|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 4, 2013 18:22:45 GMT -5
You don't know what you read. I'm not being defensive or offensive to you. Not making accusations, just saying what happened. Not talking about anything you said. Go back and read what he said, then read your post and see if you can figure out where your question to James came from. (Hint: I just told you where it came from)
Up to page 23 and still haven't come across the beginning of the 'blackmail' incident.
Anyways...regarding this exchange...
To me, it seems illogical to say to silver she doesn't know what she read.
Silver is expressing her interpretation of what she read, and her interpretation is you appear to her as defensive to her words and your words are offensive to her.
So it seems illogical to claim silver did not see these things considering she just expressed she did see them.
It's a completely different matter if you expressed her interpretation does not match your interpretation that you see you are not defensive or were offensive.
If the interpretations are different, even though each is convinced they saw what they saw,
perhaps some type of productive discussion could occur to find out why the interpretations are different.
But if one or both hold onto to a conclusion that their own interpretation is the truth of the matter, then i don't see any productive discussion occuring.
For it has been my experiences that a person who knows they are right, has no interest in exploring an issue that they regard they already know the truth about.
The deduction is that when a person knows they are right, they must be logically concluding the other, with a different opinion, must be wrong.
There is no desire for exploration of the other interpretation when a person thinks they are right.
So enigma, what if silver finds some of the things you say offensive, is it worth exploring because she sees it, or is she simply wrong in her ability to see and you are right.
Considering a few others also have said you come across as offensive, it seems something worth exploring.
To me, the issue of offensiveness can be from what is said to how it is said and add, how the listener processes the info given.
That the issue of there being an offense involves two people, so both parties must be examined to see if where the actual problem lies.
It may be just in one, or it may be spread out amongst the two.
But like i said before, the one who thinks they are right, will not examine, and if they did, the examination may be filtered through the "I am right" filter.
Because i am well aware of the communication glitch that is 'everyone interprets',
and even though when not rushing, i take a lot of time composing my words, i still come across people who are offended by them.
If communication is still open i will ask them to clarify and if they do and i can then understand what word or phrase offends them
and i will attempt to find another way to express myself.
In those situations i do not bother with who's interpretation is correct or not. I will adapt to the other's world view, so as not to offend.
I can talk really blue language to both my kids and we have a jolly good time as we explore the depths of reality, and with other people,
although still exploring at the same depth, i know any use of blue language will offend them and they have shut up shop and have stopped listening to me.
Thats a responsibility i choose to take on in interactions, regardless of whether i judge the other is right or wrong in their interpretation.
And in doing so i have developed a mad skill of being able to have open friendly conversations with a wide spectrum of people types.
I willfully and joyfully can meet people where they are at, and we both end up enjoying the interaction, and i get to share what i felt was important for them.
Her interpretation of what she read was not what she read. To me, what seems illogical is to have a discussion about whether I'm right about what I meant or if she is right about what I meant. I'm more than willing to clear up any misinterpretations, but really those need to brought to the table first, which is what I did. To say "I know what I read" is to say. 'My interpretations are supported by the words', and so it seems 'logical' to refer her back to the actual words to see if that's so. Most of my posts tend to be neutral in tone, and the reason is that I don't want to try to project anything at all into it in terms of style. Best to leave the mirror blank and let the reader fill in, or preferably not add anything at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 18:43:33 GMT -5
I'm more than willing to clear up any misinterpretations, but really those need to brought to the table first, which is what I did. They were brought to the table on Realizing Happiness. Most of my posts tend to be neutral in tone, and the reason is that I don't want to try to project anything at all into it in terms of style. Best to leave the mirror blank and let the reader fill in, or preferably not add anything at all. You're bs-ing yourself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 12:07:41 GMT -5
I don't know what you mean, then by where it came from. Natch, it's old news by now and I don't think that it's going to help anybody to keep on about it when it's understood by those interested parties what the dynamic is here. What Enigma is pointing at isn't for the benefit of anyone other than you. What Enigma is pointing at is the following: You have certain agendas or talking points, certain messages that you want to tell Enigma. These are sitting in the background waiting for triggers and contexts to activate their expression. When you read James' post, it sounded like one of his talking points was similar or in support of one of your talking points. You then proceeded as if James had the same talking point as you. This is all Enigma is trying to point at: 1) You have talking points that you hold onto and throw at him. 2) You will mis-hear someone else's talking point if it is "close enough" to your own talking point. This is a mistake in perception and a misrepresentation of another person. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 6, 2013 12:25:42 GMT -5
What Enigma is pointing at isn't for the benefit of anyone other than you. What Enigma is pointing at is the following:
You have certain agendas or talking points, certain messages that you want to tell Enigma. These are sitting in the background waiting for triggers and contexts to activate their expression. When you read James' post, it sounded like one of his talking points was similar or in support of one of your talking points. You then proceeded as if James had the same talking point as you.
