am inviting you to participate by emailing me what your thoughts are about this, and anything you feel moved to say about it.
As those of you who have been following my work must know by now, the foundation of my work is based on the principle “Life is Meant to Work.” And so from my end I’ll be addressing this subject from what I know because of standing on that ground.
You can respond by commenting on this post, or by sending me in a message on my contact form. Just click here.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
Question is from Jered in Mission Valley (real names are never used)
Jered: Recently I’ve had useful (?) feedback on business projects. This person’s viewpoint is that the glass is always half-empty. It’s a challenge to hear rain on the parade. Yet sometimes this ‘braking’ action leads me to other – less enthusiastic perspectives.
It seems to me this goes back to the core about limited decisions*. Maybe you can comment on how these negative people have a balancing effect?
Jane: I gather that this person is calling to your attention possible pitfalls to the business projects you presented him with, which may cause the projects to fail.
Here are some thoughts, from the perspective that you might have a limiting decision* that is blocking the success of your business projects: Let’s say you have a limiting decision* — for example perhaps something like “No one wants what you really have to offer.” The way it works is, once the limiting decision is made, the unconscious mind becomes invested in proving the limiting decision is true. In other words, people manifest into their lives whatever the limiting decisions are that they have made. In this case, the result might be that the way you conceive of possible business projects causes potential buyers not to be attracted to them.
People often create emotional defense systems for the purpose of buffering the pain of their limiting decisions, or compensating for them. So in this case, perhaps you tend to create an overly rosy picture of your projects to compensate for really believing that no one wants what you have to offer. And this defense system keeps you from functioning in reality.
Then this person that you have described, comes along who doesn’t follow the social norms of being polite and tactful, and being positive about your project — basically coming across to you as being negative — and he’s not giving you the expected feedback you are pushing for that overlooks the reality of what you are actually presenting him with. So this man’s behavior then punctures your emotional defense system, and you feel as though he is “raining on your parade.”
If, instead of having a knee jerk negative response to his input, you can step back and investigate whatever might be true in what he is presenting to you — beyond whatever distortions he might be bringing to the table — then yes, I agree that you can gain some positive and useful insights as a result of this.
* Limiting decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
Below is a response Fellow Healer in New York had to a previous “Ask Jane” Q & A. For the original Ask Jane Q & A with Sally that this response is about, click here.
Fellow Healer in New York: YES.. and integrity means wholeness with self …watching the game may just be more in Integrity for this man, then following a promise he in retrospect will prob. not make again!
Jane: Being in integrity with himself is not about the action Sally’s husband (I’m calling Jake) decides to take one way or the other. It’s the process by which he gets there. People often take a stand on one particular action in order to feel in integrity with themselves, in order to hold some kind of boundary. But they only need to do that if there is an unhealed issue that results, for example, in them tending to give up their needs for the sake of the other person’s needs, if they don’t rigidly take this kind of stand. And so doing it that way is a part of an emotional defense system that ends up causing a separation with the other person in order to feel you can have your own needs met. This is the kind of dynamic that often occurs in relationships in which people believe it’s not possible to both be in integrity with yourself, and also be vulnerably and intimately connected to the other person.
The only way around that is to engage in dialog and be willing to explore your own unhealed issues (limiting decisions*), which requires letting go of control, rather than taking control, and results in transformation.
Jake had agreed to go to the event with Sally. But when he realized there was a crucial football game on TV that was really important to him that conflicted with him going to this event, his knee jerk emotional response was feeling forced to go to the event with Sally or she would probably get really upset. And so he emotionally rebelled by blurting out that he wasn’t going, before he could get his conscious mind around what he was doing. So basically his knee jerk response causes a separation, believing this to be the only way he could get to do what he really wanted to do. This is based on the very common belief that if we stay connected in reality with each other when there appears to be conflicting desires, there won’t be a solution. In other words that it’s not possible for life to work out well for all concerned. So Jake caused a separation because he believed that there inherently was a separation between his desires and Sally’s. It feels far less painful to cause a separation from an invulnerable, defended place, then to feel at the mercy of there inherently being a separation between himself and the person he loves, when he’s coming from a vulnerable place. And that is because if that would turn out to be true, it would be evidence that life doesn’t work.
But the truth is — the only thing that could create this situation not to work out well for all concerned are the limiting decisions* each person brings to the table, that causes each to respond from a defended place, rather than being open to a solution.
