- from an interview with Caroline Myss, at 7.20 What on earth are you doing hugging a tree?! This is your idea of a spiritual experience?! Hugging a tree? Is this what you have been reduced to? ... And I'll tell you why they do that: because there are no true consequences of a mature kind in the interior life when you hug a tree. You get to control what you call your "relationship to God" if you hug a tree. It is an expression of a desperation to touch the sacred with absolutely no consequences as a result. "Tree-hugger spirituality" isn't just the practice of hugging trees, but refers to the kind of anything-goes spirituality that is very common. What do you think about Myss' stance on it? Do you think she is being too harsh?
Power poles need love too. I hugged one the other day, just to reassure it that trees aren't getting all the attention.
She's a crank anyway. She claims to have cured a person of AIDS through spiritual healing within six weeks time. The healing program included: "adopting a healthy, near vegetarian lifestyle, doing aerobic exercise, quitting smoking, using caster-oil packs across his abdomen for forty-five minutes a day, and psychotherapy, to help him liberate himself from his secrecy of being gay." http://www.amazon.ca/Anatomy-Spirit-Seven-Stages-Healing/dp/0609800140#reader_0609800140 (enter "HIV" in the search box)
Because I said so! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Too harsh? Because merely hugging trees isn't, so far as I know, the sole practice of "tree huggers". It's a ridiculous as claiming that Catholicism (for example) is nothing more than accepting wine and a biscuit from a priest. Hypocrite? Because anyone who claims that they personally can "find the cause of a physical or emotional condition" through intuition or clairvoyant/ psychic means is hardly rational. Therfeore name-calling of others, who hold a different belief, is not particularly smart.
I was referring to the view of hers I quoted in the OP, not specifically to her and the other things she says and does - One thing that I find to be quite common both in organized religion as well as and esp. in the more freestyle kinds of spirituality is that people themselves decide what they are going to consider "spiritual" - and this especially in situations that involve an Other (such as God or other people). By doing so, they get to control what they call their "relationship to God" or "relationship other people", unilaterally imposing their standards as absolute, while not actually allowing that Other to be present in the relationship.
Not sure I understand what you mean: to me she's implying (that she thinks) that simply hugging a tree is the sole "spiritual experience" of "tree huggers". But... with regard to "unilaterally imposing their standards as absolute, while not actually allowing that Other to be present in the relationship" I'd agree. We have a number of theists here on Sci who seem to take the view that "that's not something MY god would do".
She could mean that; I took her to mean a particular kind of "spiritual experience." Yes, and not only that: there are people whom claim to be "spiritual" - and yet one feels profoundlylonely around them, or feels like one doesn't exist. As if it is all about them, them, them.
She is great at setting up metaphors and classifications, but I think the true picture is far more complex. The spiritual revolution of the 60s and 70s did bring eastern thought into the mainstream. Maybe some people did treat introspection as narcissism, but hey, not everyone is going to get it. She describes spiritual practices in terms of sociological or even marketing trends. The real action is happening where no one can see. It certainly isn't happening on Oprah.
i don't know about this. a "gut feeling" is not always irrational and can indeed send you down the right track. of course we can get into the whole "subtle clues" bit i guess. edit: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/social-design/201108/reasoning-is-more-intuitive-we-think
Why not hug a tree. The tree hugger wasn't hugging for Caroline (twat knackers) Myss's benefit. If you want to take a tree fetish to the extreme then I say do it in your own garden. But surely hugging in public is fine?
My "power pole" hasn't had any love in a long long time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't know. I don't really care either. People are welcomed to believe in and do whatever they want so long as it doesn't harm other living beings. I don't see any harm in her beliefs.
Who is she addressing? What does "hugging a tree" mean? I suspect that it's a reference to the currently trendy "deep ecology" idea, but I'm guessing. Some people do experience some kind of spiritual kinship with nature. It's what motivates a lot of pantheism. Ms Myss is apparently ridiculing that, but I don't understand why it deserves ridicule. She believes that finding spiritual significance in nature is an attempt to escape from mature responsibility? That's overly dismissive. I don't like her use of pop psychology to suggest that those who don't share her particular taste in spirituality are driven by pathological motives. People would have just as much control over their relationship with a super-person in the sky, if the heavenly personal deity is just a creature of their imagination. And if there truly is some spiritual power at large in nature, then who is to say that the nature mystic controls it?
I guess I see things differently, because I already hold a stance somewhat similar to hers. That is, I believe that there is a hierarchy in spiritual expressions, and that the personal ones are higher than the impersonal ones. In this sense, relationships with trees (or rocks, or animals) are lesser than relationships with fellow humans; it is only in relationships with those who are our equals or higher than us that our own actions can really be meaningful for us. I have to admit though that both Myss and myself sometimes lack the empathy that should otherwise be a consequence of our positions. (I myself have a thing for making light of impersonalist yogis and "spiritual universalists.") I do believe that egalitarianism sooner or later turns into nihilism, and that thus, egalitarianism is not a viable option. I do believe that everyone who is holding any kind of non-egalitarian stance, also operates with a range of notions of what is "heatlhy" and what isn't. I addressed this earlier - One thing that I find to be quite common both in organized religion as well as and esp. in the more freestyle kinds of spirituality is that people themselves decide what they are going to consider "spiritual" - and this especially in situations that involve an Other (such as God or other people). By doing so, they get to control what they call their "relationship to God" or "relationship other people", unilaterally imposing their standards as absolute, while not actually allowing that Other to be present in the relationship.
