|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 11:59:41 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 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. Hi enigma, Yes if there is the unwillingness and the complete denial on the part of the challenger that you mention then indeed it will not work. The challenged can only ask the challenger to reveal themselves and try to keep the channel open in the hope that the exchange may become balanced. amit
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 12:03:58 GMT -5
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. hi enigma, There are many examples of persons realizing that they project onto others aspect of themselves that they find unacceptable and then stop doing it as a result of that awareness. Has it never happened in your experience? amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 12:15:30 GMT -5
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. To me the truth lays in the 'beingness' in which what is said appears, and not actually what is said... Which most of the time is the opposite of truth...
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 12:24:48 GMT -5
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? Hi enigma, That is obviously open to question. Rather than taking your word for that I would need to know you a lot better on a face to face basis so that we could have the benefit of important nonverbal clues about our characters. If the answer was yes rather than that denial it would be a lot more likely that we could have a personal exchange here without the face to face aspect being necessary. amit Please see my recent post here about clues as to whether projections are operating. We can take it on a case by case basis. There may be requests for a little more information and suggestions about what defenses may be operating for your consideration. Lets start with your statement above. Have there been times on this forum when you felt that you have been projecting conditioning based on your past rather than the person you were challenging? If so what were they? amit
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 25, 2013 12:45:25 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. Hi max, d For me the safest way is to regard my whole character as defensive so one never has to discern one from the other:). The only variation is the extent to which the construction is needed in any given situation. That fits quite neatly with the nondual idea that the separate person is a fiction, a made up construction by the mind which is presented as a facade to the outside world for defensive purposes. If we observe the facade (from behind the facade) we can see how we vary the it when dealing with different levels of perceived threat. Is it anything like that for you? amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 13:01:49 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. Hi max, d For me the safest way is to regard my whole character as defensive so one never has to discern one from the other:). The only variation is the extent to which the construction is needed in any given situation. That fits quite neatly with the nondual idea that the separate person is a fiction, a made up construction by the mind which is presented as a facade to the outside world for defensive purposes. If we observe the facade (from behind the facade) we can see how we vary the it when dealing with different levels of perceived threat. Is it anything like that for you? amit Well I like the approach that it's all defense all the time. That seems like a safe bet. But I don't feel like I have the distance from the character as much as I imagine you to be saying you have right there. I have an inkling of the nondual model but am not very well-versed on the whole. It seems to me that the separate volitional person idea is not just a fiction of the mind, but more a common story shared by other folks you communicate with throughout the day. So the defenses and the facade which those defenses form are a dynamic relation to all the other defenses and facades.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Jun 25, 2013 14:08:45 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. 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. Heehee. I often am full of crap, B. Seriously. That's why I'm here. Crap detection. A pre-requisite to doing something with the criticism is to hear it in the first place, which is what I was talking about. Seems to me if we label it 'criticism', it's already getting hard to hear. Totally don't understand your last paragraph. You may have to tell me what you mean by 'what is', cause if it's the present moment, how does guessing fit in?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 25, 2013 14:10:58 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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? And, you assume that everybody else but you is 'asleep' and 'unconscious', until they agree with you.. paraphrasing of course, but you broadly suspect people of not agreeing with you and use that as validation for provocative interactions.. You have stated previously that you believe it is permissible to forcefully 'wake people up', that seems like an agenda to me.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 18:49:02 GMT -5
If one is projecting, one does not know of this projection, by definition. The approach, therefore, must fail, by definition. hi enigma, There are many examples of persons realizing that they project onto others aspect of themselves that they find unacceptable and then stop doing it as a result of that awareness. Has it never happened in your experience? amit Of course, but it didn't happen by trying to qualify others. It happened by looking within.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 18:57:17 GMT -5