As it turned out, after they discussed the situation, a friend of Sally’s came to town and Sally asked her to go with her, which worked out well. What was keeping Sally stuck in having bad feelings toward Jake was a limiting decision* in her.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
From Sally in Solana Beach: My husband agreed to go to an event with me that was important to me. But a few days before the event he realized that an important football game was playing that night, which he hadn’t known about and he blurted out that he wasn’t going to the event because he wanted to stay home and watch the game. I told him that I had thought he was a person of integrity, but because of how he acted I realized that he really isn’t, if he could just blow off his commitment to me like that. He did realize shortly after his response that he hadn’t behaved very well, and suggested we discuss possible solutions. But I am still seeing him as a person without integrity because of how he acted. He obviously didn’t see me as a very high priority. Don’t you think this shows a lack of integrity?
Jane: I’d say, clearly your husband was coming from an emotionally triggered place — at least in his initial response. But it doesn’t mean to me that this shows he is a person basically lacking in integrity.
I think this brings up something important for you to look at in yourself. Leaning on ridged rules, as you seem to be doing, is a way to avoid relating in the moment, where you reveal where you are at, and engage back and forth about what’s really happening, such as “I’m triggered,” “This is how I’m feeling”, “This is really important to me.” If you avoid relating in the moment, you don’t have to be vulnerable, you don’t have to reveal anything, and you don’t have to engage. It’s just, “This is the rule; you follow it or you’re bad.”
And that’s a place that people often fall into in areas in which they have limiting decisions*, because they don’t trust life to work the way it really is. And I’m guessing a significant limiting decision* was triggered in you by this situation, bringing up emotional responses beyond what the situation really called for. For example, the limiting decision* could have to do with you not feeling valued or that there isn’t anyone you can count on. And you’re projecting the pain of the limiting decision* onto your husband, which is why you are being ridged about it, and why you’re drawing a broad generalization about him.
Since — after his initial knee jerk response — your husband was open to discussing this with you to find a solution, it appears to me that he’s not creating an impossibility. But if you take a ridged stand on a judgment about what this means about his character, you have shut the door to a way forward. When you’re really being present — engaging, revealing, and being vulnerable, you don’t need to have ridged rules, because you are interacting in life, and life does work when you’re really participating in it.
So — you recognize that your husband had a dysfunctional response, you look at the limiting decisions being triggered in yourself and in him, and you work through it. A way forward will become clear, when you are really able to be present with each other.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
This question is from Jered in San Diego, CA (Real names are never used.)
Jered: As we all know, the head of BP Oil is being crucified in the press. From my perspective, his personal comments to the public and Congress are the sincere truth. His people are working around the clock to solve the problem. He goes home to the UK for personal family time and to get a few hours of fresh air. Certainly, his mind is preoccupied. Yet no matter what he does or says that is truthful – the public is unsatisfied. How does one handle these situations? It’s as though the truth is insufficient as compared to a carefully postured response.
Jane: We don’t really know the character of Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, or really what responsibility he does or doesn’t hold for what occurred. But I agree that he may very well be saying the sincere truth, but that many people want a scapegoat. They want someone to emotionally pay for their suffering, as if that would make them feel better.
The whole idea of sharing the suffering seems to be very strong in people. If I am suffering, then you ought to be suffering also — or you don’t care, you are selfish, you are a bad person. But this has nothing to do with any real solutions, or any easing of human pain.
This is a triggered kind of emotional response, and not reality-based. Whether Mr. Hayward is outwardly suffering or not, has no actual benefit to anyone who is suffering because of the oil spill. It won’t have any effect on solutions being found any faster, or people getting compensated any faster.
People who are invested in finding scapegoats for their suffering are looking in the wrong direction for any real solutions, and are invested in holding in place vibrations of misery, hatred and pain. As a result, I would guess, this is only one of many sources of misery in their lives, as this is what they would attract.
