The Discoveries
Openness and Honesty
By the early 90s the Fellowship had recognised there was some sort of link between the notion of 'growing true and straight', the state of 'openness and honesty', and good health or well-being. But though some of the connections had been made we still hadn't then ordered all of the facts.
We already knew that inner states of being possess the potential for affecting physical health. Indeed, the phenomenon is widely recognised. The psychologist Christina Grof, as one among many, described it in her book 'The Thirst for Wholeness', and back in 1954 the psychiatrist W.R.D.Fairbairn had observed:
Thus, what came to the Fellowship as insights resulting from Magical exercises and mystical experiences is firmly grounded in psychotherapeutic fact. The mechanics of how physical conditions may be triggered by non-physical states of being had actually been identified for some time.
Then there is the whole area of aberrant behaviour patterns (mental illness) caused by, in essence, various forms of 'repression'.
The corollary is that our physical state of being can be a reflection
of what is going on deep inside, at a non-physical level, and
probably over a long period.
That is to say, temporary fluctuations in mood may not necessarily
exert a major influence on 'the shape we show the world'. But
the way we deal with things, the way we perceive them in our mind
as a mental habit (i.e., our predominant inner state of being),
does act as a major influence, and can modify our physical
state of health.
Now there are some who aren't happy with this sort of approach.
Having identified the physical mechanics of the process, their
argument rests on the assumption that inner states of being are
only the result of physical causes. Superficially, the evidence
can be interpreted as supporting this point of view, for many
inner states can be induced artificially, by the application of
physical means.
However, such is faulty reasoning. To observe that an effect can
be achieved by particular means does not prove that those means
must have been employed whenever a similar effect is observed.
For example, a state of euphoria can be induced by the ingestion
of certain chemicals, or even by the application of an electric
current to a specific part of one's brain. However, a similar
state of euphoria can also be induced by a mental act alone.
That is to say, certain trains of thought, or ways of thinking,
can trigger the release of chemicals within one's body that will
create the desired state (i.e., the subjective experience of the
effect of those chemicals within the organism).
It was the identification of this process that led to the fallacy
that all mental/emotional states have their cause in physical
origins; the mechanics of the process were confused with the cause
of the process, a different ball-game entirely.
That it can be a two-way process does not affect, or is even relevant
to, the notion of the non-physical realm as 'first cause' in many
instances. (Incidentally, the broader view throws doubt on the
wisdom of using chemical or electrical therapy in the treatment
of mental disorders; such procedures may not address the real
causes at all and, in the long term, may actually be counter-productive.)
Having established that many deviant physical conditions can be traced to mental/emotional 'stress' or 'tension' in one form or another, the next inevitable question must be 'What causes these states of stress and tension?'
Almost invariably they seem to be provoked by 'external' things
or our perception of external things, be those things events,
memories of past events, people, goals, or whatever. Frequently,
it can be our perception that is the cause of the stress or tension,
rather than the things in themselves.
Such misperceptions often result from an inability, or a refusal,
to confront the real issues involved, which are usually facets
of our inner being that we are also refusing to confront.
Confronting that which we have hitherto denied can change the
perception, and a changed perception (one not based on a false
premise) may remove the stress or tension. Removing the stress
or tension must have a beneficial effect on our health.
(Interestingly, the things about ourselves that we refuse to confront are often things (thoughts, feelings, past actions) that in some way we believe to be reprehensible, causing of shame, etc. Or that we believe, if revealed, would betray something about us we'd sooner not have known. Something we would perceive as a weakness maybe, or something that detracts from the self-image we have constructed. The meaning here of 'openness and honesty', as applied to oneself, becomes crystal clear.)
It has also been discovered that, in practising 'openness and honesty', one feels 'good'. Not good in a moral sense particularly, but physically; more energetic, more positive; refreshed almost, as though having taken a tonic. By careful reflection and observation it can be discovered that being in a state that is not 'open and honest' generates a sort of abiding 'background' stress, so subtle that it may often exist almost unnoticed.
However, the practise of 'openness and honesty' is more far-reaching
than, say, a simple resolution to be 'truthful' (with which it
is often confused).
Its practise is a two-edged sword. Applying it within oneself
necessarily begets its application in our relations with others
(and vice versa, i.e., practising it with other people
encourages its practice on oneself). One is suddenly confronted
with other considerations and choices.
For example, 'openness and honesty' cannot be conditional, or selective.
We cannot say that we will only be 'open and honest' toward
those who reciprocate, or that we will choose with whom we exercise
such an attitude.
(We cannot live another's life for them, nor tell them how to
live, which is the implication of that choice. But we do
have a responsibility to live our life in the right way, regardless
of what other people do, or even how they treat us. Our living
in the right way should not be dependent upon what another does.
In the context of relating to others, we must show ourselves in
those relationships as we truly are, 'openly and honestly';
how else can others relate to us if they don't know who, or
what, we really are? If our 'openness and honesty' is not
reciprocated, then we can choose either to persist in, or to sever
the relationship; but we can never justify ceasing to be
'open and honest', for such would discredit any attempt that we
might have made. It would mean that, from the start, we had imposed
a qualification upon the extent of our efforts, and that is dishonest.
There can be no shades of grey in 'openness and honesty'.)
Thus, such determinations (choosing with whom to be 'open and
honest') would, in themselves, be dishonest. Moreover, especially
where we might be tempted to look for reciprocity, they are an
evasion of self-responsibility (itself an act of dishonesty).
Lack of 'openness and honesty' between people is indicative of
a desire to create a false image or impression, that the behaviour
of the other may be influenced thereby. When consciously perpetrated,
it is manipulative and deceitful, and betrays a lack of respect.
(Considerations such as this link 'openness and honesty' to that
requirement we advocate as a prerequisite
to social interactions - treating other people in the way that
we would, ourselves, want to be treated.)
When unconsciously perpetrated, it suggests a lack of self-knowledge
on the part of the perpetrator, itself pointing to a lack of honest
introspection.
So, it can be seen that 'openness and honesty', as applied to oneself,
creates an inner state of being conducive to good health. It can
also be seen that, when brought to a relationship, 'openness and
honesty' dispels suspicion, distrust, evasiveness, playacting,
manipulation, the contest for dominance, etc. That is to say,
most of the things that are common causes of stress in relationships,
and hence in the individual.
Removal of stress, as has been established, promotes good health;
therefore, it must be a part of the 'right way to be'.
Thus, if 'growing true and straight' is synonymous with the healthy
way, the right way, the only right way, then 'openness and honesty'
must be an essential quality in the pursuit of that way.
Adapted from Chapter 3 of Volume
3 of the 'History of the Fellowship
of the Dragon'
Copyright © 2001 fotd-publishing.org.uk
