apples by (eppy)
Image
eppy's personality
Image
eppy's left hand
Image
eppy by Alexa
Image
self-portrait
Image
Acceptance 7 – If I accept something or someone, does that mean I have to put up with them?
Who can foretell the future? Miracles happen all the time. Things change, and the changes often seem miraculous, spontaneous, amazing. So, will you have to put up with anyone, or anyone forever? Maybe not.
Changes have happened before in your life: one morning you woke up and something was different, better than it was, something that was really hard before. If you accept something, just for now, that acceptance will be the beginning of a change, and that change will lead to other changes you can't know about, and some day you'll notice that whatever it was that you were putting up with or fighting or being miserable about just isn't a problem anymore.
What changes can happen if I accept something/someone?
Good question. Here are some changes that have happened to me as I've learned to become more accepting: I'm happier–more often, more consistently. I get over stuff quicker. I spend less time worrying, analyzing, wishing, angry, upset, miserable, frustrated, struggling, wrestling with problems. I spend far less time fussing about stuff that happened in the past, or yesterday, or an hour ago, and much less time stressing about how the future will play out for me and mine.
I get along with other people better than I used to, although the challenges just keep on coming. No one ever (ever) gets anything, or everything, “finally” right, once-and-for-all. Instead, what I've learned about acceptance helps keep me chipping away, making small improvements in things, day-by-day. But my relationships are improved, and continuing to improve, and they're easier, and more fun, and more rewarding, and less often stressful, and less often chaotic and awful, and much more long-lasting.
I don't fall apart at disasters or setbacks or disappointments quite so quickly, I'm less easily discouraged, and I'm more able to learn from my mistakes faster, and I move on afterward more quickly. I'm less sad, and spend much less time feeling depressed. I'm kinder, more loving. Calmer. Peaceful-er. More easy-going. More relaxed. More friendly. Less defensive. Less hostile. Warmer. Happier in my own skin. Gentler.
I'm more effective in the world, and a better advocate for the changes I want to see in it. I'm less shrill and self-righteous and angry and polarized, oppositional, contentious.
How is that for starters? There are other things, but these are some of the kinds of changes that can come with acceptance. And yes, I have more money these days, a happy marriage, more leisure time, too, all of which have come to me as I've learned acceptance. Being me feels so much better now than it did back then, bigtime.
Next: Where do I start with acceptance, on myself or others?
Acceptance 6 – Is acceptance Christian? Or is it based on some eastern philosophy or religion?
Jesus accepted what God gave him to be and to do, accepted the life and death and work that was given him by his father. Jesus's prayer was always, “Thy will be done.” Jesus made acceptance an important part of every prayer. He tried to accept God's will: “Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.”
And what is God's will? Well, look around at what he made. If God is all-powerful and all-good, is it likely that he goofed up in his intentions when he made the world and all the beings in it? Or did he make them just as he wanted them to be, in all their diversity and potential, and then called them “good?” If God made you and the earth and everyone else on the planet, then what he made must be his will. He must have meant to make people who were capable of mistakes and failures and weakness, or he wouldn't have done it. You are God's will, and so is everyone else, and so is the earth, just as it is, along with all of its possibilities.
When someone dies and people say, “It's God's will,” what do they mean? Do they mean that God is mean and wants innocent babies to suffer and die? Or do they mean that God made all things possible on this best of all possible worlds, and called that good, and that we must accept any of those possibilities as part of his vision. God meant for the world and the people in it to be just exactly as it is and as they are. If God had meant for each of us to be perfect, to never mess up or suffer or fail; if God had meant for the world to be without pain or problems, he would have made it that way, would have made us different. We are God's will, and so is his earth.
Look and see: God's will is us, and everything around us. You are God's will, and so am I, and so is everyone else, and so is the world, as it is. Because he made us, because he made it so. And yes, God also made us ambitous for happiness, and for goodness, and for love, and that too seems to be his will.
Adam and Eve rocked along pretty happily in their beautiful garden until they started to find fault with everything in it, including each other; until they began to notice with dismay their own nakedness/sexuality; until they ate of the fruit of the tree of good/evil right/wrong, and started judging everything and everyone along those lines. After that, they were miserable, because they started finding fault with everything that God had made, with each other, with sexuality itself, which, it should be quite evident, is God's will.
God gave us the necessary brains and hearts to live in his beautiful garden helpfully with one another. We can choose to spend our lives picking at and poking at and being angry about everyone and everything and ourselves all the time, labeling everything as good and bad, right and wrong. Or, we can accept ourselves and his world and everyone in it as he made us, as is–and along with him, call it all “good.” Who are we to argue with God? And besides, it's a lot nicer and more fun living acceptingly inside his beautiful garden with him, than wandering around outside it in the wilderness of the desert, wailing in pain and resistant to everything and everyone, resistant even to God, maybe even especially to God.
Life is just too lonely without him, without the world, without each other, without our own selves as our best friends. We've all “done” lonely, and it doesn't work.
Next: If I accept something or someone, does that mean I have to put up with them?
Acceptance 5 – Isn't it better to change something rather than just accept it?
