|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2013 13:29:42 GMT -5
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)
As far as i can tell, you, not topology, stated silver was blackmailing, so i chose to speak to the person making the claim.
And i did state quite clearly that the analogy was not inferring any person in ST was either the husband or the wife,
that the analogy was focusing on the concept of blackmail.
I am well aware you don't see anything topology is doing has anything to do with silver feeling hurt.
When silver states she feels hurt by some of topology's style, you don't see what topology is doing. All you see is silver is blackmailing.
You cannot see topology from the position silver sees him.
You remain in your fixed position and see silver is blackmailing.
From that fixed position, you can only see one reason for silver's sharing of her pain, blackmail.
Well you wouldn't say she is blackmailing...you do say she is.
From the numerous threads i have read of your interactions with silver, it seems to me you are convinced your conclusion is correct.
Hence your fixed position.
I offer an alternative for you to move to explore the possiblity that slver is not blackmailing, but you will or can not.
Tzu, though i don't agree with his reflection approach( the effectiveness of it in ST, not the process itself),
has been engaging you to also move from your fixed position in order to explore other possibilities, but you will or can not.That's all a fancy way of saying 'you're wrong'. Top mentioned that he was 'pushing her a bit' once and now he's been labeled as having a pushing style. So you've purchased the picture Figgy painted of Top. I'm saying what approach is used is irrelevant as it is Silver who decides to look or not look. I'm not saying nothing should be said. The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 10, 2013 13:32:24 GMT -5
In your version of the wifebeating scenario, the husband must be so delusional to think that when he's beating up his wife , all he thinks he is doing is some chiropractic work on her back. Unless the wife is a near total retard, surely the wife knows the difference between the pain of slightly forceful back manipulation and being pummeled by her husband. However, if the husband thinks the wife is delusional when she claims he's being abusive when all he sees is he is applying chiropractic measures, and the wife in not a near total retard, she should simply end the relationship because the husband is convinced he's right and his wife is wrong. Back to the situation between you and silver. If silver feels hurt by your style, and expresses she feels hurt, and you are convinced there is nothing wrong with your "pushing" style, thus you have no intention to change, it seems logical to me that silver should stop interacting with you because it seems you are convinced that when silver feels pain, it's part of the process towards whatever it is you are trying to get silver to obtain. It has been my experience that it is human nature to either recoil back into a safe defensive position when hurt by someone, or rise up and attack back. I am assuming here silver...if silver has recoiled back to a defensive position from your pushing, it seems counter productive to claim she is blackmailing when she expresses her pain and asks if you could change your style. It seems a highly irrational conclusion to me, to poke someone, then claim they are blackmailing when they ask you to stop poking them. But i imagine it's not irrational to the person who thinks poking is the correct way to interact with someone who they regard as unconscious of themself and they need a good poke to wake them up. It seems to me that "You are trying to blackmail" comes from a defensive position, and it's the personal style/process that is being defended. The stance is, "My process is correct, the complaining about it is wrong and i will not change because i know this is the best thing for you." "The more you complain, it simply re-enforces my belief this is the correct process and style." Personally, you or anyone else can remain attached to whatever style or process you deem is correct. Though every now and then i will share my observations of some of the things you and others say about concepts and others. [/font] [/quote] M-G, lets put aside these cumbersome metaphors and talk straight to the issue. I have no intent of harming Silver with our interaction. However, Silver gets hurt by reading into things which are not there. I look at how Enigma handles it and I see that Silver becomes defensive and can't hear what he is saying. I look at how Reefs handles it and I see Silver's hackles rising up. I stay the course as much as possible. In the Bad Poetry thread, I was able to talk silver down from her reaction that she was having. In the peaceful warrior thread, I stayed the course and we worked through the miscommunication. I have some skill in navigating through other people's pain. I'm not going to claim to be perfect at it. Here is the open question, which has been open on this board as a theme for a very long time. When someone says "Ow, that hurts" who has what responsibility for the pain? If person A says X and person B gets offended due to a violation of restrictive cultural norm or feels hurt because of past trauma that has not been completely processed, what responsibility does person A have? Factor in various subconscious coping and control mechanism that person B may have to try to control the dynamic. It's not always the case that there are subconscious control/coping mechanisms, but it is very often the case. If person B is playing the martyr and trying to demonize person A for what they said, what should person A do? If person B is goes into a victimhood or emotional tailspinning, what should person A do? What obligations does person A have? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 10, 2013 13:36:54 GMT -5
As far as i can tell, you, not topology, stated silver was blackmailing, so i chose to speak to the person making the claim.