This is all Enigma is trying to point at:
1) You have talking points that you hold onto and throw at him.
2) You will mis-hear someone else's talking point if it is "close enough" to your own talking point. This is a mistake in perception and a misrepresentation of another person. Hey, Top. What about (or How about) Enigma's siggy about not playing the game) - This is ample talk on your part that points wildly at you playing the game - Not to mention speaking an awful lot for others. I suggest we let them speak for themselves - Unless they don't feel like it or want to. Oh, yes. Definitely speculation, M-G. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 14:13:46 GMT -5
Considerations:
And it's happened to me twice so far in ST so i will begin by stating this is not directed at you or anyone in particular.
I am exploring the concepts themselves.
1: Enigma may not be aware he is setting up his existence.
2: 'Enigma setting himself up may simply be your interpretation.
3: Yes, the actions of children, and adults with undeveloped child like elements inside. I know i got 'em.
Though not all childlike qualities are negative.
4: Not always negative: same applies to knocking something down or admiring something.
I could list a lot more, but i will end on this one...Or a third option/alternate...
because enigma has chosen to stop communicating with me, and i reason because we greatly differ in our interpretations of reality,
and he is entitled to do so and i am ok with his choice,
i have no desire to tear him away from his conclusions or attach myself to his concepts.
If they work for him, then i am happy for him, they do not make sense to me and i am happy with the ones that do.
So i simply stop communicating with him since he is not interested. No harm, no fowl, hence, no drama.
I was not like this a few months ago.
In SF i would try to communicate with people who for XYZ reasons were not interested in either talking to me or discussing the issues i raised.
Sure, the downside is there's no connection, no relationship, no commune-ity. But there is also no problem between us.
If an issue cannot be resolved and either party can live the life they desire without resolving the problem,
and the problem does not adversely affect either party, then there is no need to persue it to resolve it.
So then it seems the problem only arises when the two meet.
So it then seems the actual problem is that person A has a problem with person Z.
But if person A, who has the problem~long pause~ with person Z, only sees that person Z has the problem,
well, i find it easy to predict that the problem will not be resolved any time soon.
Welcome to the circle, as Tzu clearly termed it.
What's obviously not clear is the source of the problem, unless of course people aren't interested in solving it and actually enjoy the circle,
like how people enjoy merry go rounds for example, or racing, around on a track over and over,
or football seasons repeated every year, or any other number of circular things in human culture. I hear ya but I was not attempting to offer any considerations as to why what is going on is going on. I was just noticing it going on and not meaning to put blame anywhere.
That I see you are somewhat similar to me in seeking understanding of a problem and are not interested in issuing tickets to people
who are intentionally or unintentionally connected to the creation/perpetuation of the problem.
I imagine the intent/desire to resolve a problem will be different between us.
However, i see a fine line between 'pointing to a problem' and blame.
In that if a machine is malfunctioning and this machine broke on it's own accord,
a person isn't is going to blame another person for the problem during the observation, examination, and resolution of said problem.
That blame only comes into the 'machine problem' experience when a person is either part of the reason the problem occured or someone thinks this about the person.
So the fine line is, when discussing human interaction problems, that someone is going to blame someone.
I just looked at the dictionary defintion of blame.
It's a bit of a weird word in that it is generally associated with condemnation of the person who is being accused, whether they are actually guilty or not.
Yet when i look at the act that precedes the act of blaming someone, i see an act of examination to find the source of the problem.
When a machine is examined and the source of the problem is found, pointed to, people generally do not say, "I blame this 'self sealing stem bolt' for the problem."
