|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 3:51:50 GMT -5
Hi topology, I don't know you or others here and this is not a supportive place to do as you ask. Not all here treat each other with care. It would be foolish to do as you ask under those circumstances. Is that why you are not doing it? My question was directed to those who don't care about those considerations and feel that it is useful to get personal. Lets see how many of them are willing when it is there character under the spotlight. Not many I suspect. Questioning character is the need to challenge style and morality, which is what you're doing here in this thread. I wouldn't say it's useless, but it is a distraction. It's the result of one deriving all perceptions from a personal perspective and failing to recognize the impersonal. Hi enigma, What is meant by character analysis in the context of this thread is the exploration of defenses and how they apply to getting personal here. It may be possible to reach a point where getting personal was not taken personally if we were all aware of the defenses/conditioning of those who regard getting personal as useful because such comments could then be seen in that context rather than that aspect being concealed. amit
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 4:01:44 GMT -5
More random trolling? I would normally never argue for someone to be banned from a forum, exclusion does not suite me....but it seems that you spend so much energy pointing out what you perceive to be other people's flaws, or, as in the case of this post, outright trolling people....that you make a strong case as to why a ban can be useful. You just spend too much time trying to provoke people instead of communicating with them....in a forum that has just gotten ugly with personal assessments and provocation, instead of collegial exploration, you are the worst offender, and usually instigator of the bad tone.....you intentionally provoke and provoke whomever you can, and then when you are successful you gloat and point a finger at the person that you had been provoking as if to say: AHA! You are caught! So unfortunately, as you seem to be the primary initiator, and supporter of most of the ugliness around here, I gotta say that I'd actually like to see you banned for a bit....you just to involved with every bit of ugliness that goes on in this forum, and by ugliness, I mean this crazy perfusion of personal assessment posts that get flung at each other like weapons here. Banning you would go a long way toward "deweaponizing" this place lol What you call random trolling, and which set off a rant, I see as a perfectly valid and useful response to Amit's inquiry. Reefs is saying that character is in the conditioning, and as such, perhaps it's not a particularly useful focus. It addresses moral codes and style preferences; what we sometimes call the personal perspective here, and I know Reefs has little interest in it. Amit (and you) are confused about what's happening here when folks are challenged. Belief systems and unconscious reactions are challenged so as to bring conscious awareness to these limited ways of being. The character discussions are initiated by the ones reacting to these challenges. those who you criticize the most don't have any particular interest in what kind of a person you are. That's not what is meant by the personal approach. Hi enigma, Yes the challenges you mention would be useful but if getting personal is involved, sense cannot be made of that without some degree of understanding the defense mechanisms of those who value that approach so that people can have a view of how clean the challenge is and to what extent it's the conditioning of the challenger. amit
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 4:19:52 GMT -5
Fine, I will spell it out for you. My position is that psychoanalysis is a great tool but when it is used in an asymmetrical context (analyst/analysand) it should be done only with someone of great competence and with absolute confidentiality. This forum is a terrible place for it. At the present moment, on this forum there is present neither sufficient competence, certainly no confidentiality, and above all here is way too much hostility - some discussions here are utterly bizarre and the behaviour of some members is quite frightening to be honest. I disagree with you on a couple of points. First, that what's going on here is mostly psychoanalysis. I don't see a strict line between pointing out confused thinking and psychoanalyzing someone. It's a fuzzy line, and where it gets crossed is pretty much subjective. Second, that the level of competence isn't sufficient. Sufficient for what? This is all about seeing for ourselves what's going on in mind. Someone says to me, "you're hung up on morality (or whatever)", the point is to look inside and see if that's true. If it's not, toss it. Totally agree that there's a lot of hostility. And that alone can be a deterrent to open sharing. Not sure if anything can be done about that, though. When there's a challenge to those ideas we hold most dearly, hostility can happen. I don't see anyone being forced. Lots of options - don't respond, ignore, sign off. It is all voluntary. All that being said, though, I agree there's a confrontational tone to the forum, and some times it does border on creepy. It seems to come down to what each person expects from ST. If they're looking for a caring, nurturing, supportive space to share views - this probably ain't it. Hi quinn, Such statements as you mention above "you're hung up on morality (or whatever)" may be said by a person who has no idea of their own hangups let alone yours. Unless their is a relationship where there is some understanding of conditioning and defenses, it is at best distracting. amit
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 25, 2013 5:04:06 GMT -5
