Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 13:54:44 GMT -5
Oh, please continue. I just thought if it involves a lot of effort on your part I'll let you know where effort might be wasted. But I see Mr. Mountaineer replying, so if not everyone at least someone reads it.
In other words...duh, obvious.
I will add that it also takes a lot of effort to compose any size post so that it reaches the inner being of the person one is addressing.
That is, to speak in such a way as the other openly and welcomingly receives it and values it.
And that comes from also taking a lot of effort in actually listening to the other, instead of the quick and easy path of assuming and thus causing all forms of drama.
Perhaps upon seeing that i read and reply to posts that you regard as not worth reading or replying to,
it might be slowly dawning on you that your opinion/conclusion/judgement/assessment/whatever of others is simply yours and may not be a universal truth. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 31, 2013 14:08:24 GMT -5
If by service you mean in each moment serving to facilitate the greatest good of that moment, I leave that to spontaneous action. Its not something I have to worry about or complex over or something I have to make happen with effort. Be present, open and aware, and if there is a perceived dysfunction/fragmentation there will be a natural response to restore function/wholeness. As I gain experience with the world and greater understanding of how the world works, my capacity for responding and facilitating a return to wholeness increases. Again that is not something I have to intentionally or actively do any more. It's more a function of how much I am open and listening to what is happening. When I hear Arisha preach about Right Action, it sounds like she's advocating intentional activity, meaning operating from an idea in mind about what "good" is and making it happen. Having a pre-formed image in mind is not responding dynamically to the situation. My ability is a product of my listening empathically and responding intuitively. That to me is a non-doing. No prescription about what to do. edit: grammar Welp. this conversation probably would have been of more value to ya if you had intuitively or spontaneously had it with, arisha. But after reading this, and a few other posts of yours this morning, I understand why it didn't happen. I'm guessing you're saying no to Teamsters on the deconstruction site. Non-union labor isn't always the best choice. ;D I'm not following on the Teamster's reference. What's being offered? I'm open to being picked apart if that's what you mean. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 14:09:28 GMT -5
I would be the one "beating his wife" in the scenario. But it would be more like my wife was saying "Why are you beating me?" when all I did was try to help her adjust her posture. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jan 31, 2013 14:12:17 GMT -5
I would be the one "beating his wife" in the scenario. But it would be more like my wife was saying "Why are you beating me?" when all I did was try to help her adjust her posture. How so? Specifically: What are you seeing as abusive? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 31, 2013 14:27:38 GMT -5
I am a child of the middle orchard. I live in the Mid-West. I happen to see the value in turning the ego around. eh What's the difference between turning the ego around and eroding it through ATA, Noticing, deconstruction, etc. I'd say when the ego is too strong, deconstruction approaches don't work. While behavioral modification (service, right action) seems like the logical alternative, it doesn't seem to work either, as I generally see just the facade of acting right and talking about loving kindness and such. My suspicion is that life itself has to wear ego down to where it can approach the problem with some sincerity. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 31, 2013 14:35:58 GMT -5
Greetings.. ATAing, Noticing, being present, aware, and non-attached, this is a practical approach to living and is talked about here all the time. Hi Top: That is what is being talked about occasionally, but.. mostly there's a small group/club that is trying to enforce their 'beliefs about' what should be interpreted from the " practical approach to living".. i am not familiar "ATAing", but i am familiar with 'paying attention' as you suggest, and i find it most consistently appropriate for seeing/experiencing 'what is'.. Those that 'shout-down' the experiences and understandings of others with intimidation, mockery, and "tough love", with the agenda of convincing others that their 'interpretations/beliefs' are superior , but who refuse to engage in discussions absent the "intimidation, mockery, and "tough love", equate with 'spiritual bullies'.. This forum degrades into petty bickering largely due to a select few that insist their's is the the only valid 'way', while resisting any opportunity for open, honest, and respectful discussion.. but, the opportunity for a softer kinder forum is to let go of the need to engage the 'select few'.. they feed on the conflict they create.. Be well.. The petty bickering is the result of focusing on 'noticing' and deconstruction with egos that are too strong to even recognize the focus. The approach is misinterpreted as intimidation, mockery, tough love, agendas and bullying, which then determines the response. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 31, 2013 14:45:18 GMT -5
Good morning.. Greetings.. If you have a point, can you make it concisely and without contentious intent? Be well.. Dear Tzu: Maybe just ban all members beyond the 15,000 posts mark. Would that help in your case and ease you up a bit? All is well..  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 31, 2013 15:17:21 GMT -5
There's the blackmail again. 'Behave yourself or I won't trust you.'