They usually say, "The 'self sealing stem bolt' was the cause/reason/source
otf the problem."
There is no condemning blame being attached to the 'self sealing stem bolt'.
Yet there is condemning blame when a person points a finger at a person when they are judged as the source of the problem,
even though all that is occuring is a person is examining a problem to find the source in order to resolve it.
And i think it's this human glitch of condeming and feeling condemned when it comes to resolving human interaction problems
that interferes in the actual process of resolving such problems.
Humans feel bad when wrong, make mistakes, do something stupid, and feel good when right, successfully complete a task or know the answer to something.
So to me, the glitch is when people get together to resolve a relationship problem, either one or both things manifest,
a person condemns the other for their error, or a person feels condemned when their error is suggested or they are aware of it.
So instead of simply focusing on finding that human 'self sealing stem bolt' and fixing it,
people either condemn person A for having it or person A self condemns for having it.
The actual problem is not resolved, the avoidance of it increases because of the act of blaming or feeling blamed.
The logic is, and there's no avoiding it if a solution is the goal.
If there is a problem between two people, the problem is either in one or both people, and vondemning or feeling condemned does not help one bit.
Further examination of this glitch is;
Person A may be soley focused on finding the source of the problem and fix it in order to repair the relationship, that person A has no intent to condemn(blame) person B,
but person B may be offended (feel condemned/blamed) by any claim that one source of the problem may be in them, even though person A is not interested in blaming.
It seems to me, from my observations of myself and others all these years, that it's human nature to freak out when faced with the reality or possibilty that self is not perfect,
that self has stuffed up, tripped up, made a mistake, done something stupid, or an element of self is dysfunctional,
even though the process of growth, learning new things, transformation, healing will naturally involve making mistakes,
and it seems that people do not like it when another points out one's mistakes/flaws.
And it's reasons like this that i choose to tread as gently and compassionately when trying to help someone with a problem.
I theorise a lot of drama continues because of the aversion to the thought that self is or may be imperfect in whatever specific thing is being examined.
Bottom line for me is, regardless of whether its either someone actually blaming another, or the accused feels blamed even though no one is blaming them,
simply bin 'blaming' and focus on finding the source(s) of the problem and each person changes within themself what requires changing to resolve the problem.
I have found it can take a lot of open, courageous, honest, respectful, compassionate(foregiveness, understanding) explorative discussion to find these sources and willingly change in order to fix relationship problems, that includes the relationship with oneself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 14:25:00 GMT -5
You've done it on multiple threads already. I also sense your escalating tone. Let's face it Arisha, there's a part of you that is not loving or compassionate, but negative, attacking, judgmental, and venomous. That part of you is triggered by Tolle, Enigma, myself, and a few others. Why is that? I agree wholeheartedly with your assessments, Arisha. I'm grateful for your articulation of them. That agreement, and $2.50, will buy a Starbucks latte.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 15:38:48 GMT -5
Do I need to ask Arisha why she thinks Tolle and his methods are ugly? Plus, you've been leaning on me lately, and putting down how I myself see certain things and discouraging me from seeing things as I see them. You're certainly more of a gentleman about it than certain others, but I see you changing for the worse - or seeing a side of you I never quite was able to see before. Yes, I have been pushing on you.
What i have noticed is people will conform to the desires of the forceful pusher, for a time.
But when the pushing ceases, the person reverts back to their natural state.
That people will change/conform soley to stop being pushed around. It's a temporary change.
The pushed willingly shoves their persona aside to accomodate the new persona, only because they are being forced to by the pusher.
When the pushing ceases, due to the pusher is now happy mchappy happy the pushed has been converted to what they think they should be like,
aka shoving personal beliefs onto others.
After the pushing has ceased, when the pushed feels safe, they will throw out the forced in persona and allow their own persona to go back to it's original position.
Some of you here even commented on the impermanent change wrought by pushing as you examined the tactics of RT.
Even the RTers expressed how disappointed they were to see so many genuine liberatees(converts) return to their old ways after the liberation process was completed.
Yet here some of you are using the same process, just dialed down a bit, and constantly claiming it is the pushee that is the problem in the process.
