On Prickles and Goo

by Christopher Lovejoy on June 5, 2016

No treatment of ultimate fulfillment is complete without addressing the complexity of being human.

Whether you view your experience of reality as fundamentally objective (prickly), subjective (gooey), or somewhere in between (prickly goo or gooey prickles), the complexity of being human lies at the heart of any treatment of ultimate fulfillment that would have us be ultimately fulfilled.

I propose that we awaken to and through
the cosmic mind, heart, soul, and spirit of God
to navigate through the prickles and goo.

In my view, no separation exists between Source consciousness and the consciousness that is required to follow what I am saying here. By implication, there is no need to return to Source after we pass into the Great Beyond as we are always and already plugged into Source, just so long as we remain alive, awake, aware, and alert to the comings and goings of people, places, and things that define our daily lives.

The promise and power of Source consciousness makes possible the rise of a collective consciousness, from which individual explorations and expressions of consciousness can be defined and refined as separate and unique to each and every individual soul and spirit.

If the world is a mirror for collective consciousness, then a world is a mirror for individual consciousness. Keep this distinction in mind as we entertain the play of prickles and goo.

Here, Alan Watts offers a brief tasting of prickles and goo:

His point that some personalities are prickly and some gooey is well taken, but let us go further.

amiable am iAfter completing this personality quiz, I pretty much confirmed what I already knew, namely, that my preferred personality style is amiable (9), which also includes a strong helping of the expressive (6), with equal but lesser helpings of analytical and driven (3 each). It seems that I have a gooey personality (amiable and expressive, 15 in total) with a fair number of prickles (analytical and driven, 6 in total) surrounded by goo.

On the assumption that much if not most of the meaning that we experience in life is based on our interactions with each other’s prickles and goo, and based on the fact that we cannot really understand those who are being difficult without viewing the world through their eyes, doing unto them what they need done for them, I invite you to consider what each type needs before I delve into navigating the prickles and goo.

Analyticals need hard core data – “just the facts, ma’am, just the facts” – with lots of prickles (numbers and details) to back up their claims. What they don’t need are emotional dramas and appeals. Usually introverted, they appreciate having lots of “how-to” books and reports on hand.

Drivers (“it’s my way or the highway”), being the prickly cousins of analyticals, need to know two things: (1) how can you save me time? and (2) what is the fastest way for you to help me get what I need? What they don’t need: anything that makes them think they’re losing control.

Expressives are effusive: they love to inspire others and they show their emotions easily and readily. Obviously, they enjoy socials (the more the better, with the question who? being uppermost in their minds) and so, they need lots of gooey strokes as they fear rejection the most.

Amiables do not like disagreements. With why? as their usual question of choice, they value the opinions of others and thrive on cultivating lasting relationships with opportunities to give heartfelt attention and support. In conflict situations, they welcome lots of gooey reassurance.

By themselves, facts and details are neutral, but they can quickly get prickly when they rub us the wrong way. Feelings and desires, on the other hand, are gooey by nature – wonderfully positive in harmonious encounters, not so positive when they get pricked by hard core data.

In light of these descriptions, let us now return to the subject of tyranny, which I broached in a recent post. To make things interesting, let us ponder the following question with tongue firmly in cheek:

Does having big ears mean …

(a) “you need to listen more (and/or better)”, or
(b) “you have a clue to what you are here to do”

Incarnationally speaking, having big ears could very well be a form of karmic alleviation for past life incidents where you got in trouble for not listening long enough or well enough, or it could be a vital clue to having you better appreciate the meaning of your dharmic contribution.

I grew up being teased on occasion for having big ears (no, they’re not that big) – I even suffered the indignity of being called Dumbo when I was a boy in grade school – and so, let us proceed to milk this example for all its worth in view of all the lovely little Caesars and Cleopatras in this world …

Amiables Gone Dark: the Tyranny of Positivity

The tyranny of positivity? Now this sounds rather odd.