I disagree with you on a couple of points. First, that what's going on here is mostly psychoanalysis. I don't see a strict line between pointing out confused thinking and psychoanalyzing someone. It's a fuzzy line, and where it gets crossed is pretty much subjective. Second, that the level of competence isn't sufficient. Sufficient for what? This is all about seeing for ourselves what's going on in mind. Someone says to me, "you're hung up on morality (or whatever)", the point is to look inside and see if that's true. If it's not, toss it. Totally agree that there's a lot of hostility. And that alone can be a deterrent to open sharing. Not sure if anything can be done about that, though. When there's a challenge to those ideas we hold most dearly, hostility can happen. I don't see anyone being forced. Lots of options - don't respond, ignore, sign off. It is all voluntary. All that being said, though, I agree there's a confrontational tone to the forum, and some times it does border on creepy. It seems to come down to what each person expects from ST. If they're looking for a caring, nurturing, supportive space to share views - this probably ain't it. Hi quinn, Such statements as you mention above "you're hung up on morality (or whatever)" may be said by a person who has no idea of their own hangups let alone yours. Unless their is a relationship where there is some understanding of conditioning and defenses, it is at best distracting. amit Well, of course you're right about "may be said by a person who has no idea...". And, just as often, it may be said by someone with a clearer perspective - clearer solely by virtue of the fact that they're not in our heads. We usually have a blind-spot in regards to our subtle beliefs. They're so close and so ingrained that they go unnoticed, but they're always going to play out in some way. Others can pick up on that much more easily than we can. And I don't think they necessarily have to be hang-up free to do that. Defenses come in a lot of forms. Refusing to listen to what someone is saying because we don't deem them to be hang-up free can be one. If there is no 'personhood' to defend, what harm is there in considering what another has pointed out?
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 5:59:30 GMT -5
Hi quinn, Such statements as you mention above "you're hung up on morality (or whatever)" may be said by a person who has no idea of their own hangups let alone yours. Unless their is a relationship where there is some understanding of conditioning and defenses, it is at best distracting. amit Well, of course you're right about "may be said by a person who has no idea...". And, just as often, it may be said by someone with a clearer perspective - clearer solely by virtue of the fact that they're not in our heads. We usually have a blind-spot in regards to our subtle beliefs. They're so close and so ingrained that they go unnoticed, but they're always going to play out in some way. Others can pick up on that much more easily than we can. And I don't think they necessarily have to be hang-up free to do that. Defenses come in a lot of forms. Refusing to listen to what someone is saying because we don't deem them to be hang-up free can be one. If there is no 'personhood' to defend, what harm is there in considering what another has pointed out? Hi quinn, There are clues about whether a statement is a projection of conditioning/defenses. These are not infallible by any means but if criticism is included it is a sign that the challenge is about aspects of the challenger which the challenger finds unacceptable about themselves which is projected out. The more such statements are loaded with emotion, the stronger is the unacceptable aspect of the challenger. Criticism can of course be constructive as well as carry the intention to be destructive. Characters will vary about how it is seen. If one is curious about another character and asks questions rather than stating a conclusion already reached about them, then that can be another sign of whether a projection is involved. amit
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 25, 2013 6:37:28 GMT -5
Hi quinn, There are clues about whether a statement is a projection of conditioning/defenses. These are not infallible by any means but if criticism is included it is a sign that the challenge is about aspects of the challenger which the challenger finds unacceptable about themselves which is projected out. The more such statements are loaded with emotion, the stronger is the unacceptable aspect of the challenger. Criticism can of course be constructive as well as carry the intention to be destructive. Characters will vary about how it is seen. If one is curious about another character and asks questions rather than stating a conclusion already reached about them, then that can be another sign of whether a projection is involved. amit I challenge the underlined part. Whether it's perceived as criticism or not is in the eye of the beholder. Well, okay - mostly in the eye of the beholder. The word 'criticism' has a connotation to me of 'tearing down' - usually to satisfy some need of the criticizer, as opposed to 'critique' which is seen as more helpful-based. So to make the distinction you're talking about, it requires that we know the intention of the criticizer. Really, we can only guess at that. That's where things get a little surreal around here. Person A is dumbfounded that Person B can't see what horrible things Person C is doing. We're all guessing. Some like to check in with their body for confirmation, but I think that's an unreliable indicator of others' intentions. I propose we don't even bother with the guessing. If what someone says doesn't resonate, then ignore it. It could be they're delusional or it could be that you're just not ready to hear what they have to say. Otherwise, consider it. Simple.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 25, 2013 9:03:48 GMT -5
Greetings..