An observation and an opinion of someone.
One of the many reasons why you and i see things so differently enigma is i find your logic...~facepalm~
Yeah, and i don't expect or demand a response.
It is well documented that many wifebeating husbands actually love thier wives, even though they inflict physical and psychological wounds on them.
PLEASE NOTE: The analogy is hilighting the concept of blackmail, not the people involved.
So i am not suggesting the interactions between enigma and silver is like a husband and wife dynamic...ok.
Analogy of enigma's logic of the above dialogue between him and silver...
Husband: This is how to love someone.
(husband lists well thought out positive attributes, behaviors, attitudes of how to love a person. he did not put wifebeating on the list)
Wife: Well, if you would stop beating me, i would trust what you have to say.
Husband: Stop trying to blackmail me.
The wife is not trying to blackmail her husband, she loves him and simply would like her husband to stop hurting her.
Research shows that a percentage of wives actually love their abusive husbands.
The issue is the husband, for reasons i do not know, is unwilling or unable to stop beating his wife so does everything to justify that beating her is ok.
He avoids his issue by claiming she has the problem.
The claim of "blackmail" is a fear response the husband has of his wifebeating tendencies.
Claiming "blackmail" just because silver feels genuinely hurt by your communication style is simply ~facepalm~ in my book.
All silver is doing is expressing how she feels, which is a natural and common thing people do.
Judging this as blackmail smells of an exaggerated fear response, possibly connected to either an inabilty or unwillingness to change,
or an indepth self analysis that change is not required.
If the intent is to teach someone how to resolve their issues and they express that your style severely grates against them and that leads to having trouble listening to you,
what's so difficult about changing style, as style will not interfer with the helpful information one bit.
Consider this, regarding style.
A person when excited to share vital information, may talk extremely loudly when doing so.
For whatever reasons, the listener cringes amidst such noise and because of the pain,
is focused on the pain and not the information, even though the listener wants to hear the information.
So the listener, says, "Heeey, too loud, please speak quieter."
Speaker does so, doesn't feel manipulated, blackmailed, forced, etc.
Person wilingly chooses to speak quieter because message is important and wants listener to hear it.
So they speak quieter, shares the message and listener can hear it and is focused on it, takes it in.
Win win.
No one forcing anything onto anyone.
I cite RT 'cus it's such a powerful example, unlke RTers who use force to effect change.Firstly, the blackmail being referred to is in reference to Silver blackmailing Top, not me. (It looks like you placed me in the abusive husband role here) In the analogy, the husband really is being abusive, but in the scenario to which it refers, I don't see Top as being 'abusive' in the way that Silver interprets. (I don't know if you meant to imply he was or not, just sayin.) So what we're talking about is what Silver feels about the interaction with Top, and I guess your point would be that she's just expressing her feelings and is not blackmailing. I would say she IS blackmailing though I don't think she is consciously aware of it. IOW, she is saying, 'I trust you as long as you don't make me feel bad, so be sure not to make me feel bad if you want my trust'. I could try to relate to Silver on more recognized feeling levels, but it's the unrecognized I mean to point out. As for style *facepalm* one of the things I'm talking about is the failure of style to either be clear or to bring about clarity in others, or to prevent resistance to any clarity that might actually be conveyed in spite of the focus on style. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 31, 2013 15:20:34 GMT -5
This one caught my attention.