Suppose I meet up with a group of amiables and I pose the question above about the meaning of having big ears. At first, they all agree that “you have a clue to what you are here to do”. In light of all of this gooey agreement, I wonder aloud to my fellow amiables whether my dharma is best suited to being an advisor, a consultant, a counselor, or a therapist. By way of response, they express surprise or bewilderment that I have not already chosen one of these roles for myself, and begin wondering whether I need to listen more (or better). As the discussion moves forward, the emerging consensus is that “you need to listen more”; it no longer matters to them that “you have a clue to what you are here to do”. The emphasis of discussion shifts to “what can we say to help this poor man realize that he needs to listen more (and more effectively)?”

Drivers Gone Dark: the Tyranny of Negativity

The negativity of drivers is what most think about when the subject of tyranny comes up for discussion.

Suppose I meet up with a group of drivers and I pose the same question about the meaning of having big ears. If, after talking to me about what I like to do in my spare time and what I do for a living, they are willing to entertain (rather bemusedly) the assumptions that having big ears means “you need to listen more” or that having big ears means “you have a clue to what you are here to do”, some of them surmise that “you have a clue to what you are here to do” and then I am suddenly besieged with suggestions on how to make the best use of my time to quickly and efficiently realize the goal of being the most effective listener possible, in whatever role I care to choose. If, however, some of them begin to suppose “you need to listen more (and more effectively)”, I am suddenly bombarded with questions on what I am doing now to improve my listening skill along with reports of techniques that they use to listen most effectively. In both cases, if I had dared to presume to question any suggestion offered or to counter any question posed, I am set straight in no uncertain terms that I am getting the very best advice possible, regardless of whether said advice applies to my particular course in life.

Analyticals Gone Dark: the Tyranny of Neutrality

The tyranny of neutrality arises when feelings get crushed under the weight of facts and details.

Suppose I meet up with a group of analyticals and I pose the question about the meaning of having big ears. Some of them question the very assumptions made that having big ears means “you need to listen more (or better)” or that having big ears means “you have a clue to what you here to do”, asking “where is the evidence that having big ears means ‘you need to listen more (or better)’? “Where is the evidence that having big ears means ‘you have a clue to what you are here to do’?” On the other hand, some of them are willing to entertain the assumptions, paving the way for them to pose question after question about whether I think I need to listen more (or more effectively) in my daily life and whether I think I need a clue as to what I am here in this world to do with my life. These prickly questions become so disagreeable to me (as they are so bereft of feeling) that I am compelled to excuse myself and take my leave.

Expressives Gone Dark: the Tyranny of Chaos

The tyranny of chaos is a tyranny by turns positive, negative, and neutral.

Suppose I meet up with a group of expressives and I pose the question about the meaning of having big ears. Most of them are rather charmed by this question. Some are inclined to test me good-naturedly by compelling me to listen to a barrage of effusiveness on topics somewhat related, remotely related, or not at all related to the subject matter of having big ears; if I pass their test, I am told in no uncertain terms that I have a clue to what I am here to do, whereupon they offer me contacts in their network to pursue my interest further. If I fail the test, I am told (rather somberly) that I need to listen more (or more effectively). Others are inclined to draw me out, engaging me in such a way as to cause me to be more expressive than I usually care to be about what I feel I need and want in life and love, and then responding positively, negatively, or neutrally, as they see fit. Caught up in the intensity of these exchanges, I am left with the feeling that no answer to the question posed is even desirable, let alone possible. I am oppressed by the feeling that there is too much goo being stretched in too many directions.