It is noteworthy that when 'you' are the source of people's "hard falls and meltdowns", due to your routine interventions in otherwise productive discussion among civil people, you find cause to defend your bullying tactics with more of the same.. does it make you feel like an 'adult' to post aggressively, and create the illusion that unless we get 'down and dirty' we can't be like you??? Is this your idea of 'grown up', LOL..
This has been moved to to the thread,'Character Analysis', as it exposes your 'character'..
Be well..
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 9:35:20 GMT -5
Hi quinn, There are clues about whether a statement is a projection of conditioning/defenses. These are not infallible by any means but if criticism is included it is a sign that the challenge is about aspects of the challenger which the challenger finds unacceptable about themselves which is projected out. The more such statements are loaded with emotion, the stronger is the unacceptable aspect of the challenger. Criticism can of course be constructive as well as carry the intention to be destructive. Characters will vary about how it is seen. If one is curious about another character and asks questions rather than stating a conclusion already reached about them, then that can be another sign of whether a projection is involved. amit I challenge the underlined part. Whether it's perceived as criticism or not is in the eye of the beholder. Well, okay - mostly in the eye of the beholder. The word 'criticism' has a connotation to me of 'tearing down' - usually to satisfy some need of the criticizer, as opposed to 'critique' which is seen as more helpful-based. So to make the distinction you're talking about, it requires that we know the intention of the criticizer. Really, we can only guess at that. That's where things get a little surreal around here. Person A is dumbfounded that Person B can't see what horrible things Person C is doing. We're all guessing. Some like to check in with their body for confirmation, but I think that's an unreliable indicator of others' intentions. I propose we don't even bother with the guessing. If what someone says doesn't resonate, then ignore it. It could be they're delusional or it could be that you're just not ready to hear what they have to say. Otherwise, consider it. Simple. Hi quinn, Questions can be asked of the challenger getting personal to find out how they feel about the effect of their defenses on the personal statements they are making about people they don't know. That way a channel can be left open if they are prepared to offer the openness they would like from others on a personal level. amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 10:29:54 GMT -5
Questioning character is the need to challenge style and morality, which is what you're doing here in this thread. I wouldn't say it's useless, but it is a distraction. It's the result of one deriving all perceptions from a personal perspective and failing to recognize the impersonal. Hi enigma, What is meant by character analysis in the context of this thread is the exploration of defenses and how they apply to getting personal here. It may be possible to reach a point where getting personal was not taken personally if we were all aware of the defenses/conditioning of those who regard getting personal as useful because such comments could then be seen in that context rather than that aspect being concealed. Right, so from your perspective everyone has defenses, it's just that some hide them from view while getting personal with others. You figure that if they are exposed for who they really are then their victims could just laugh instead of getting upset. Does that sound about right?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 10:39:10 GMT -5
What you call random trolling, and which set off a rant, I see as a perfectly valid and useful response to Amit's inquiry. Reefs is saying that character is in the conditioning, and as such, perhaps it's not a particularly useful focus. It addresses moral codes and style preferences; what we sometimes call the personal perspective here, and I know Reefs has little interest in it. Amit (and you) are confused about what's happening here when folks are challenged. Belief systems and unconscious reactions are challenged so as to bring conscious awareness to these limited ways of being. The character discussions are initiated by the ones reacting to these challenges. those who you criticize the most don't have any particular interest in what kind of a person you are. That's not what is meant by the personal approach. Hi enigma, Yes the challenges you mention would be useful but if getting personal is involved, sense cannot be made of that without some degree of understanding the defense mechanisms of those who value that approach so that people can have a view of how clean the challenge is and to what extent it's the conditioning of the challenger. amit How can you assume there are defense mechanisms in the challenger? Those mechanisms would have to originate from a personal view, and it's that viewpoint that's being challenged. Even in your conceptual oneness isn't there the implication that one is not really viewing from a personal perspective?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 25, 2013 10:43:28 GMT -5