And i did state quite clearly that the analogy was not inferring any person in ST was either the husband or the wife,
that the analogy was focusing on the concept of blackmail.
I am well aware you don't see anything topology is doing has anything to do with silver feeling hurt.
When silver states she feels hurt by some of topology's style, you don't see what topology is doing. All you see is silver is blackmailing.
You cannot see topology from the position silver sees him.
You remain in your fixed position and see silver is blackmailing.
From that fixed position, you can only see one reason for silver's sharing of her pain, blackmail.
Well you wouldn't say she is blackmailing...you do say she is.
From the numerous threads i have read of your interactions with silver, it seems to me you are convinced your conclusion is correct.
Hence your fixed position.
I offer an alternative for you to move to explore the possiblity that slver is not blackmailing, but you will or can not.
Tzu, though i don't agree with his reflection approach( the effectiveness of it in ST, not the process itself),
has been engaging you to also move from your fixed position in order to explore other possibilities, but you will or can not.That's all a fancy way of saying 'you're wrong'. Top mentioned that he was 'pushing her a bit' once and now he's been labeled as having a pushing style. So you've purchased the picture Figgy painted of Top. I'm saying what approach is used is irrelevant as it is Silver who decides to look or not look. I'm not saying nothing should be said. The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style. Here's what I see we are calling "blackmailing". Person B has unprocessed trauma coming up in response to what person A is saying. Person B's coping mechanism is to try to get person A to stop saying what they are saying because it is bringing pain up for them. Person B makes threats of loss of respect, loss of trust, loss of friendship, and loss of integrity to person A in order to get them to stop saying what they are saying. Holding a friendship and respect in ransom to continue avoiding processing the pain is what is being called "blackmail". |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 10, 2013 13:40:09 GMT -5
I think humans are interpretive creatures, not misinterpretive.
That you interpret your style as A, and some others interpret your style as Z.
That if you see it as A does not mean the Z they see was due to misinterpretation.
It simply means their interpretation is not the same as yours.
So the classifying of another's interpretation as misinterpretation seems to comes from a mindset that you see your interpretation as right and theirs is wrong.
That your reasoning or clarity of sight is sound and the other's is not.
Seems evident to me by your constant labeling of other's observations as "giraffe spotting", but you have no derogatory name for your observations.
I assume "giraffe spotting" is a derogative term. Your point is what? That I should see myself as wrong and label it that way? What if you're wrong? The sooner you see yourself as wrong the better for you and for everybody. What if you are not only too stuck to your being right but too ridiculous about your being right? |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 10, 2013 13:41:49 GMT -5
Please define/describe/exemplify control of emotion. We're going to have to dig into this because this is not what I see happening or even possible given the nature of how "choices" happen in how I observer myself. Give me an example of an event or situation where you have consciously chosen your emotional response. |
|
|
|
Post by arisha on Feb 10, 2013 13:43:36 GMT -5
I have the same opinion about mental abilities of Tolle. He cannot be the one to trust, and the one who can guide others on their path. That is why I don't think it is useful for anybody to follow any of his ideas. If some people had a good result after reading his books it does not necessarily mean that his books triggered the result, - there could be some other reasons for that, and what caused the result was unnoticed. I know plenty of people who started having problems on their path after they tried to follow Tolle's ideas. The passage you cite is actually not about Tolle. It's about another guy who, like Tolle, decided that he can share with the world how egoless he is, and how much bliss he is having. The same stuff with no truth in it. It is very easy to feel a bliss if one has enough money for that. But let those guys try to feel the same bliss without money. None of those who claim to be enlightened and full of bliss would agree for such an experiment.
Either she's really smart or i am really stupid, for our respective ages, because we both would consistantly solve the puzzle in an average of 6 tries.
When we are the code holder, we both observe the other's attempts at solving it and calculate how many more ties are needed for the other to solve it.
We were playing one day, and chatting about a wide variety of things , from boys to consciousness...
and we both had a laugh at how it seems boys take longer to develop that part of themselves.
Anyways, we were playing along, and i solved the code in 6 tries, to which my dawta, exclaimed,
Dawta: How did you do that!?
M-G: What's the problem, We have both been consistantly solving it in around 6 tries?
Dawta: Well, i was looking at all your previous tries and i saw you were consistantly making two same errors,
that you were way off the mark, and i calculated it would take you at least 2-3 more goes to resolve those errors,
let alone solve the rest of the colours you haven't got right....did you guess that last go?
M-G: No, just calculated like i always do.
Dawta: No freakin' way...there is no way you could solve the code in one more go considering the mess you made of all the other tries...
ok, explain to me how you solve the codes.
To which i did, which didn't take long because my process is quite simple and effective, hence the '6 tries' average.
My dawta looked at me, jaw dropped and said, "That is the stoopidest system i have ever heard...
it dosn't make sense, it's illogical...and dumb...you are crazy...man, your head is broken."
I said, "Really? It seems to work quite well for me, ok, tell me your process."
She did, and i too had trouble with my jaw.
As she described it, all i saw in my mind was me getting tangled up trying to follow her procedure.
At thened i literally couild not comprehend how she consistantly solves it in 6 tries, not with that crazy process.
It didn't even look like a process to me, it just looked like a big mess that was more trouble than it was worth.
But the evidence was right there in front of both our eyes, we each could consistantly solve the code in 6ish tries.
My dawta being more teen angsty than me, focused more on how stoopid my process looked to her,
while i was trying to comprehend why i could follow her system even though i knew it worked extremely well.
My theory, of which i shared with her is that we process the information from reality differently.
And because of this, her process will not work for me, it doesn't make sense, it seems irrational and illogical, and my process looks the same way to her.
Even though we both can see the end result is the same, we both got from A to B in the same amount of time, but each took different thinking paths to get there.
I cannot walk her path and she cannot walk mine.
I extend my theory that there will be people who find Tolle's or any specific person's understanding of something,
to make sense, it's logical and affective, and others will not.
I'll use Tolle as the reference point.
Some walk Tolle's path for years and will always benefit from it.
Some walk for a while but slowly conclude for XYZ reasons that his way is illogical, so they leave it.
Each person decides from their experiences of a path if it is the right one for them.
Some people decide just by looking at the sign at the entrance of a path.
Some decide after exploring for a season.
I know my kundalini awakening was directly from reading about being in the present moment, from his first book.
But i left the path because of all the other stuff that i reasoned and concluded will not help me on my journey.
His path is wrong for me, but not wrong for others who benefit from it.
Same with Osho, who was my main guide into eastern philosophies.
A produced a lot of permanent positive states within myself due to the writings of Osho,
But a few years down the track, when i reread these books, i see 50% i do not agree with.
It was not wrong for me to read Tolle's books or Osho's, but it is wrong if i believe everything they say.
But i would not know this unless i went on those paths and explored for myself.
If Tolle or whoever's thoughts seem wrong to you, then they do, but they may be right to others and that's why they go on those paths.
Perhaps one day they will leave those paths and perhaps they will remain on them.
It seems to me, from the early stages of my journey, that there is no absolute right or wrong regarding certain things in life.
That people choose paths that make sense to them, what they rez with, regardless if another doesn't rez with it.
It's like radio frequencies. Some people can tune into one frequency and can hear it very clearly and they enjoy it,
and others tune into another frequencies and they hear that one clearly and enjoy it.
Condemning the prefererences of another may not be logical because they may be hearing exactly what they need and makes their life better according to them.
Sure, for some people even a wrong path may be a good path, and they may benefit from it. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 10, 2013 13:53:22 GMT -5
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.
That you interpret your style as A, and some others interpret your style as Z.
That if you see it as A does not mean the Z they see was due to misinterpretation.
It simply means their interpretation is not the same as yours.
So the classifying of another's interpretation as misinterpretation seems to comes from a mindset that you see your interpretation as right and theirs is wrong.
That your reasoning or clarity of sight is sound and the other's is not.
Seems evident to me by your constant labeling of other's observations as "giraffe spotting", but you have no derogatory name for your observations.
I assume "giraffe spotting" is a derogative term.The word Sin is not derogative, at least not its original meaning. It simply means to miss the mark, to make a mistake. Add in years of guilttripping by the church and Sinning becomes an affront in God's eyes, a reason to reject and punish. Giraffe Spotting is similar but with respect to how people interpret each other, adding interpretation to what was said that was not there. For example, I Giraffed when I accused you of presupposition without it being in the common ground. That was my Giraffe. I thought I saw something happening which was not happening. It's not derogative. It simply means a mistake in perception/interpretation, for whatever reason. People respond to hearing "You're seeing a Giraffe" negatively because they don't want to admit to being wrong. Let's call that part of us that doesn't want to admit to our own faults, that part of us that tries to maintain and preserve our personal self-conception and identity, the ego. Or at least part of the ego. Another aspect of it is Will and Desire. Yes the Ego is a perceived Gestalt, but so is inferred intent. It's a useful term at times and can be abused at times. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2013 13:59:05 GMT -5
In your version of the wifebeating scenario, the husband must be so delusional to think that when he's beating up his wife , all he thinks he is doing is some chiropractic work on her back. Unless the wife is a near total retard, surely the wife knows the difference between the pain of slightly forceful back manipulation and being pummeled by her husband. However, if the husband thinks the wife is delusional when she claims he's being abusive when all he sees is he is applying chiropractic measures, and the wife in not a near total retard, she should simply end the relationship because the husband is convinced he's right and his wife is wrong. Back to the situation between you and silver. If silver feels hurt by your style, and expresses she feels hurt, and you are convinced there is nothing wrong with your "pushing" style, thus you have no intention to change, it seems logical to me that silver should stop interacting with you because it seems you are convinced that when silver feels pain, it's part of the process towards whatever it is you are trying to get silver to obtain. It has been my experience that it is human nature to either recoil back into a safe defensive position when hurt by someone, or rise up and attack back. I am assuming here silver...if silver has recoiled back to a defensive position from your pushing, it seems counter productive to claim she is blackmailing when she expresses her pain and asks if you could change your style. It seems a highly irrational conclusion to me, to poke someone, then claim they are blackmailing when they ask you to stop poking them. But i imagine it's not irrational to the person who thinks poking is the correct way to interact with someone who they regard as unconscious of themself and they need a good poke to wake them up. It seems to me that "You are trying to blackmail" comes from a defensive position, and it's the personal style/process that is being defended. The stance is, "My process is correct, the complaining about it is wrong and i will not change because i know this is the best thing for you." "The more you complain, it simply re-enforces my belief this is the correct process and style." Personally, you or anyone else can remain attached to whatever style or process you deem is correct. Though every now and then i will share my observations of some of the things you and others say about concepts and others. [/font] [/quote] M-G, lets put aside these cumbersome metaphors and talk straight to the issue. I have no intent of harming Silver with our interaction. However, Silver gets hurt by reading into things which are not there. I look at how Enigma handles it and I see that Silver becomes defensive and can't hear what he is saying. I look at how Reefs handles it and I see Silver's hackles rising up. I stay the course as much as possible. In the Bad Poetry thread, I was able to talk silver down from her reaction that she was having. In the peaceful warrior thread, I stayed the course and we worked through the miscommunication. I have some skill in navigating through other people's pain. I'm not going to claim to be perfect at it. Here is the open question, which has been open on this board as a theme for a very long time. When someone says "Ow, that hurts" who has what responsibility for the pain? If person A says X and person B gets offended due to a violation of restrictive cultural norm or feels hurt because of past trauma that has not been completely processed, what responsibility does person A have? Factor in various subconscious coping and control mechanism that person B may have to try to control the dynamic. It's not always the case that there are subconscious control/coping mechanisms, but it is very often the case. If person B is playing the martyr and trying to demonize person A for what they said, what should person A do? If person B is goes into a victimhood or emotional tailspinning, what should person A do? What obligations does person A have? [/quote] The following contains speculation. I see no conscious intent to harm Silver. However, I think that there might be some element of you taking out (or projecting) your marital issues on Silver. Similarly with Enigma, who is in a relationship in which he 'teaches' his partner.... in which he is showing her 'the way'. These dynamics in personal relationships off the forum may well be playing themselves out on the forum, and Silver represents something that you focus on in your partners. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 14:31:43 GMT -5
Awoke this morning choosing to go through the whole thread in order to see the whole life of the "blackmail" incident.