To answer your question more directly, about how to handle this kind of situation: Rather than the focus being on how other people might respond to us, as if that is the source of our well-being, and trying to cater to them, the real dialog is between oneself and a larger perspective, beyond the limited human scope of things. In other words, specifically in relation to Mr. Hayward, I’m sure there are lessons for him to learn, or he wouldn’t have found himself in this kind of situation in the first place. For example it is possible that he might have an emotional defense system of keeping himself at a distance from getting emotionally or personally involved in general, believing that that will keep him safe. This experience could rock that defense system, and be a huge wake-up call for him. Perhaps if he had been more personally involved, he may have prevented what happened.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
From the “Life is Meant to Work” Teleseminar Course
Life is a living dialog that we are constantly engaged in. Our whole organism is a very fine-tuned, living instrument that has many means for taking in information, and is highly responsive. When we are affected we have a response. And this begins a dialog. Your response is some form of communication, which reveals something about you. And your response then affects the world around you, which then responds to you, revealing something about it, as well as how you affected it, which then reveals more about you. In this process you come in contact with increasingly more about who you are in your own evolving process. It’s like an opening up, like a flower. You may discover aspects of yourself that you don’t like or that need healing, and you may discover more of who you really are, in your magnificence.
The human dynamic of dialog is a major way the human evolutionary process works. We inherently have the potential to evolve, and to evolve quickly, because we so easily get affected and respond. But the human organism is not set up to evolve as quickly as this potential. It has its own timing. The human evolutionary process has been a process of starting with very dense, limited, contracted physical material, and expanding on many different levels to light-filled, clear, expanded consciousness — basically a coming into our own divine presence. In other words, we, as human organisms, are going through an expanding process, that keeps stretching us beyond where we currently are. It is stretching us on a physical, cellular level; on a mental level; on an energetic, vibrational level; on an emotional level; and probably on many more levels than I can think of.
In any area in which they have limiting decisions*, people usually find ways to avoid present moment interaction, and are therefore slowing down their evolutionary process. Among these mechanisms are avoiding truthful, live interactions with each other, through using social codes of behavior, such as what is considered to be polite, how people are expected to act in interactions with each other. For instance we routinely notice things about each other that we don’t talk about, because it would reveal personal truths that there is an unspoken agreement not to talk about.
Another example is the social expectation that if you relate certain ways to people, you can expect certain kinds of responses in return, which puts things in a kind of formula that people can hide behind. For instance, if you start talking to someone about some subject, they would probably feel obliged to listen to you, even if they are finding it not interesting. And that then would allow you to not have to deal with whatever the issue in you is that causes people not to want to listen to you.
There used to be a lot more social rules that people followed than there are today. People are now more routinely relating more honestly with each other. And this allows the evolutionary process to move more quickly.
*Limiting decision: A decision made in early childhood that is some form of that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you — such as “I am powerless,” “bad,” “without value;” or “The world is a dangerous place,” “People can’t be trusted,” and so on.
To listen to the Preview audio for the next “Life is Meant to Work” Tele-seminar, click here.
For the info page with all of the details about the upcoming “Life is Meant to Work” Tele-seminar, click here.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
This question is from Chad in Rancho Santa Fe:
Chad: Let’s say a friend of yours has a limiting decision* that they’re stupid, and you point out something to them that they did that ends up triggering that feeling in them. Then you are suddenly affronted by the fact that the person was triggered, even though you didn’t do anything to them on purpose. So the question is what do you do when someone gets triggered by some innocent remark you made?
Jane: First of all it depends on the particular type of relationship you have with the person, how vulnerable you want to be, how much energy you want to put into it. If this person is someone with whom the relationship really matters, I would say the healthy response would be to reveal to the person how you are responding to him. Relating in general is about revealing whatever is going on inside of you in response to each other. When you get affected, that is the beginning of a dialog, and so then you respond by revealing where you are. You always can participate in a dialog, which is honestly revealing where you are. If you’re triggered and you know it, you can reveal you’re triggered.
Chad: I’d like to have the way to deal with it when it’s happening, like a script.
Jane: Having a script is not the solution. You have to reveal where you are in the moment, which is more of an emotional risk. And since it’s revealing, it’s vulnerable, as opposed to judging or attacking. You might say, for instance, “I feel upset and surprised that you had that response. I didn’t mean what I said to be a criticism. What did it mean to you?” Or you might say, “I feel really triggered by your reaction, as I thought what I said was just a neutral comment. It’s bringing up in me concerns that it’s not safe to say what’s on my mind. Why was this upsetting to you?”