Hi quinn, There are clues about whether a statement is a projection of conditioning/defenses. These are not infallible by any means but if criticism is included it is a sign that the challenge is about aspects of the challenger which the challenger finds unacceptable about themselves which is projected out. The more such statements are loaded with emotion, the stronger is the unacceptable aspect of the challenger. Criticism can of course be constructive as well as carry the intention to be destructive. Characters will vary about how it is seen. If one is curious about another character and asks questions rather than stating a conclusion already reached about them, then that can be another sign of whether a projection is involved. amit I challenge the underlined part. Whether it's perceived as criticism or not is in the eye of the beholder. Well, okay - mostly in the eye of the beholder. The word 'criticism' has a connotation to me of 'tearing down' - usually to satisfy some need of the criticizer, as opposed to 'critique' which is seen as more helpful-based. So to make the distinction you're talking about, it requires that we know the intention of the criticizer. Really, we can only guess at that. That's where things get a little surreal around here. Person A is dumbfounded that Person B can't see what horrible things Person C is doing. We're all guessing. Some like to check in with their body for confirmation, but I think that's an unreliable indicator of others' intentions. I propose we don't even bother with the guessing. If what someone says doesn't resonate, then ignore it. It could be they're delusional or it could be that you're just not ready to hear what they have to say. Otherwise, consider it. Simple. You know what, Quinn, you're full of cr@p. Now, did that just sound like a criticism, or was I really being critical of something? Now, just so you don't hop on the ban-wagon, you're not really full of cr@p. I'm only saying that, because criticism is not necessarily in the ear of the behearer. It's what you do with the criticism you hear that matters. That's my take on the criticism thingy. I would also say that while we may be guessing at 'what is', if you spend enough time in 'what is' (i.e., the present moment), you might get a clearer understanding of what 'what is' is (even if you can't describe it), in which case, it becomes more than just a guess. But, again, it boils down to what one thinks about 'what is' that makes anything a guess.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 10:49:06 GMT -5
I disagree with you on a couple of points. First, that what's going on here is mostly psychoanalysis. I don't see a strict line between pointing out confused thinking and psychoanalyzing someone. It's a fuzzy line, and where it gets crossed is pretty much subjective. Second, that the level of competence isn't sufficient. Sufficient for what? This is all about seeing for ourselves what's going on in mind. Someone says to me, "you're hung up on morality (or whatever)", the point is to look inside and see if that's true. If it's not, toss it. Totally agree that there's a lot of hostility. And that alone can be a deterrent to open sharing. Not sure if anything can be done about that, though. When there's a challenge to those ideas we hold most dearly, hostility can happen. I don't see anyone being forced. Lots of options - don't respond, ignore, sign off. It is all voluntary. All that being said, though, I agree there's a confrontational tone to the forum, and some times it does border on creepy. It seems to come down to what each person expects from ST. If they're looking for a caring, nurturing, supportive space to share views - this probably ain't it. Hi quinn, Such statements as you mention above "you're hung up on morality (or whatever)" may be said by a person who has no idea of their own hangups let alone yours. Unless their is a relationship where there is some understanding of conditioning and defenses, it is at best distracting. amit I learned decades ago to not even bother trying to qualify the speaker before the words are taken onboard. The assumption is that this is done to determine if the listener should believe what is being said, and this misses the point of looking within entirely. Never concern yourself with the qualifications of the speaker. Ultimately, the words are YOUR words; they reflect your interest and your resistance, your focus and your boundaries. The speaker may not even know what he is saying, and it may be the perfect thing for you to hear. This is an inside job.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 10:51:02 GMT -5