Didn't want to at first because i knew i would come across other things to ponder and perhaps respond to, but have pondered both ways and have chosen this way.
If that were so, then one would expect 'personal love' to never fail. And yet..... Here's a slightly modified true story.
I bought a decent quality MTB for $1000 back in dec 2011.
Pete( bike shop owner):This is a good bike, i'm quite sure your health and fitness will increase and you will have many hours of enjoyment with it.
M-G: Yeah, and i agree, i like the bike and i think we will make a good team.
...fast forward to 12 months later...M-G goes back to the shop, disappointed...
Pete: Hey M-G, hows the bike?
M-G: Hey Pete, the bike is awesome though i got a bit of a complaint.
Pete: Oh, what is it?
M-G: Well, i so expected to get fit and enjoy my time with the bike, and although i enjoyed the bike for the first couple of days,
i never did get fitter and healthier and of course, my enjoyment dispersed fairly quickly.
Pete: That's odd because you said you have always liked MTBs and i know this is a quality bike that will not break down so easily.
And you say you have not gotten fitter and healthier...ok, how many hours a week riding have you been doing?
~long pause of contemplation~
M-G: Ohh, i am meant to ride it?
Love only fails when either not used, or is hindered(blocked, distorted, infected) by some other factor while using it,
or using something that i think is love but isn't, like strong attraction for instance.
That has been my experiences.
When my personal love is clear and free, it has never failed me.
I would say what love really is, is always "blocked, hindered, infected" by the persona using it as Love is fundamentally impersonal.
However, i do know what my experiences of it is, how i define it and i know how to remove my obstacles that hinder my emission and reception of it.
So to me, love is fundamentally personal. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2013 14:45:18 GMT -5
In your version of the wifebeating scenario, the husband must be so delusional to think that when he's beating up his wife , all he thinks he is doing is some chiropractic work on her back. Unless the wife is a near total retard, surely the wife knows the difference between the pain of slightly forceful back manipulation and being pummeled by her husband. However, if the husband thinks the wife is delusional when she claims he's being abusive when all he sees is he is applying chiropractic measures, and the wife in not a near total retard, she should simply end the relationship because the husband is convinced he's right and his wife is wrong. Back to the situation between you and silver. If silver feels hurt by your style, and expresses she feels hurt, and you are convinced there is nothing wrong with your "pushing" style, thus you have no intention to change, it seems logical to me that silver should stop interacting with you because it seems you are convinced that when silver feels pain, it's part of the process towards whatever it is you are trying to get silver to obtain. It has been my experience that it is human nature to either recoil back into a safe defensive position when hurt by someone, or rise up and attack back. I am assuming here silver...if silver has recoiled back to a defensive position from your pushing, it seems counter productive to claim she is blackmailing when she expresses her pain and asks if you could change your style. It seems a highly irrational conclusion to me, to poke someone, then claim they are blackmailing when they ask you to stop poking them. But i imagine it's not irrational to the person who thinks poking is the correct way to interact with someone who they regard as unconscious of themself and they need a good poke to wake them up. It seems to me that "You are trying to blackmail" comes from a defensive position, and it's the personal style/process that is being defended. The stance is, "My process is correct, the complaining about it is wrong and i will not change because i know this is the best thing for you." "The more you complain, it simply re-enforces my belief this is the correct process and style." Personally, you or anyone else can remain attached to whatever style or process you deem is correct. Though every now and then i will share my observations of some of the things you and others say about concepts and others. [/font] [/quote] M-G, lets put aside these cumbersome metaphors and talk straight to the issue. I have no intent of harming Silver with our interaction. However, Silver gets hurt by reading into things which are not there. I look at how Enigma handles it and I see that Silver becomes defensive and can't hear what he is saying. I look at how Reefs handles it and I see Silver's hackles rising up. I stay the course as much as possible. In the Bad Poetry thread, I was able to talk silver down from her reaction that she was having. In the peaceful warrior thread, I stayed the course and we worked through the miscommunication. I have some skill in navigating through other people's pain. I'm not going to claim to be perfect at it. Here is the open question, which has been open on this board as a theme for a very long time. When someone says "Ow, that hurts" who has what responsibility for the pain? If person A says X and person B gets offended due to a violation of restrictive cultural norm or feels hurt because of past trauma that has not been completely processed, what responsibility