I have found that walking side by side with someone, and pointing to things of interest engages my fellow traveler waaaaaaaaay more than pushing them around.
I offer, and i'm ok with either decision they make, whether they go have a look or not.See above.
And i am of the opinion that pushing people around is not a valuable interaction, unless you are on a football field, and are a football player,
and you are trying to either take a piece of leather over a line on the ground or make sure your team mate is unhindered in their attempt.Interesting, i was not aware that being polite signified deception, though it does explain your justification for rudeness.
May you develop inner peace so that externals no longer evoke anger, frustration and resentment deep within you.
Perhaps if you were not attached to the floatation device, you may experience more freedom by not havng anything to defend from the marauding swimmers.
And i find your analogy interesting in that you prefer ST to be a peaceful environment
where you consciously push and poke others but don't like it when you are pushed and poked.If you know silver doesn't respond favourably to being pushed, perhaps you may have more success
if you detached from your belief that pushing is the best or only way to help silver.1 Corinthians 13 1 If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don't love, I'm nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate. 2 If I speak God's Word with power, revealing all his mysteries and making everything plain as day, and if I have faith that says to a mountain, "Jump," and it jumps, but I don't love, I'm nothing. 3-7 If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don't love, I've gotten nowhere. So, no matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I'm bankrupt without love. Love never gives up. Love cares more for others than for self. Love doesn't want what it doesn't have. Love doesn't strut, Doesn't have a swelled head, Doesn't force itself on others,Isn't always "me first,"
Doesn't fly off the handle,
Doesn't keep score of the sins of others,Doesn't revel when others grovel, Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth, Puts up with anything,Trusts God always, Always looks for the best, Never looks back, But keeps going to the end. 8-10 Love never dies. Inspired speech will be over some day; praying in tongues will end; understanding will reach its limit. We know only a portion of the truth, and what we say about God is always incomplete. But when the Complete arrives, our incompletes will be canceled. 11 When I was an infant at my mother's breast, I gurgled and cooed like any infant. When I grew up, I left those infant ways for good. 12 We don't yet see things clearly. We're squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won't be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We'll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us! 13 But for right now, until that completeness, we have three things to do to lead us toward that consummation: Trust steadily in God, hope unswervingly, love extravagantly. And the best of the three is love. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 16:21:40 GMT -5
I haven't explored the Sadona Method yet, can you provide me a good reference on it. Here's why I have to go for functional: 1) My internal tension is in sympathetic resonance with my external environment: Dirty/messy/chaotic house => Internal emotional tension. 2) I HATE CLEANING MY HOUSE ;D So in order for me to be at peace emotionally, I need to get functional about keeping my house clean. I'm not in control of the emotionally building up tension.
I think it's the other way round.
I think the messy house is a symbolic reflection of the mess inside.
Clean the inner mess and the house will stop being messy because you will be joyful to clean it.
And observing you are not in control of your emotional tension build up, simply means you are aware you currently are not in control.
You can then choose to remain out of control or regain control.
Which of course these decision paths will be influenced by your current beliefs about what is a self and do you have control of said self or not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 18:41:59 GMT -5
YAY, I found the beginning of the 'blackmail' issue.Plus, you've been leaning on me lately, and putting down how I myself see certain things and discouraging me from seeing things as I see them. You're certainly more of a gentleman about it than certain others, but I see you changing for the worse - or seeing a side of you I never quite was able to see before. I've enjoyed his attempts with you and others and I've also enjoyed watching him deal with the boundaries of that approach. In some ways he has more patience than I do and I mean to commend him. Glitch in the matrix: The bolded part. I theorise that the above observation you have made of Topology is one reason you make this claim...
That if Topology is not doing anything wrong in his style, and silver negatively reacts, then silver must be the one with the problem.
That you judge Topology's style as good, so silver's judgement of 'it's not good for her', is a wrong judgement.
Perhaps evidenced by your claim silver is not reading the posts correctly.I am interested to hear from "Figs and others" as to whether thay called it "special ways."
Perhaps the problem is the speaker lacks the skill to convey a message in a different style without compromising the message.
Perhaps the problem is a person lacks the skill to develop and maintain a trusting relationship without hurting the other.
Perhaps the person doesn't give a dingo's kidney about the feelings of the other.