How I Feel About Having Big Ears

For ease of reference, here again is the question: does having big ears mean … (a) “you need to listen more (and/or better)”, or does it mean (b) “you have a clue to what you are here to do”.

dumboThe above scenarios are fictional in nature, but it would be an interesting experiment to attend an actual gathering with the intention of posing this question to a mix of amiables, drivers, analyticals, and expressives, and then welcome the tyrant in each one of them. It is obvious to me now that the more quickly I can identify personality type and the more easily I can articulate a response to the question posed above, the more effectively I’d be able to provoke (and welcome) the tyrant within with grace and ease (and perhaps some charm). I could provoke responses about cases in the reincarnation literature of people whose bodies and souls have been scarred by violent encounters in previous lives or I could provoke responses about cases in the lives-between-lives literature of people who made agreements before they were born to adopt certain characteristics (like big ears) as reminders to learn certain lessons or as objects of ridicule to alleviate karma from previous lives. It could be true, of course, that having big ears might just mean that the person in question delights in having big ears (not unlike Dumbo).

On the Bright Side of Tyranny

Based on my response above, how might we apply it to walking on the bright side of tyranny as someone who can be light of heart and serene of soul with the most prickly and gooey of people?

Here are my practical suggestions:

  1. Get to know people – the ways in which they think or feel, the ways in which they insist or express; I’ve had the good fortune (and misfortune) of meeting and greeting and getting to know a lot of people in my lifetime, and I can tell you that there is no better way to get to know yourself.
  2. Take the quiz above – get to know your personality type to find out how you prefer to filter the things that people say to you and do with you in their interactions with you; this will serve to set you up with certain basic assumptions for relating to others from your own point of view.
  3. Avoid Attend gatherings (with the experience and knowledge gained from suggestions 1 and 2) with the intention of posing a provocative question to as many people as you can, while having the wherewithal to address said question amiably, purposefully, analytically, and expressively.
  4. Welcome the tyrant – truth be told, you really do not need to provoke the tyrant within; you merely need to be yourself (authentically and sincerely) and the tyrant will invariably, inevitably be provoked; treat this as practice, but be sure to remain buoyant, light of heart, and serene of soul.
  5. See the God in everyone – get into the habit of viewing everyone (including yourself) as a unique expression of a Divine Order, of a Source Consciousness, of the mind, heart, soul, and spirit of God – the better to welcome their contribution to the conversation or discussion (bonus question: do you think or feel that God is learning about tyranny through us or do you think or feel that tyranny is the product of a cosmic anomaly and therefore an unfortunate aberration?).
  6. Try out these questions: how do you feel about Cosmic Disclosure? What do you think of the New World Order? Are the bloodline families of the Illuminati aiming in secret to ultimately help us or harm us? What are your thoughts on reincarnation (astral projection, paranormal phenomena, the lucid death experience, time travel, lives between lives, sexual ecstasy, extrasensory abilities, demonic oppressions and possessions, monsters in small towns)?
  7. Accept your limits – if you keep up this practice, you will soon realize your own limits (with the aim of eventually transcending them) – this process is integral to your growth and evolution as a soul and spirit, respectively; embrace this process, and if you should ever cross over to the dark side of tyranny, be sure to return to the Light and forgive yourself for your mad transgression.

I would like to conclude this post with a rather provocative video (I like provocative, don’t you?).

The reason why I find girls and women so interesting and delightful (the world would be a painfully boring place without them) is that they are willing to push boundaries in ways boys and men do not, can not, or will not. In viewing this gooey video, keep these questions in mind …

What prickles come to mind when you watch this self-portrait as a honey fountain? Assuming that bees require 14,000 hours of work to produce a mere kilogram of honey, how do you feel about this portrayal? What commentary do you suppose is being made (if any) on the nature of the persona, on saving face (or not)? Are you as captivated and delighted by this gooey flow of honey as I am? If not, why not? Are you willing to let go, let be, and let God, allowing this child-woman and her performance to have their place in the Sun? If not, why not?  Could this video not serve as a wholesome and quiet celebration in the event of a breakthrough in cosmic disclosure? If not, why not?

This post has been filed under Application in the Ultimate Outline.

Note: my evolving outline on approaching a realization of the ultimate in personal fulfillment can be found here, accessible from the nav menu under the page “Be Here Now”.

Note: this ever growing perspective began here: Ultimate Perspective

Previous post:

Next post: