|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 11:06:51 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 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. Hi enigma, But not without the challenger being prepared to have their character examined as well so that the exchange of personal stuff would be mutual and balanced. amit
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 11:13:08 GMT -5
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. i enigma, Considering the ideas of another has nothing to do with agreeing with them. An idea can be understood without agreeing with it. amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 11:18:28 GMT -5
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 You assume defenses/agendas, and your entire argument is based on that assumption. How do you know there are defenses and agendas? Is there a reliable way to find that out from within your own defenses and agendas?
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 11:19:01 GMT -5
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? Hi enigma, Whether there are defenses or not could be left to the challenger to disclose or at least be willing to consider the possibility because such information is obviously relevant in terms of how clear the challenge is. amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 11:26:47 GMT -5
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. Hi enigma, But not without the challenger being prepared to have their character examined as well so that the exchange of personal stuff would be mutual and balanced. amit It only makes sense that the challenger is prepared to be open and honest, but it sounds to me like if this honesty doesn't reveal all sorts of defenses and agendas, then you won't accept that the exchange is balanced. As Quinn mentioned, that also can become a self supporting defense agenda.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 11:26:59 GMT -5
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? Hi enigma, Whether there are defenses or not could be left to the challenger to disclose or at least be willing to consider the possibility because such information is obviously relevant in terms of how clear the challenge is. amit PS. By "clear" I mean the extent to which getting personal is clear of hidden agendas based on defenses and conditioning. amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 11:28:40 GMT -5
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. i enigma, Considering the ideas of another has nothing to do with agreeing with them. An idea can be understood without agreeing with it. amit Sure.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Jun 25, 2013 11:30:48 GMT -5
Hi enigma, Whether there are defenses or not could be left to the challenger to disclose or at least be willing to consider the possibility because such information is obviously relevant in terms of how clear the challenge is. amit PS. By "clear" I mean the extent to which getting personal is clear of hidden agendas based on defenses and conditioning. amit But neither can be sure that the other one is 'clear'.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 11:41:09 GMT -5
Hi enigma, But not without the challenger being prepared to have their character examined as well so that the exchange of personal stuff would be mutual and balanced. amit It only makes sense that the challenger is prepared to be open and honest, but it sounds to me like if this honesty doesn't reveal all sorts of defenses and agendas, then you won't accept that the exchange is balanced. As Quinn mentioned, that also can become a self supporting defense agenda. Hi enigma, Yes consideration of this sort of stuff is not infallible. Willingness on the part of the challenger to be open and honest about whether getting personal is a projection of aspects of themselves they find unacceptable is a tricky area because those aspects of themselves are often denied. That may mean that this approach will fail but there may be surprises. amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 11:45:12 GMT -5
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? Hi enigma, Whether there are defenses or not could be left to the challenger to disclose or at least be willing to consider the possibility because such information is obviously relevant in terms of how clear the challenge is. amit Of course, but it's an absurd scenario. To the extent that any of that is unconscious on the part of the challenger, he doesn't even know what to disclose. To the extent that there are defenses and hidden agendas, he's obviously going to be defensive and secretive about disclosure. Apparently, you're relying on your own discernment to determine if what the challenger says about his defenses and agendas is true, and then the same problem of unconsciousness, defenses and agendas applies to the listener. It's a toadal mess no matter how it is approached, so just take everything onboard and look for yourself, at yourself. This means you may have to consider that some hurtful things are true, and this is unpleasant whether or not it is true, so it takes a bit of courage and work, but it's an excellent way to get conscious and stay that way. When you're no longer hiding anything from yourself, the defenses and agendas of others will become clear. The irony is you'll no longer need this information to protect yourself from yourself.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 11:47:16 GMT -5
Hi enigma, Whether there are defenses or not could be left to the challenger to disclose or at least be willing to consider the possibility because such information is obviously relevant in terms of how clear the challenge is. amit PS. By "clear" I mean the extent to which getting personal is clear of hidden agendas based on defenses and conditioning. amit Okay, I hereby declare that there are no defenses or hidden agendas here. Does that make you open to my challenges now?
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 11:47:54 GMT -5
PS. By "clear" I mean the extent to which getting personal is clear of hidden agendas based on defenses and conditioning. amit But neither can be sure that the other one is 'clear'. Hi silver, Agreed but it may nevertheless be revealing to some extent and simply being prepared to consider and express the extent to which one may be projecting can provide more understanding both ways. amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 11:50:36 GMT -5
PS. By "clear" I mean the extent to which getting personal is clear of hidden agendas based on defenses and conditioning. amit But neither can be sure that the other one is 'clear'. Right. A deep trust can be very helpful in this regard, but that only comes from repeatedly looking within and confirming the truth of what is said, and so that looking has to happen whether or not there is trust, in order to build that trust.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 11:53:21 GMT -5
It only makes sense that the challenger is prepared to be open and honest, but it sounds to me like if this honesty doesn't reveal all sorts of defenses and agendas, then you won't accept that the exchange is balanced. As Quinn mentioned, that also can become a self supporting defense agenda. Hi enigma, Yes consideration of this sort of stuff is not infallible. Willingness on the part of the challenger to be open and honest about whether getting personal is a projection of aspects of themselves they find unacceptable is a tricky area because those aspects of themselves are often denied. That may mean that this approach will fail but there may be surprises. amit If one is projecting, one does not know of this projection, by definition. The approach, therefore, must fail, by definition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 11:54:50 GMT -5
I found amit's call to reflect on what my character to be, especially possible defenses, to be interesting. I hadn't thought about being nice as a pre-emptive defense before. The whole nature/nurture force on character development creates a matrix of functional and disfunctional behaviors. Whether it is functional or disfunctional depends on how effective one is at socializing, communicating, getting what the body needs in terms of Maslow's hierarchy.
No doubt that there is a limit to the ability of one to discern one's own defenses. Most probably remain 'unconscious.' It's easier to see them in the projection from others, though we're dealing with our own tainted interpretation there as well.
No one here is without defenses or distorting beliefs. No one.
|
|