Perhaps the person is not interested in personal attributes, like a person's feelings
and is only interested in transmitting information they deem necessary for the wellbeing of the other.
Which seems counter productive to transmit info to another while that other is hurt by the delivery system.I seriously doubt "pushing", as Topology calls it, is not a style.
Perhaps it's the lack of emotion in a style that causes the style to be felt as abrasive by people who are ok with the emotional aspects of themselves.
If you regard it's not your responsibility to transmit a message as effectively as possible for that individual, then you don't.
As for me, if someone is in pain because i am yelling at them, i willingly lower my voice,
even though i may enjoy yelling and see it as a good way to get a message across.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 19:48:16 GMT -5
Heey, speaking of love.
Guess who just got mobile broadband up and running at home?
Yeah, your friendly neighbourhood Mountain-Goat.
My dawta and son in law sent me a 12 month mobile broadband deal that they no longer use, as a love gift for being a great dad, father in law and grand parent,
because i have been suffering terribly with uber slow dialup here in beautiful but backwater farm area of tassie.
So now i'm connected withan average download speed of 130k instead of 2.4k.
I can now do mad research and visit sites that contain more than just text.
8gig/mnth is more than enough.
Why have i never gotten mobile broadband before you may ask, and its a dam-n fine question too?
There is no mobile coverage in or around our house.
There is if i stand on the roof, or a few hundred metres up the road,
and on a good day, if i stand at the carport several metres up from the house, but no coverage in or around the house.
Then when they sent me the modem i noticed you can attach external antenna to it if the signal is weak.
So i figured if i can find an antenna to stick on me roof and drill a hole through the wall, i may actually get some delicious hi speed internets.
I have spent a few days researching online and off for a suitable anntenna and if the signal coverage is close enough for an antenna to work.
I was going to order one later this week, but i remembered what my dawta said a while back,
which was to try the modem anyway, even though i knew there's no coverage inside the house.
So i plugged it in and of course, the modem says, "No signal, can't connect."
So i checked the options anyway to see if i had everything set up right, and holy monkey, the dam-n thing connected.
No antenna, no signal, and it connects at a stable 5 bars and 130k speed.
I suspect alien intervention.
Possibly to make up for thier involvement of increasing hamburger prices in scotsdale, the small country town 15 mins up the road.
Don't know about you guys n gals, but aliens are all over the place down here in my neck of the woods of tassie.
Anyways, i am as happy as a Mountain-Goat for my hi-speed connection, the love of my dawta and son in law and the aliens.
If anything, a 6db rated antenna may be required, after i do some tech testing to see how stable and clean the connection is.
But right now, i choose to celebrate this experience by going to the beach on my fav dirt road.
It's an extra low tide today and i would like to find a couple of specific things to add to the package i'm sending my grandkids.
I got loads of pretty smooth pebbles and various types of shells and corals and crab shells, but i lost the hairy alien seed pods i had, so i want to find some more.
~waves~ laterz
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 6, 2013 19:58:30 GMT -5
I hear ya but I was not attempting to offer any considerations as to why what is going on is going on. I was just noticing it going on and not meaning to put blame anywhere.
That I see you are somewhat similar to me in seeking understanding of a problem and are not interested in issuing tickets to people
who are intentionally or unintentionally connected to the creation/perpetuation of the problem.
I imagine the intent/desire to resolve a problem will be different between us.
However, i see a fine line between 'pointing to a problem' and blame.
In that if a machine is malfunctioning and this machine broke on it's own accord,
a person isn't is going to blame another person for the problem during the observation, examination, and resolution of said problem.
That blame only comes into the 'machine problem' experience when a person is either part of the reason the problem occured or someone thinks this about the person.
So the fine line is, when discussing human interaction problems, that someone is going to blame someone.
I just looked at the dictionary defintion of blame.
It's a bit of a weird word in that it is generally associated with condemnation of the person who is being accused, whether they are actually guilty or not.
Yet when i look at the act that precedes the act of blaming someone, i see an act of examination to find the source of the problem.
When a machine is examined and the source of the problem is found, pointed to, people generally do not say, "I blame this 'self sealing stem bolt' for the problem."
They usually say, "The 'self sealing stem bolt' was the cause/reason/source
otf the problem."