does person A have? Factor in various subconscious coping and control mechanism that person B may have to try to control the dynamic. It's not always the case that there are subconscious control/coping mechanisms, but it is very often the case. If person B is playing the martyr and trying to demonize person A for what they said, what should person A do? If person B is goes into a victimhood or emotional tailspinning, what should person A do? What obligations does person A have? [/quote] You've stated the issue clearly. I don't have more to say on the responsibility issue at the moment, but I've been exploring the style issue you mentioned first. My conclusion is basically that, given that the style is not openly abusive, which means anything from quite blunt and personally neutral to very gentle, style doesn't actually lead to clarity about unconscious stuff. It does determine the tone of the conversation and the level of resistance experienced and expressed, but this doesn't imply something is seen that wasn't seen before. For example, 'talking someone down' from an emotional reaction is good if the goal is to calm one down, but it doesn't imply clarity has happened or even that one has necessarily been helped by it. Likewise, 'resolving miscommunication' is always good, but I usually see that even when miscommunications are cleared up, it happens in such a way that the issue that triggered the miscommunication is swept off to the side in the process. The same applies to all 'gentle' approaches where nothing is really seen in spite of an exchange of agreement, gratitude and various niceties, because there is no real motivation to look or to see. As I see it, the reason for this is that the focus is on style and style issues and never becomes focused on the content that one resists regardless of the style in which it is presented. Even if one graciously takes on new ideas, these ideas tend to never go anywhere or result in genuine change or clarity. However, because of the agreeable nature of the relationship, there may be all the signs of having taken on board the ideas and internally processed them. Upon closer examination, they were likely distorted to fit the listeners dynamics and beliefs rather than acting as a catalyst for changing them. We all have stories of apparent success with whatever approach we use, but I say success is not determined by the approach but by the readiness (openness, sincerity, courage) of the listener. Given that readiness, a 'student' position is taken up, and it's inevitable that a 'teacher' will appear. That 'teacher' can be anyone or anything. If the 'student' is ready, it is already done. If there is no readiness, nothing can be done. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2013 14:52:19 GMT -5
That's all a fancy way of saying 'you're wrong'. Top mentioned that he was 'pushing her a bit' once and now he's been labeled as having a pushing style. So you've purchased the picture Figgy painted of Top. I'm saying what approach is used is irrelevant as it is Silver who decides to look or not look. I'm not saying nothing should be said. The fact that Silver is blackmailing is a separate issue from whatever is said to her with whatever style. Here's what I see we are calling "blackmailing". Person B has unprocessed trauma coming up in response to what person A is saying. Person B's coping mechanism is to try to get person A to stop saying what they are saying because it is bringing pain up for them. Person B makes threats of loss of respect, loss of trust, loss of friendship, and loss of integrity to person A in order to get them to stop saying what they are saying. Holding a friendship and respect in ransom to continue avoiding processing the pain is what is being called "blackmail". Precisely, and I'll add that it makes little sense to engage in this blackmail consciously, as it would only force the blackmailer to confront what he's intent on not looking at. So, there's the added complication that the blackmailer is not consciously aware of his motives or distortions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 14:55:38 GMT -5
Top mentioned that he was 'pushing her a bit' once and now he's been labeled as having a pushing style. So you've purchased the picture Figgy painted of Top.  Have you actually read the conversation Top and I had? Or are you referring to some past conversation...? The most recent, had nothing to do with me saying he was 'pushy.' Rather, from my perspective, we were (quite nicely and productively, imo) mostly discussing the idea of the death of our loved ones becoming trivial minutia once we'd processed our pain. Turns out, Top agreed that the word "minutia" wasn't the best he could have chosen and that was that. In terms of painting a particular picture of Top; I actually hold him in pretty high regard in terms of someone who has good intentions and who remains open to the possibility of seeing something differently. I've certainly never experienced the sense that he was 'pushing' me anyway. So please.....leave me outta this.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 10, 2013 14:59:26 GMT -5
