It might seem a little confusing and odd at first, but we are just a simple community of misfits searching for something larger than ourselves.
Feel free to check out the article below, browse through our various menus or contact Stephen Miracle.
 Do you see the world as an opportunity to succeed or as an opportunity to build?
[photo by: Muddy Funkster]
Albert Foong from Urbanmonk.net and I have started emailing each other and discussing different topics in personal growth. We actually started it from the beginning with the intention of placing it on our blogs. We decided to keep the topic simple for the first rounds of conversation and first tackle the relationship between selfishness and sacrifice.
Albert Foong - The Urban Monk
Albert is the creative voice on Urbanmonk.net. He writes deep articles on personal growth. Going beyond the typical “If you follow my advice then you will feel happy”, and diving into the psychological, philosophical and spiritual realities behind issues such as compassion and aloneness.
Its Not About MeÂ
Altnoise can be considered a personal development and inspiration blog, but it has a very different underlying philosophy. It is my belief that in order to grow as individuals we need to focus on improving our world around us.
I am not a living individual in a static world. I am a living individual piece of a living world - much like each of our limbs have living cells, but they cannot survive without the success of the whole.
Love Boils Over From Ourselves
Albert, on the other hand, believes that we should focus on developing ourselves as individuals and then we will come to a point where we naturally help our global community. He wrote it well this way,
.. When you see love, then you have no choice but to share it. So parodoxically, by being loving to yourself and then you boil over, and spread love to others.
My question was how do you know when you have reached the point when you love 
yourself enough that you will naturally start to boil over?
When Do We Stop Focusing On Ourselves?
I have seen many occasions where an individual was so secure and content with themselves, that they naturally helped those in need. On the other hand, we have all seen those individuals whom are so obsessed with themselves (I’ve seen it in churches as well as new age groups) that they could care less about anyone else.
If they do decide to help, it is to build their own ego. How will we know that an individual grows into naturally sacrificing themselves to serve others?
Self-Sacrifice Grows Into Resentment
Albert, also brought up a good point about my perspective. He said,
..With compassion - I’m thinking that if we “force” ourselves to be nice, there might be a part of us that will be upset..
This is very true. We will not always feel great about forcing ourselves to be nice, compassionate, or sacrificing. Nobody wants to go out into the parking lot in the rain to load grocery bags into someones grandma’s car. You just choose to help or not.
In response to a hypothetical situation where an individual has to confront a bully where most people will not desire to be nice to him, Albert gave an alternative perspective.
So what if we have enough self-love, we heal these shames and wounds [the things that the bully picks on us about]. And then, when someone comes up and hurts us, then we will see it is a reflection on them and not us. We will then have enough compassion to be nice to them in return?
I found this to be enlightening. Naturally, we do not want to be nice to a bully. Beyond the idea of helping grandma load her car with grocery bags or driving 30 miles to a recycling center, the thought of being nice to someone who has hurt us without reason makes us cringe. We are taught to love our enemies, but we will usually secretly resent ourselves for it.
The Problem
 If we continuously only focus on improving everyone else, we will reach a level of resentment where we will stop being nice, polite, and compassionate - the basics of improving the world.
On the other hand, if we focus on becoming more confident in ourselves, we will not resent the world when we help each other out.Â
The Balance
    
In the end, the answer to the question might not be choosing one area The Self or Others to focus on for personal and community growth. Instead, we need to find a balance of focusing our efforts on developing our selves and others.
A Living Analogy
Bringing it back to the human body, our necks cannot survive without our entire selves and we cannot naturally survive without a strong neck. If we neglect the muscles in our neck and put our entire efforts on training the rest of the muscles in our body. We will have a higher risk of snapping our necks. On the other hand, if we focus on working out the muscles in our neck and neglect the rest of our bodies, those neck muscles would be useless. You would be paralyzed, obese and dumb.
Its Not About Me… Its About Us
The famous phrase “Its not about me” is true. It isn’t entirely about our individual selves, but the world and everything that exists. We, as individuals, are part of that existence. So a part of it is about you.Â
The phrase should say, “Its not about me, but about us.”
Popularity: 37% [?]
- « Remember These 6 Things And Never Worry About Donating To Charity(Previous Article)
- The Urban Monk Comments Back »(Next Article)
Did you enjoy this article?
Click Here To Get Free And Instant Altnoise Updates Sent To You.
Voice Your Opinion
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
[...] Stephen Miracle was the man who contacted me; he’s an intelligent blogger, and he has a huge heart. He runs AltNoise.Net – an inspirational blog with a Christian focus. Amongst other things, Stephen is also a church consultant and public speaker. And as he describes in his biography, Miracle really is his name. (Now I’m feeling a bit insecure about how plain and boring my name is, so I’m changing it. Please refer to me as Gorgeous Foong from now on.) You can find his contribution to the discussion at The Secret to True Personal Development. [...]
The problem is the premise that you are an “individual” amidst other individuals. Of course, this is what our senses tell us and we do strongly believe in our senses. However:
Jesus asked that “they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us…I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one” (John 17.11 & 21-23).
It stands to reason that if you are “one” with the world, you are no longer an individual but you are the world and, as Jesus alludes to, you are God. But the “individual” mind resists this with all its might and it is this resistance that results in suffering.
Therefore, it is about me, simply because I am you and we are us. Only when I can get my mind to wrap around that basic concept, will my love of self embrace, uphold and change the world simply because the world is me.
This is the perfection that Jesus proclaims awaits us when we become One Mind.
So I have to respectively disagree. It is about me, and you, and the Kingdom of Heaven within each of us. When each one of us goes ‘there’ the world will unfold from that ‘place’ so “that they may be made perfect in one”
Just my humble opinion.