When a situation isn't working, of course, change it if you can. But what is the best way to go about changing something? How can you be good at bringing about change? Are you going to be able to change things well if you're all upset and angry and emotionally strung out about stuff? Or would you be better, more effective at making changes if you learned to be calm and OK about whatever is, “as is,” first, and yet still wanting and willing to improve it? That's why it's so important to at first accept each person, each situation, yourself, life itself, just as it is, just exactly as they are. To be able to say, “this is me, this is them, this is life, this is what is,” without adding all your own reactions and emotional and mental stuff to it. When you can do that, when you can learn acceptance–then you will start to make and see big changes in your own life and in the lives of others around you–and even in the world.
So, does acceptance mean giving up? Settling? Resigning yourself forever to something or someone?
No. No one ever has to accept anything forever, because it's not possible to accept the future in the present. Just as you can't experience the future now, you can't accept things that might happen in the future, now. For instance, you can't accept being a parapalegic forever. The future is vague, unreal–too big, too hard, too far away to deal with in the tiny instant of time–now–that you have to do anything in.
No one can accept being in pain forever, and fortunately, no one needs to, because it's not possible. But one can accept pain, or anything else, for this moment. Just as the only time we can live, laugh, love, be kind, be cruel, whatever, is in the present moment, the only time we can accept anything is while we're in the middle of right now, during the process of living with it. It's impossible to accept for tomorrow, because tomorrow isn't real. Who knows what strength or wisdom or support or change the future holds? Or disaster, for that matter. Paraphrasing Jesus, today's troubles are enough. Don't worry about tomorrow's, because tomorrow will be the time to take of them.
In one sense, acceptance means settling–but just for right now; resigning yourself, for this moment; giving up resisting and struggling and fighting against whatever it is you don't like, in this present instant. That's a hard enough task for now, and it is enough to bring the peace that is the beginning of change.
That's it. That's all. That's all acceptance means. And when you accept “what is” in your life, right now, without adding all the usual amount of stress, struggle, and strain that everyone tends to add to the bad stuff in their life, then you're in a good position–you're aware and present and capable of working in the here-and-now–the right place to start effectively making the changes you want to see in the future.
Next: Is acceptance Christian? Or is it based on some eastern philosophy or religion?
Alternately Stuffing and Starving Our Kids: A Very American Dilemma
I often see articles about new ways to stuff our kids with the many required daily servings of nutritionally different foods. Just as often, I read articles about our increasingly obese, bulimic, and anorexic children. We’re raising fat children obsessed with thinness. This is a very American problem.
Pressured by the food industry, we promulgate impossible-to-use nutritional guidelines advising ridiculous daily diets, as if we can’t be trusted to eat a little bit of banana one day and some apple slices the next? A little meat or cheese or soy once or twice a week and a changing daily vegetable? A handful of nuts and grains here and there? Tell us that we need a healthful variety of foods weekly or monthly and we’ll offer our families inexpensive, logistically possible, non-fattening meals.
Our poor confused young mothers think if they don’t offer their kids snacks on demand, they’re child abusers. Why do we let opportunistic advertisers badger us into confusing a reasonable demand for a little food-discipline and postponement of gratification, with starvation and cruelty?
In my childhood home, we were offered as much as we cared to eat, three times a day, of a healthful, balanced meal, along with as many snacks as we might want in between meals—so long as those snacks were apples or whole-wheat bread (both so available as to be boringly unappealing; we ate them only when we were really hungry. Well. Duh?) Did we get enough to eat? Hmmmm. I do recall a time or two arriving at the next meal absolutely voracious, polishing off whatever was on my plate, and asking for more. This was a problem? My parents raised four slim, healthy, active daughters.
My father’s rather original hypothesis was that our long evolution as hunter-gatherers generated babies and children who were hard-wired to distinguish early and instantly which foods were unsafe–by attentively watching others eat. Armed with this theory, my parents made a good show of enthusiastically exclaiming, smiling, and smacking their lips delightedly over healthful food. They also led the family in joyful, admiring cheers whenever one of us bravely ate her required three teensy bites of unfamiliar food. Nowadays parents only give their children attention for not eating. This makes sense?
My parents offered no sweets or desserts except on birthdays and holidays, so their hungry girls learned to enjoy all kinds of veggies, fruits, meats, nuts, and grains, along with a diversity of ethnic foods. Although I learned (after I left home) to put my foot down over eating obvious body parts like eyeballs and tentacles, I still gobble up with gusto anything disguised and unnamed.
Raising my own young family, I breast-fed on demand and offered watered-down juice and ground-up baby food from my plate. I worked hard to keep my daughters cheerfully occupied while gradually stretching out times between meals. I didn’t offer quick carbs or sweets, so sugar crashes weren’t a problem–and even then, there was always that ubiquitous apple…. We limited ourselves to a few hours of public television a day, so food advertising was not a problem. I am proud to have raised two slim daughters.
We’re a nation of fat people for good reason: we don’t trust our own common sense, but instead let ourselves be over-influenced by those who stand to gain from our choosing unwise and unhealthful approaches. Our children are doubly victimized: by our bad examples, and by media temptations and modern fears which preclude their free play outdoors. Sensible media regulation, along with a solid public media campaign re-introducing such old-fashioned concepts as gluttony and common sense might make a dent in our national waistline. Until then, we are certainly the laughing stock of the rest of the world, which sees Americans as pigs greedily ruining our own health while ignoring the malnutrition and starvation of others. Or at least, they would be laughing, if the whole thing weren’t just so damned tragic.