An observation and an opinion of someone.
One of the many reasons why you and i see things so differently enigma is i find your logic...~facepalm~
Yeah, and i don't expect or demand a response.
It is well documented that many wifebeating husbands actually love thier wives, even though they inflict physical and psychological wounds on them.
PLEASE NOTE: The analogy is hilighting the concept of blackmail, not the people involved.
So i am not suggesting the interactions between enigma and silver is like a husband and wife dynamic...ok.
Analogy of enigma's logic of the above dialogue between him and silver...
Husband: This is how to love someone.
(husband lists well thought out positive attributes, behaviors, attitudes of how to love a person. he did not put wifebeating on the list)
Wife: Well, if you would stop beating me, i would trust what you have to say.
Husband: Stop trying to blackmail me.
The wife is not trying to blackmail her husband, she loves him and simply would like her husband to stop hurting her.
Research shows that a percentage of wives actually love their abusive husbands.
The issue is the husband, for reasons i do not know, is unwilling or unable to stop beating his wife so does everything to justify that beating her is ok.
He avoids his issue by claiming she has the problem.
The claim of "blackmail" is a fear response the husband has of his wifebeating tendencies.
Claiming "blackmail" just because silver feels genuinely hurt by your communication style is simply ~facepalm~ in my book.
All silver is doing is expressing how she feels, which is a natural and common thing people do.
Judging this as blackmail smells of an exaggerated fear response, possibly connected to either an inabilty or unwillingness to change,
or an indepth self analysis that change is not required.
If the intent is to teach someone how to resolve their issues and they express that your style severely grates against them and that leads to having trouble listening to you,
what's so difficult about changing style, as style will not interfer with the helpful information one bit.
Consider this, regarding style.
A person when excited to share vital information, may talk extremely loudly when doing so.
For whatever reasons, the listener cringes amidst such noise and because of the pain,
is focused on the pain and not the information, even though the listener wants to hear the information.
So the listener, says, "Heeey, too loud, please speak quieter."
Speaker does so, doesn't feel manipulated, blackmailed, forced, etc.
Person wilingly chooses to speak quieter because message is important and wants listener to hear it.
So they speak quieter, shares the message and listener can hear it and is focused on it, takes it in.
Win win.
No one forcing anything onto anyone.
I cite RT 'cus it's such a powerful example, unlke RTers who use force to effect change. Enigma was pointing out something Silver was doing with me. To paraphrase: Silver was saying I hadn't been such a good/nice person to her recently because I was being confrontational and so she let me know I was about to fall out of her good graces. Enigma sees these tactics as subconscious manipulations to encourage or discourage behavior. The blackmail is Silver's loss of friendship/friendliness in order to discourage me from putting the scrutinizing eye on her. I would be the one "beating his wife" in the scenario. But it would be more like my wife was saying "Why are you beating me?" when all I did was try to help her adjust her posture. That is blackmail. Exactamente. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 31, 2013 15:22:50 GMT -5
This one caught my attention.
An observation and an opinion of someone.
One of the many reasons why you and i see things so differently enigma is i find your logic...~facepalm~
Yeah, and i don't expect or demand a response.
It is well documented that many wifebeating husbands actually love thier wives, even though they inflict physical and psychological wounds on them.
PLEASE NOTE: The analogy is hilighting the concept of blackmail, not the people involved.
So i am not suggesting the interactions between enigma and silver is like a husband and wife dynamic...ok.
Analogy of enigma's logic of the above dialogue between him and silver...
Husband: This is how to love someone.
(husband lists well thought out positive attributes, behaviors, attitudes of how to love a person. he did not put wifebeating on the list)
Wife: Well, if you would stop beating me, i would trust what you have to say.