It is leaning on truth to move things forward, versus leaning on mollifying the other person, or manipulating things to calm him down, and not have things get out of hand, and upsetting. And you can do that, and try to calm things down, but it won’t get anywhere. It won’t be a deepening of the relationship. It won’t evolve things forward, because it won’t be bringing anything to truth. And it’s also not respecting the other person. If it’s a relationship that matters to you, then you want to get to truth. And you start with yourself, by revealing the truth of where you are, and trusting the larger medium that you’re both under — which is what I call the larger source, or Intelligence or Truth — to bring a larger perspective beyond the individual experience, and move things forward. If you allow the larger truth to be there, it opens possibilities. It makes things clearer. Whereas you could never figure it out with limited human intelligence to manipulate the situation in order to have this and that work out. But if you put truth in there, then perhaps you or perhaps the other person might see something you never saw before, or maybe something might happen that opens things up. And it might get messy for a while, but if both of you stay in the dialog, then you’ll get to a deeper place of truth.
* Limiting decisions are unconscious decisions made in childhood that are always some form of deciding that life is not meant to work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you, such as: “I’m not valuable,” “I’m powerless,” “the world is a dangerous place.”
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
From Ginger in San Marcos. (I never use people’s real names.)
Ginger: In your newsletter, you brought up self-interest and how people immersed in fundamental, repressive religious dogma, with no legitimate outlet for human desires, may act out inappropriately. I have a dear friend, who recently became very active in a church. I sent her an invitation for a new thought series and received the following preachy email. I would love to hear your perspective on how to best handle this.
“Please do not send me this kind of information. There isn’t anyone or anything that has the power to ‘connect with your soul’ other than Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. The New Age has really gotten a hold of many. And sadly, they are deceived about the truth. I pray you would flee from these sorts of things, and find your true worth and purpose in life is for the ONE who made us. I encourage you (because I care and you are my friend) to read your bible, begin with the book of John. Only there you will hear the truth, the word of God.”
I feel attacked, judged and hurt, although I love her and want the best for her. I am feeling that this friend may have moved into a new vibration that doesn’t support the energy I want around me. It seems a shame to throw this friendship away if some clear communication can resolve it.
Jane: The energy behind your friend’s email seems to be coming from fear and anger — both in relation to what you might be representing to her that has the potential of influencing her, and also coming from limiting decisions in her that are causing her to take such a blind stand on concepts that don’t appear to be something she is really coming into her own experience with. The issue is not the content of what she is saying, but the invulnerable and separating way she is saying it. When a person is taking a ridged stand on concepts around which to orient reality that are based on a fixed source outside of themselves (usually some written document or some central charismatic leader), rather than being grounded in their own experience, there is no way to relate to them about it. Instead there is a separating wall, based on fear.
Fundamentalism is about not trusting your own experience of reality. One of the reasons people gravitate toward fundamentalism is it gives them the sense that if they join it, they can be identified with a powerful authority — in this case the word of God. So a person, for example, that has made the limiting decision that they are powerless, or they can’t trust their perception of reality, or they are inherently bad, could gravitate toward some external symbol of authority and righteousness that can’t be questioned because it is seen as the word of God. And that way they don’t have to deal with their own limiting decisions, and they don’t have to build up their own strength and personal empowerment. But instead they are building up a separation between themselves, reality, and other people. Separation leads to mistrust, and mistrust leads to fear. The unspoken demand is you have to give up your own perception of reality to their control, as an agent of the only source of truth.
There are three choices I see that you have in relation to how to respond to your friend. One is to join her in her separated place, which is inherently against anyone who doesn’t agree with her stance — which clearly is not a choice you wish to make. Another is to be at odds with her. You would only make this choice if you are not secure in your own perception of reality, because you would see her as a threat, which is how she appears to be viewing you. Or, you can relate to her beyond her defenses to where and who she really is, which she may or may not be open to.
It appears to me that your friend is in a major power-struggle to hold her perspective on reality in place. And the question is whether you are going to let that define your reality or not. She is reflecting a fearful, separating, and conflicting perception of reality, in which there is a power-struggle going on. Are you going to step into the fear and separation and power-struggle, where you and your friend are at odds with each other — or are you going to stay in a heart-connected place, and relate from there to who your friend really is?
You may be right that she has stepped out of a vibration you can relate to, but it won’t hurt to practice relating to her from your own defining of reality and see what happens.
I also suggest you upfront acknowledge that you are both coming from perspectives that are different from each other’s, to just make clear where you are. And make an agreement to not try to convince each other of your points-of-view on religion.