There is no condemning blame being attached to the 'self sealing stem bolt'.
Yet there is condemning blame when a person points a finger at a person when they are judged as the source of the problem,
even though all that is occuring is a person is examining a problem to find the source in order to resolve it.
And i think it's this human glitch of condeming and feeling condemned when it comes to resolving human interaction problems
that interferes in the actual process of resolving such problems.
Humans feel bad when wrong, make mistakes, do something stupid, and feel good when right, successfully complete a task or know the answer to something.
So to me, the glitch is when people get together to resolve a relationship problem, either one or both things manifest,
a person condemns the other for their error, or a person feels condemned when their error is suggested or they are aware of it.
So instead of simply focusing on finding that human 'self sealing stem bolt' and fixing it,
people either condemn person A for having it or person A self condemns for having it.
The actual problem is not resolved, the avoidance of it increases because of the act of blaming or feeling blamed.
The logic is, and there's no avoiding it if a solution is the goal.
If there is a problem between two people, the problem is either in one or both people, and vondemning or feeling condemned does not help one bit.
Further examination of this glitch is;
Person A may be soley focused on finding the source of the problem and fix it in order to repair the relationship, that person A has no intent to condemn(blame) person B,
but person B may be offended (feel condemned/blamed) by any claim that one source of the problem may be in them, even though person A is not interested in blaming.
It seems to me, from my observations of myself and others all these years, that it's human nature to freak out when faced with the reality or possibilty that self is not perfect,
that self has stuffed up, tripped up, made a mistake, done something stupid, or an element of self is dysfunctional,
even though the process of growth, learning new things, transformation, healing will naturally involve making mistakes,
and it seems that people do not like it when another points out one's mistakes/flaws.
And it's reasons like this that i choose to tread as gently and compassionately when trying to help someone with a problem.
I theorise a lot of drama continues because of the aversion to the thought that self is or may be imperfect in whatever specific thing is being examined.
Bottom line for me is, regardless of whether its either someone actually blaming another, or the accused feels blamed even though no one is blaming them,
simply bin 'blaming' and focus on finding the source(s) of the problem and each person changes within themself what requires changing to resolve the problem.
I have found it can take a lot of open, courageous, honest, respectful, compassionate(foregiveness, understanding) explorative discussion to find these sources and willingly change in order to fix relationship problems, that includes the relationship with oneself. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 6, 2013 20:29:54 GMT -5
YAY, I found the beginning of the 'blackmail' issue.Top has a good focus on community and communicating in ways that minimize the potential for reactivity. I've enjoyed his attempts with you and others and I've also enjoyed watching him deal with the boundaries of that approach. In some ways he has more patience than I do and I mean to commend him. Glitch in the matrix: The bolded part. I theorise that the above observation you have made of Topology is one reason you make this claim...
That if Topology is not doing anything wrong in his style, and silver negatively reacts, then silver must be the one with the problem.
That you judge Topology's style as good, so silver's judgement of 'it's not good for her', is a wrong judgement.
Perhaps evidenced by your claim silver is not reading the posts correctly.I am interested to hear from "Figs and others" as to whether thay called it "special ways."
Perhaps the problem is the speaker lacks the skill to convey a message in a different style without compromising the message.
Perhaps the problem is a person lacks the skill to develop and maintain a trusting relationship without hurting the other.
Perhaps the person doesn't give a dingo's kidney about the feelings of the other.
Perhaps the person is not interested in personal attributes, like a person's feelings
and is only interested in transmitting information they deem necessary for the wellbeing of the other.
Which seems counter productive to transmit info to another while that other is hurt by the delivery system.I seriously doubt "pushing", as Topology calls it, is not a style.
Perhaps it's the lack of emotion in a style that causes the style to be felt as abrasive by people who are ok with the emotional aspects of themselves.
If you regard it's not your responsibility to transmit a message as effectively as possible for that individual, then you don't.
As for me, if someone is in pain because i am yelling at them, i willingly lower my voice,
even though i may enjoy yelling and see it as a good way to get a message across.