M-G, lets put aside these cumbersome metaphors and talk straight to the issue. I have no intent of harming Silver with our interaction. However, Silver gets hurt by reading into things which are not there. I look at how Enigma handles it and I see that Silver becomes defensive and can't hear what he is saying. I look at how Reefs handles it and I see Silver's hackles rising up. I stay the course as much as possible. In the Bad Poetry thread, I was able to talk silver down from her reaction that she was having. In the peaceful warrior thread, I stayed the course and we worked through the miscommunication. I have some skill in navigating through other people's pain. I'm not going to claim to be perfect at it. Here is the open question, which has been open on this board as a theme for a very long time. When someone says "Ow, that hurts" who has what responsibility for the pain? If person A says X and person B gets offended due to a violation of restrictive cultural norm or feels hurt because of past trauma that has not been completely processed, what responsibility does person A have? Factor in various subconscious coping and control mechanism that person B may have to try to control the dynamic. It's not always the case that there are subconscious control/coping mechanisms, but it is very often the case. If person B is playing the martyr and trying to demonize person A for what they said, what should person A do? If person B is goes into a victimhood or emotional tailspinning, what should person A do? What obligations does person A have? The following contains speculation. I see no conscious intent to harm Silver. However, I think that there might be some element of you taking out (or projecting) your marital issues on Silver. Similarly with Enigma, who is in a relationship in which he 'teaches' his partner.... in which he is showing her 'the way'. These dynamics in personal relationships off the forum may well be playing themselves out on the forum, and Silver represents something that you focus on in your partners. That is a nice piece of speculation there. How would you propose investigating whether or not that speculation is true? It also neglects to take into account other dynamics. 1) The Silver-Reefs dynamic. 2) The possibility that Silver is projecting onto me with respect to her mother-son dynamic. Let's continue speculation and work with this "club" idea, which in my mind is really a schism in philosophical approaches to the world. Reefs, Enigma and I all have a focus on becoming aware of subconscious dynamics and that is how we "work" with other people. The output of that focus varies between us. Reefs doesn't sugar coat anything and seems to focus on the more extreme interpretations (there's something to be said for when interpretations become possibly valid). Enigma doesn't quite go for the extreme interpretations but focuses more on his experience of what was literally said. My approach I would have a hard time classifying as its coming out of me instead of me observing it coming out of someone else. So here you have 3 salsas, mild (presumably me), medium (E), and muy caliente (Reefs). The fact that Silver trips up with all three of us along that scale of gradation would suggest, to me, that its something in Silver, a reactivity to having someone else point out how they perceive her behavior. Perhaps its triggering a trauma with someone in her past who did the same thing. Mother, Father, parent, sibling, former husband, old boyfriend, etc. I'm speculating as well. My speculation accounts for more data points that I see and I think it would be more accurately predictive as a model for future events. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2013 15:07:55 GMT -5
...or personal love is pure uninfected with conditions love, aka love is love,
but this personal love has conditions attached to it.
That love remains as love, but it's surrounded by conditions.
So then the issue is not that love has been infected and been mutated into something other that pure love,
but simply the pure love was encased in conditions.
So that when love is emitted or recieved, it's filtered through the conditions, but these conditions are not attributes of love.
I don't really have an issue with that, but I tend to see the effort to make conditional love the same as unconditional love by declaring a common reference and focusing only on the idea that it is love, to the extent that we may mistake our personal conditional love for impersonal unconditional love. To be clear, it looks to me like an attempt to personally 'own' unconditional love.
I see it as there is love, and it can be surrounded, thus interfered with by conditions.
I don't know who you have observed and think they are trying to make 'conditional love' the same as 'uconditional love', as i know it ain't me.
There is a common understanding on earth that there is a thing called love and people can define it anyway they choose,
just like everything else that may or may not exist in reality.
My focus is on cleaning up my insides so i can emit and receive love as efficiently as possible, and i leave the love debate to those that want to debate it.
Emitting and receiving love is where the theories get tested.
I self examine and my emission and reception is improving, so i conclude i must be doin' ok with my interpretations.
OH AWESOME!...A huge Daddy Long Legs just dropped down from the ceiling right in front of my monitor.
Which reminds me...
The other day, i opened my car door and this huge palm sized Hunstman frantically ducked in under my seat.
Now rally driving on the dirt road has just become more exciting.
Even reaching down for my seatbelt latch has gone up a notch or two in excitement.
Me mum was like, "Quick, get the bug spray and kill it!!"
