
Quote from the introduction of the book:
“There are those who are strongly against the mental health system for a variety of reasons. They, too, are in a relationship with the system- sometimes more than individuals who are seeking support from it!”
I’m currently trying to find a place in the manuscript for this:
“To fight or be in resistance to something is to maintain the entanglement with it. The only way to truly be free is to reach neutrality.” ✨️
I have found the ability to access neutrality to be a guiding principle of my work.
Why?
If we’re too emotionally invested in an outcome, we’re actually compromised
Writing from a place of neutrality does not make the book boring (as I once feared), it makes me credible and gives the book even more of a chance at being impactful 💡

I noticed a few years ago that when people’s anger or fear infiltrated their message, I tuned them out 🫣
It was because they were operating from an open wound, as opposed to a grounded, integrated place of wisdom and expanded perspective.
Note: This is not the same as denial, resignation, or being too cool to care (aloof), which can act as a bypass.
Instead, wisdom and integration surface naturally as a result of tending to our inner landscape.
Anyway, no judgment on where people are in their journey, but when they share their message from an emotionally activated place, they limit their reach.
They will only appeal to those who are also at that point in the journey.
Said a different way:
They’re broadcasting at a certain frequency and will attract others within that frequency bandwidth; whereas if you speak from a healed/resolved place, you become a match for anyone who is anywhere on the journey 🏆
This isn’t meant to discourage anyone from speaking, but rather to encourage everyone to do their personal growth work in order to be even more effective when they do share ❤️