The problem you quoted me saying applies to you as well. Top has a very gentle and open approach generally, and yet even you have demonized him and made him wrong for your misperception that he is making others wrong. This is why I say the gentleness of the approach is not a major factor in helping one to gain clarity. The major factors are all in the perceiver of the message. The post of Top's to Silver you quoted earlier was about a malfunction of the bolt in the machine, and yet Silver blew a gasket in response. You only imagine you've had success with certain approaches. Your 'success' is due to the dynamics of the receiver of your message. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 6, 2013 20:50:44 GMT -5
YAY, I found the beginning of the 'blackmail' issue.Glitch in the matrix: The bolded part. I theorise that the above observation you have made of Topology is one reason you make this claim...
That if Topology is not doing anything wrong in his style, and silver negatively reacts, then silver must be the one with the problem.
That you judge Topology's style as good, so silver's judgement of 'it's not good for her', is a wrong judgement.
Perhaps evidenced by your claim silver is not reading the posts correctly.I am interested to hear from "Figs and others" as to whether thay called it "special ways."
Perhaps the problem is the speaker lacks the skill to convey a message in a different style without compromising the message.
Perhaps the problem is a person lacks the skill to develop and maintain a trusting relationship without hurting the other.
Perhaps the person doesn't give a dingo's kidney about the feelings of the other.
Perhaps the person is not interested in personal attributes, like a person's feelings
and is only interested in transmitting information they deem necessary for the wellbeing of the other.
Which seems counter productive to transmit info to another while that other is hurt by the delivery system.I seriously doubt "pushing", as Topology calls it, is not a style.
Perhaps it's the lack of emotion in a style that causes the style to be felt as abrasive by people who are ok with the emotional aspects of themselves.
If you regard it's not your responsibility to transmit a message as effectively as possible for that individual, then you don't.
As for me, if someone is in pain because i am yelling at them, i willingly lower my voice,
even though i may enjoy yelling and see it as a good way to get a message across.
The problem you quoted me saying applies to you as well. Top has a very gentle and open approach generally, and yet even you have demonized him and made him wrong for your misperception that he is making others wrong. This is why I say the gentleness of the approach is not a major factor in helping one to gain clarity. The major factors are all in the perceiver of the message. The post of Top's to Silver you quoted earlier was about a malfunction of the bolt in the machine, and yet Silver blew a gasket in response. You only imagine you've had success with certain approaches. Your 'success' is due to the dynamics of the receiver of your message. You do enjoy your gossip, don't you. I 'blew a gasket' is your false interpretation of what went down. I don't like it when you yourself exaggerate stuff like that, E. You're not even in the same room, but more importantly, you're not in my mind and heart and psyche to know whether or not your 'interpretation' of my words mean that. Anyone can control their emotions and even when something is not as a person wants, they can speak or write and say what they feel needs to be said without getting huffy or bent out of shape. And that's just what I did. I could (but I won't) ask you which words in my post(s) addressed to Top caused you to believe I'd blown a gasket. I'm asking you to be a whole lot more careful when you make your judgments and judgment calls of what I'm saying to this or that person. Better yet, don't say anything about what you believe I'm saying or what I mean by what I'm saying, because it comes across as sheer gossip. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 6, 2013 20:56:25 GMT -5
What Enigma is pointing at isn't for the benefit of anyone other than you. What Enigma is pointing at is the following: You have certain agendas or talking points, certain messages that you want to tell Enigma. These are sitting in the background waiting for triggers and contexts to activate their expression. When you read James' post, it sounded like one of his talking points was similar or in support of one of your talking points. You then proceeded as if James had the same talking point as you. This is all Enigma is trying to point at: 1) You have talking points that you hold onto and throw at him. 2) You will mis-hear someone else's talking point if it is "close enough" to your own talking point. This is a mistake in perception and a misrepresentation of another person. Enigma agreed that how I understood his points were consistent with how he intended them. What am I speculating about? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 6, 2013 20:57:57 GMT -5
Hey, Top. What about (or How about) Enigma's siggy about not playing the game) - This is ample talk on your part that points wildly at you playing the game - Not to mention speaking an awful lot for others. I suggest we let them speak for themselves - Unless they don't feel like it or want to. Oh, yes. Definitely speculation, M-G. What am I speculating about? I tried to state Enigma's message in different terms and he said I was successful in my expression of representing him correctly. |
|