And i was like, "Mah, you know i don't kill other living things if i don't have to.
If Helen Hunstman wants to run across my face while i'm driving, then it will be an experience that i will treasure like all my other ones."
Mah just looked at me, semi facepalmed and told me i'm an idiot.
I laughed and said "YAY!"
And on that note, i think Daddy Long Legs are the most chilled out spiders i have encountered. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Feb 10, 2013 15:08:04 GMT -5
M-G, lets put aside these cumbersome metaphors and talk straight to the issue. I have no intent of harming Silver with our interaction. However, Silver gets hurt by reading into things which are not there. I look at how Enigma handles it and I see that Silver becomes defensive and can't hear what he is saying. I look at how Reefs handles it and I see Silver's hackles rising up. I stay the course as much as possible. In the Bad Poetry thread, I was able to talk silver down from her reaction that she was having. In the peaceful warrior thread, I stayed the course and we worked through the miscommunication. I have some skill in navigating through other people's pain. I'm not going to claim to be perfect at it. Here is the open question, which has been open on this board as a theme for a very long time. When someone says "Ow, that hurts" who has what responsibility for the pain? If person A says X and person B gets offended due to a violation of restrictive cultural norm or feels hurt because of past trauma that has not been completely processed, what responsibility does person A have? Factor in various subconscious coping and control mechanism that person B may have to try to control the dynamic. It's not always the case that there are subconscious control/coping mechanisms, but it is very often the case. If person B is playing the martyr and trying to demonize person A for what they said, what should person A do? If person B is goes into a victimhood or emotional tailspinning, what should person A do? What obligations does person A have? You've stated the issue clearly. I don't have more to say on the responsibility issue at the moment, but I've been exploring the style issue you mentioned first. My conclusion is basically that, given that the style is not openly abusive, which means anything from quite blunt and personally neutral to very gentle, style doesn't actually lead to clarity about unconscious stuff. It does determine the tone of the conversation and the level of resistance experienced and expressed, but this doesn't imply something is seen that wasn't seen before. For example, 'talking someone down' from an emotional reaction is good if the goal is to calm one down, but it doesn't imply clarity has happened or even that one has necessarily been helped by it. Likewise, 'resolving miscommunication' is always good, but I usually see that even when miscommunications are cleared up, it happens in such a way that the issue that triggered the miscommunication is swept off to the side in the process. The same applies to all 'gentle' approaches where nothing is really seen in spite of an exchange of agreement, gratitude and various niceties, because there is no real motivation to look or to see. As I see it, the reason for this is that the focus is on style and style issues and never becomes focused on the content that one resists regardless of the style in which it is presented. Even if one graciously takes on new ideas, these ideas tend to never go anywhere or result in genuine change or clarity. However, because of the agreeable nature of the relationship, there may be all the signs of having taken on board the ideas and internally processed them. Upon closer examination, they were likely distorted to fit the listeners dynamics and beliefs rather than acting as a catalyst for changing them. We all have stories of apparent success with whatever approach we use, but I say success is not determined by the approach but by the readiness (openness, sincerity, courage) of the listener. Given that readiness, a 'student' position is taken up, and it's inevitable that a 'teacher' will appear. That 'teacher' can be anyone or anything. If the 'student' is ready, it is already done. If there is no readiness, nothing can be done. I can agree with this. When someone is in the midst of resistivity, i.e. having an extremely negative reaction to style (example Silver wrt Reefs), do you see it as having a negative impact on readiness? Or do you see it as a catalyst if the readiness is there? What in your mind leads to readiness? The reason I see Reef's style as counterproductive is that it is prone to building a resentment and a closed ear to the message. I see a shut-down and active avoidance. Go back to Trauma and Resiliency. Reef's style, I feel, pushes the trauma past the point of resiliency and creates some damage which takes longer to recover from. I try to keep the level of trauma within the scope of resiliency. So in Reef's eyes I look like a fence sitter because I won't push past what I sense is a boundary between resiliency being possible and interfering with resiliency. |
|
Have you actually read the conversation Top and I had? Or are you referring to some past conversation...? The most recent, had nothing to do with me saying he was 'pushy.' Rather, from my perspective, we were (quite nicely and productively, imo) mostly discussing the idea of the death of our loved ones becoming trivial minutia once we'd processed our pain. 