Hi quinn, Such statements as you mention above "you're hung up on morality (or whatever)" may be said by a person who has no idea of their own hangups let alone yours. Unless their is a relationship where there is some understanding of conditioning and defenses, it is at best distracting. amit Well, of course you're right about "may be said by a person who has no idea...". And, just as often, it may be said by someone with a clearer perspective - clearer solely by virtue of the fact that they're not in our heads. We usually have a blind-spot in regards to our subtle beliefs. They're so close and so ingrained that they go unnoticed, but they're always going to play out in some way. Others can pick up on that much more easily than we can. And I don't think they necessarily have to be hang-up free to do that. Defenses come in a lot of forms. Refusing to listen to what someone is saying because we don't deem them to be hang-up free can be one. If there is no 'personhood' to defend, what harm is there in considering what another has pointed out? Zakalee.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 11:00:23 GMT -5
Hi enigma, What is meant by character analysis in the context of this thread is the exploration of defenses and how they apply to getting personal here. It may be possible to reach a point where getting personal was not taken personally if we were all aware of the defenses/conditioning of those who regard getting personal as useful because such comments could then be seen in that context rather than that aspect being concealed. Right, so from your perspective everyone has defenses, it's just that some hide them from view while getting personal with others. You figure that if they are exposed for who they really are then their victims could just laugh instead of getting upset. Does that sound about right? Hi enigma, If those who regard getting personal as useful are willing to say how any defenses/conditioning they might have are affecting the personal statements they make about others, the exploration of ideas would not be so lost in the confusion of those agendas because they would be out in the open freely acknowledged by the challenger. Those agendas could be considered under Character Analysis for those that are into it and those that are not could stay with the consideration of ideas and how people feel about those ideas, rather than each other. It doesn't seem like it has to be either/or. Both could occur in their place without wiping each other out. amit amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 11:04:29 GMT -5
Hi quinn, There are clues about whether a statement is a projection of conditioning/defenses. These are not infallible by any means but if criticism is included it is a sign that the challenge is about aspects of the challenger which the challenger finds unacceptable about themselves which is projected out. The more such statements are loaded with emotion, the stronger is the unacceptable aspect of the challenger. Criticism can of course be constructive as well as carry the intention to be destructive. Characters will vary about how it is seen. If one is curious about another character and asks questions rather than stating a conclusion already reached about them, then that can be another sign of whether a projection is involved. amit I challenge the underlined part. Whether it's perceived as criticism or not is in the eye of the beholder. Well, okay - mostly in the eye of the beholder. The word 'criticism' has a connotation to me of 'tearing down' - usually to satisfy some need of the criticizer, as opposed to 'critique' which is seen as more helpful-based. So to make the distinction you're talking about, it requires that we know the intention of the criticizer. Really, we can only guess at that. That's where things get a little surreal around here. Person A is dumbfounded that Person B can't see what horrible things Person C is doing. We're all guessing. Some like to check in with their body for confirmation, but I think that's an unreliable indicator of others' intentions. I propose we don't even bother with the guessing. If what someone says doesn't resonate, then ignore it. It could be they're delusional or it could be that you're just not ready to hear what they have to say. Otherwise, consider it. Simple.Right, from within self delusion one can't know anything about the delusion of others, but one thing that we can be pretty certain of is that the delusional will come to the conclusion that the one challenging his delusion is delusional. The way I interpret 'resonate' is basically to agree with, so I would say fergedibout resonating and just look within and see if it is so.
|
|