"If you had to deal with what I've had to deal with, you'd realize that what you're going through is nothing."

Statements like this have always infuriated me -- not just because of their condescension and arrogance, not just because they are callous and invalidating, but because they are completely illogical. Suffering is a condition of emotion, and emotion is not quantifiable and not the same from person to person. Even if the situation is exactly the same, it will affect people in different ways; personality and experience affects the resultant emotion just as much as the situation itself.

For my current self, having my looks insulted by a stranger ( would be cause for... )

And that may be a fanciful example, but the same is true for all pain. For one person the death of a parent is devastating; for another, it's just another day. For one person the death of a pet fish is just a fact of life; for another, it is cause for deep sorrow. Thus you cannot say that the death of a parent is more painful than the death of a pet fish, because suffering is more about personality and experience than it is about the situation itself.

I am convinced that the only meaningful way to measure suffering is by how much it affects a person, and the only meaningful reason to measure suffering is to learn how much support that person needs in that situation.

LJ idol topic 2: "Uphill, Both Ways, Barefoot"

"If you had to deal with what I've had to deal with, you'd realize that what you're going through is nothing."

Statements like this have always infuriated me -- not just because of their condescension and arrogance, not just because they are callous and invalidating, but because they are completely illogical. Suffering is a condition of emotion, and emotion is not quantifiable and not the same from person to person. Even if the situation is exactly the same, it will affect people in different ways; personality and experience affects the resultant emotion just as much as the situation itself.

For my current self, having my looks insulted by a stranger ( would be cause for... )

And that may be a fanciful example, but the same is true for all pain. For one person the death of a parent is devastating; for another, it's just another day. For one person the death of a pet fish is just a fact of life; for another, it is cause for deep sorrow. Thus you cannot say that the death of a parent is more painful than the death of a pet fish, because suffering is more about personality and experience than it is about the situation itself.

I am convinced that the only meaningful way to measure suffering is by how much it affects a person, and the only meaningful reason to measure suffering is to learn how much support that person needs in that situation.

LJ idol topic 2: "Uphill, Both Ways, Barefoot"

When we were out last Saturday, Kat K suggested I might be an "Indigo" after I spoke about something intuitive/precognitive (can't remember what it was now). I responded by saying that I believe everyone has intuition, and both Ash and Kat K disagreed. I've been thinking about it since then.

I absolutely DO NOT believe in "indigo" "crystal" "rainbow" or super-psychic children, or more accurately, I don't believe those things are inborn traits of certain special people, but that they are traits which ALL human beings have the potential for. Most people simply refuse to believe in or develop them -- despite experiencing aspects such as déjà vu (sometimes that's just remembering a similar situation, but sometimes it is remembering an important aspect of your life purpose, which I believe you knew before birth), precognitive dreams, a 'bad feeling' or a 'good feeling' or an urge to contact someone or knowing who is calling before you look at the phone or other things that are not considered aspects of intuition/psychic ability even though they are. The only children who are not "indigo" or "crystal" are those who have already been stamped into hiding those qualities -- through parents or peers who repress them. No child is born without these gifts, and no adult lacks the ability to draw them out and develop them. ( the traits are not appearing for the first time; they are being recognized and appreciated for the first time )

I am wholeheartedly and fiercely equalist in spiritual matters as in everything else. Every single person is just as gifted as everyone else. I think believing in special gifts for a select group is elitist and serves to cause those who believe themselves to be 'gifted' to be lazy, as they feel they were born with their gifts and don't need to develop themselves, and it causes those who don't believe themselves to be 'gifted' to feel helpless and not bother to develop themselves because they think it has no point. Believing that traits are inborn rather than self-created causes people to stagnate.

I do understand the draw of the concept -- it is wonderful to feel part of a group, especially part of a group that is better than everyone else. But like all exclusionary groups, it divides more than it draws together. Instead of feeling a kinship with the whole world, a person who believes themselves to be "Indigo" feels a kinship with other "Indigos" and feels no kinship or a lesser kinship with the rest of humankind (or sees them as 'less evolved' and in need of guidance by the more-evolved "Indigos"). It's natural to be more drawn to people who are like you -- but deciding this on a group basis rather than an individual basis is discriminatory.

When we were out last Saturday, Kat K suggested I might be an "Indigo" after I spoke about something intuitive/precognitive (can't remember what it was now). I responded by saying that I believe everyone has intuition, and both Ash and Kat K disagreed. I've been thinking about it since then.

I absolutely DO NOT believe in "indigo" "crystal" "rainbow" or super-psychic children, or more accurately, I don't believe those things are inborn traits of certain special people, but that they are traits which ALL human beings have the potential for. Most people simply refuse to believe in or develop them -- despite experiencing aspects such as déjà vu (sometimes that's just remembering a similar situation, but sometimes it is remembering an important aspect of your life purpose, which I believe you knew before birth), precognitive dreams, a 'bad feeling' or a 'good feeling' or an urge to contact someone or knowing who is calling before you look at the phone or other things that are not considered aspects of intuition/psychic ability even though they are. The only children who are not "indigo" or "crystal" are those who have already been stamped into hiding those qualities -- through parents or peers who repress them. No child is born without these gifts, and no adult lacks the ability to draw them out and develop them. ( the traits are not appearing for the first time; they are being recognized and appreciated for the first time )

I am wholeheartedly and fiercely equalist in spiritual matters as in everything else. Every single person is just as gifted as everyone else. I think believing in special gifts for a select group is elitist and serves to cause those who believe themselves to be 'gifted' to be lazy, as they feel they were born with their gifts and don't need to develop themselves, and it causes those who don't believe themselves to be 'gifted' to feel helpless and not bother to develop themselves because they think it has no point. Believing that traits are inborn rather than self-created causes people to stagnate.

I do understand the draw of the concept -- it is wonderful to feel part of a group, especially part of a group that is better than everyone else. But like all exclusionary groups, it divides more than it draws together. Instead of feeling a kinship with the whole world, a person who believes themselves to be "Indigo" feels a kinship with other "Indigos" and feels no kinship or a lesser kinship with the rest of humankind (or sees them as 'less evolved' and in need of guidance by the more-evolved "Indigos"). It's natural to be more drawn to people who are like you -- but deciding this on a group basis rather than an individual basis is discriminatory.