Okay, I hereby declare that there are no defenses or hidden agendas here. Does that make you open to my challenges now? Hi enigma, That is obviously open to question. Rather than taking your word for that I would need to know you a lot better on a face to face basis so that we could have the benefit of important nonverbal clues about our characters. If the answer was yes rather than that denial it would be a lot more likely that we could have a personal exchange here without the face to face aspect being necessary. amit So the assumption is that I'm lying,(denial) which ends the possibility of openness. The only way openness could happen is if I declared various projections and defenses, but then why would you take anything I say seriously. What would you be open to? It sounds like a perfect plan for not listening to anything personal under any conditions.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 25, 2013 20:48:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. 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? And, you assume that everybody else but you is 'asleep' and 'unconscious', until they agree with you.. paraphrasing of course, but you broadly suspect people of not agreeing with you and use that as validation for provocative interactions.. I disagree with folks in a lot of cases where it has nothing to do with being unconscious or not. Everybody has opinions, including me. These are unique perspectives formed from unique conditioning and they're going to differ and those differences don't really mean any more than the opinions themselves. There isn't any absolute in among those opinions. I don't believe it's possible to forceably wake people up. That's part of what I try to say here, that there must be a willingness. As such, there can't be such an agenda. Folks can rest easy as they are in no danger at all of being forced out of their slumber.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 20:55:11 GMT -5
Greetings.. And, you assume that everybody else but you is 'asleep' and 'unconscious', until they agree with you.. paraphrasing of course, but you broadly suspect people of not agreeing with you and use that as validation for provocative interactions.. I disagree with folks in a lot of cases where it has nothing to do with being unconscious or not. Everybody has opinions, including me. These are unique perspectives formed from unique conditioning and they're going to differ and those differences don't really mean any more than the opinions themselves. There isn't any absolute in among those opinions. I don't believe it's possible to forceably wake people up. That's part of what I try to say here, that there must be a willingness. As such, there can't be such an agenda. Folks can rest easy as they are in no danger at all of being forced out of their slumber. Yeah, and there isn't going to be that willingness until peeps have come to the end of their rope...
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 25, 2013 21:23:58 GMT -5
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. Heehee. I often am full of crap, B. Seriously. That's why I'm here. Crap detection. A pre-requisite to doing something with the criticism is to hear it in the first place, which is what I was talking about. Seems to me if we label it 'criticism', it's already getting hard to hear. Totally don't understand your last paragraph. You may have to tell me what you mean by 'what is', cause if it's the present moment, how does guessing fit in? Peeps can guess what 'what is' is (which is to say that they're trying to grasp what 'what is' is by thinking). Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 26, 2013 2:03:39 GMT -5
Hi enigma, That is obviously open to question. Rather than taking your word for that I would need to know you a lot better on a face to face basis so that we could have the benefit of important nonverbal clues about our characters. If the answer was yes rather than that denial it would be a lot more likely that we could have a personal exchange here without the face to face aspect being necessary. amit So the assumption is that I'm lying,(denial) which ends the possibility of openness. The only way openness could happen is if I declared various projections and defenses, but then why would you take anything I say seriously. What would you be open to? It sounds like a perfect plan for not listening to anything personal under any conditions. Hi enigma, Characters and the way they interact with each other are complicated. The nonverbal face to face aspects of relationship are important in establishing trust. We cannot do that here so for me getting personal is best left out. However if some are willing to carefully do some work on defense mechanisms that would be of interest to me but to expose oneself to those who are not open in that way and don't care about the effect they have would be foolish. So its difficult to see how that could operate here. So what are we left with? There can be the exploration of ideas which involves listening and being listened to, seeking clarification and reaching a place where there is a sense that what each is saying is understood by the other. This has nothing to do with agreeing with what people are saying. Characters are capable of reflecting upon what they hear and maybe resonating with it. They do not have to be forced into that by getting personal with them. In fact that approach can be counter productive as can be seen by the defensive exchanges that result here. Defenses are more likely to come down, and trust developed, when there is no getting personal involved. amit
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 26, 2013 2:07:42 GMT -5
hi enigma, There are many examples of persons realizing that they project onto others aspect of themselves that they find unacceptable and then stop doing it as a result of that awareness. Has it never happened in your experience? amit Of course, but it didn't happen by trying to qualify others. It happened by looking within. Hi enigma, Yes. So has that not happened on this forum for you? Could you give an example? amit
|
|