Husband: Stop trying to blackmail me.
The wife is not trying to blackmail her husband, she loves him and simply would like her husband to stop hurting her.
Research shows that a percentage of wives actually love their abusive husbands.
The issue is the husband, for reasons i do not know, is unwilling or unable to stop beating his wife so does everything to justify that beating her is ok.
He avoids his issue by claiming she has the problem.
The claim of "blackmail" is a fear response the husband has of his wifebeating tendencies.
Claiming "blackmail" just because silver feels genuinely hurt by your communication style is simply ~facepalm~ in my book.
All silver is doing is expressing how she feels, which is a natural and common thing people do.
Judging this as blackmail smells of an exaggerated fear response, possibly connected to either an inabilty or unwillingness to change,
or an indepth self analysis that change is not required.
If the intent is to teach someone how to resolve their issues and they express that your style severely grates against them and that leads to having trouble listening to you,
what's so difficult about changing style, as style will not interfer with the helpful information one bit.
Consider this, regarding style.
A person when excited to share vital information, may talk extremely loudly when doing so.
For whatever reasons, the listener cringes amidst such noise and because of the pain,
is focused on the pain and not the information, even though the listener wants to hear the information.
So the listener, says, "Heeey, too loud, please speak quieter."
Speaker does so, doesn't feel manipulated, blackmailed, forced, etc.
Person wilingly chooses to speak quieter because message is important and wants listener to hear it.
So they speak quieter, shares the message and listener can hear it and is focused on it, takes it in.
Win win.
No one forcing anything onto anyone.
I cite RT 'cus it's such a powerful example, unlke RTers who use force to effect change. Enigma was pointing out something Silver was doing with me. To paraphrase: Silver was saying I hadn't been such a good/nice person to her recently because I was being confrontational and so she let me know I was about to fall out of her good graces. Enigma sees these tactics as subconscious manipulations to encourage or discourage behavior. The blackmail is Silver's loss of friendship/friendliness in order to discourage me from putting the scrutinizing eye on her. I would be the one "beating his wife" in the scenario. But it would be more like my wife was saying "Why are you beating me?" when all I did was try to help her adjust her posture. That is blackmail. Well, whaddya know? You two, who don't believe in 'stories' are full of them (stories). How in the world can you twist a very simple sentence or two of mine into this is beyond me. Just so's ya don't get too tangled up in your own big ball of yarn, let me make it clear what I said and didn't say (according to your accusations and contentions of what my post was all about)>>> Well, I guess I can say it's okay for you to be pushy then...I just don't want you to think that I will find your beliefs/practices tenable for me, personally - I can only consider them. The first portion "Well, I guess I can say it's okay for you to be pushy then..." was an innocent, playful little bit (I certainly don't like to be pushed around - do you?) and in it, I tried to convey a light-heartedness towards you, Top - because in spite of the challenges we engage in here, we both know we've also shared stuff (pm's) that makes me believe that we are reasonably close cyber-buddies. And if your philosophy leads you to ignore the personal, then this may be why you look at some of the things I say negatively. I don't know... The second part "...I just don't want you to think that I will find your beliefs/practices tenable for me, personally - I can only consider them" seemed pretty straightforward to me. I was trying to convey that I am just like anybody else who is learning about something totally new to them - and if a person is of a reasonable intelligence level, they must acknowledge that only through studying, paying attention to what is being said about this new idea - it's the only true way to deal with new information and that is to take it all in, let it digest to a reasonable degree before making up one's very own mind about it. A person may visit a new church but that doesn't mean the minute they walk in that door that they are ready to be indoctrinated, baptized and confirmed into that new church. I figure since using an economy of words didn't help you understand what I was trying to say, I'd best fill things in some more for you. I do believe that you and E have been working in the pretzel factory way too long.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 31, 2013 15:41:36 GMT -5