Mike S
Mike,
thank you for commenting on my blog. I actually have been keeping up to date with yours for awhile. Of course, I have some strong opinions about it. But I do like that you are bringing up things in a new way that is attracting attention.
I am somewhat confused about your comment though and think that you have missed my point. It is an inductive type of logic where the premise is negated by the conclusion.
I did conclude that it is about all of us: God, others and me.
I also do not agree with and am very worried about how you are using Bible verses to prove your point.
The verses you have chosen to use are from different paragraphs and points in the chapter. He is not talking about how we: God and us are all of one essence. He isn’t even talking metaphysical babble.
The chapter is about a relational unity. He is asking us to become so closely unified and serving as He is with God the Father. If we are completely together in love and compassion with one another, then Jesus believes that it shows the true nature of God.
It is nothing about a philosophy on existence. It is deeper, more real and more practical.
I encourage you to keep verses in context, because vs. 21-23, while related, are not making the same point as vs 11.
Clearly, discussion disputing verse’s is beside the point (although I disagree and they all point to our “one essence” and that is the atonement). However, our interpretation of the words versed is very much the point and your inductive conclusion that “it is about all of us” is given even greater clarity when you explain your foundation as conforming to the biblical context of “relational unity.”
My point is that there is nothing wrong with “relational unity” and extending oneself to the world through loving acts. It would be great if the world could be changed in that way.
However, the world has not changed in anyway through centuries of such “relational unity” and to continue to use this belief as a starting point will continue to change what it always has - nothing.
Mans inhumanity to man is unabated and suffering continues seemingly on ad infinitum.
In addition, you further reveal your adherence to the written word, (words which haven’t helped the world much either), by defining any attempt to go beyond the “word” as “metaphysical babble.”
Sadly, it is this dogged adherence to “the word” that keeps us stuck. If “metaphysical” means going beyond the “words” then I disagree that it is “babble.”
Contrary to your encouragement, I do intend to take the verses out of “context” as my belief is that the traditionally presumed “context” of what Jesus teaches is exactly why the teachings are misinterpreted. Maybe going outside the conventional context of Biblical dogma will result in the radical change needed for the world to finally experience peace.
Nevertheless, I comment in the good natured spirit of disagreement. I, too, have visited your site often and found many nuggets of truth available.
keep up the good work(s),
Mike S
Mike,
Thanks for replying back. I was hoping we could have a good conversation, and maybe we could have a private email conversation about your blog. I have a few questions.
I want to make several points and I’ll number them in response to yours.
1.
you say, “discussion disputing verse’s is beside the point ”
I’m not a Bible pusher, but I do have to make it a point to clarify the meaning behind a biblical passage. Especially one from the gospels.
Your perception that Jesus is saying that we are God is misguided. This verse was the basis of your comment and I think it is vitally important to make sure we have a good understanding of what he meant.
2.However, the world has not changed in anyway through centuries of such “relational unity†and to continue to use this belief as a starting point will continue to change what it always has - nothing.
I disagree. We must have different views of the world and what equals change.
One changed individual = one changed world. Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, and Lao Tze all changed millions of individuals. These are all individuals who changed the world through some concept of relational unity.
I have become the person I am almost entirely through a relational unity to certain other individuals.
If you want a perfectly changed world in its entirety, then I think all efforts would be futile. This is not what we should be striving for. We need to be changing our world. The individuals and environment whom we can influence. This is world changing.
3.Sadly, it is this dogged adherence to “the word†that keeps us stuck. If “metaphysical†means going beyond the “words†then I disagree that it is “babble.â€
I agree that metaphysical talk is not babble and that it is difficult to use and get beyond words. I didn’t even want to write metaphysical, but couldn’t think of the correct word I was looking for.
On the other hand, there are limits to the usefulness of talking about questions that are beyond words.
i.e. Talking about what is heaven and who gets into the afterlife is pointless. These are things that cannot be answered.
Talking about living in a way that is improving the world through a God that is understood from Christ can be answered and has meaning behind it.
I disagree that we are not God and one as God literally, but our conversation would get to a point where it is useless.
4.Contrary to your encouragement, I do intend to take the verses out of “context†as my belief is that the traditionally presumed “context†of what Jesus teaches is exactly why the teachings are misinterpreted.
This is my out of context statement that I gathered from your comment.
the world has not changed in anyway through centuries of such..defining any attempt to go beyond the “word†as “metaphysical babble.â€
Contrary to your encouragement, I do intend to take the verses out of “context†as .. what Jesus teaches is exactly why the teachings are misinterpreted.
—
I think the text should be read just as any other writing: book, comment or email should be read. It needs to stay in context of the words before and after it.
If you purposefully, just grab random words then there is not point of citing that individual as authority. You are only creating new sentences and thoughts.
let me know if it will be allright to email you.
Stephen,
The problem is your making sure we have a “good understanding of what He meant,” will always collide with my “good” understanding of what he meant, (however, it is true that centuries of Christian doctrine back you up, so in the end the belief with the most power wins, at least that’s how the ‘world’ works - just look at the Bush doctrine).
And yes, as radical as it sounds, I do believe that having a perfectly changed world in its entirety is not futile and I do believe we can strive for such.
I would equally contend that your perception that Jesus is NOT saying we are God is misguided. Thus I believe we may never attain an understanding.
In addition, I would respectfully qualify your self-descriptive with “[I believe]I have become the person I am almost entirely through a relational unity to certain other individuals.”
However, I do agree 100% with your statement “there are limits to the usefulness of talking about questions that are beyond words.” We are essentially experiencing this now.
Yet, though we both know this, there is a joy in the talking and I would be honored to participate in an email discussion.
With respect,
Mike S
[...] is a continuation in a blog conversation with Albert Foong from [...]