I would be the one "beating his wife" in the scenario. But it would be more like my wife was saying "Why are you beating me?" when all I did was try to help her adjust her posture. If you see even Top as abusive, it helps to demonstrate that style doesn't work to even reliably avoid the misperception of abuse in communicating deconstruction. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 31, 2013 15:50:02 GMT -5
Enigma was pointing out something Silver was doing with me. To paraphrase: Silver was saying I hadn't been such a good/nice person to her recently because I was being confrontational and so she let me know I was about to fall out of her good graces. Enigma sees these tactics as subconscious manipulations to encourage or discourage behavior. The blackmail is Silver's loss of friendship/friendliness in order to discourage me from putting the scrutinizing eye on her. I would be the one "beating his wife" in the scenario. But it would be more like my wife was saying "Why are you beating me?" when all I did was try to help her adjust her posture. That is blackmail. Well, whaddya know? You two, who don't believe in 'stories' are full of them (stories). How in the world can you twist a very simple sentence or two of mine into this is beyond me. Just so's ya don't get too tangled up in your own big ball of yarn, let me make it clear what I said and didn't say (according to your accusations and contentions of what my post was all about)>>> Well, I guess I can say it's okay for you to be pushy then...I just don't want you to think that I will find your beliefs/practices tenable for me, personally - I can only consider them. The first portion "Well, I guess I can say it's okay for you to be pushy then..." was an innocent, playful little bit (I certainly don't like to be pushed around - do you?) and in it, I tried to convey a light-heartedness towards you, Top - because in spite of the challenges we engage in here, we both know we've also shared stuff (pm's) that makes me believe that we are reasonably close cyber-buddies. And if your philosophy leads you to ignore the personal, then this may be why you look at some of the things I say negatively. I don't know... The second part "...I just don't want you to think that I will find your beliefs/practices tenable for me, personally - I can only consider them" seemed pretty straightforward to me. I was trying to convey that I am just like anybody else who is learning about something totally new to them - and if a person is of a reasonable intelligence level, they must acknowledge that only through studying, paying attention to what is being said about this new idea - it's the only true way to deal with new information and that is to take it all in, let it digest to a reasonable degree before making up one's very own mind about it. A person may visit a new church but that doesn't mean the minute they walk in that door that they are ready to be indoctrinated, baptized and confirmed into that new church. I figure since using an economy of words didn't help you understand what I was trying to say, I'd best fill things in some more for you. I do believe that you and E have been working in the pretzel factory way too long. It doesn't matter how many words you use to clarify what you meant when you don't consciously know what you meant. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 15:50:30 GMT -5
Welp. this conversation probably would have been of more value to ya if you had intuitively or spontaneously had it with, arisha. But after reading this, and a few other posts of yours this morning, I understand why it didn't happen. I'm guessing you're saying no to Teamsters on the deconstruction site. Non-union labor isn't always the best choice. ;D I'm not following on the Teamster's reference. What's being offered? I'm open to being picked apart if that's what you mean. Unity or non-unity is what's being offered in every moment. Teamsters were a metaphor for union/unity. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jan 31, 2013 15:54:35 GMT -5
Thanks for what looks like to me to be a clear example of justification to remain abusive. If you see even Top as abusive, it helps to demonstrate that style doesn't work to even reliably avoid the misperception of abuse in communicating deconstruction. I wouldn't say that Top is/was abusive - I say he's misguided to a degree, and misunderstands the genuine intent of what is being said. Plus a high degree of assumptions - on both of your parts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 16:02:54 GMT -5
What's the difference between turning the ego around and eroding it through ATA, Noticing, deconstruction, etc. I'd say when the ego is too strong, deconstruction approaches don't work. While behavioral modification (service, right action) seems like the logical alternative, it doesn't seem to work either, as I generally see just the facade of acting right and talking about loving kindness and such. My suspicion is that life itself has to wear ego down to where it can approach the problem with some sincerity. LOL |
|
