Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 18:53:22 GMT -5
The whole idea that making someone feel more secure or validated is a kind of lie, or disingenuous, seems very 'self centric', and lacking in empathy and compassion.
Why is does making folks feel more comfortable, secure, and validated seem disingenuous if not because you are in some way being disingenuous to yourself?
And what 'self' are you being disingenuous to?
Are you being disingenuous to your own feelings and thoughts, and if so, isn't worrying more about being genuine to your own feelings and thoughts to the point were you don't want to make folks around you feel more secure and validated a pretty severe form of disconnected self centeredness?
Maybe I have it all wrong, maybe making folks around you feel more secure, comfortable, and validated is being disingenuous to that other person and not yourself?
If so, a feeling is a feeling, I have never been able to tell the difference between a fake feeling and real feeling have you?
So if a feeling is a feeling, how is helping someone feel more comfortable, secure, and validated disingenuous to that other one?
Seems to me that the whole idea that making someone feel more comfortable, secure, and validated being disingenuous has nothing to do with being disingenuous to another, rather, its really a false perception about being disingenuous to an imagined self, in such a way that is lacking empathy or care for others as much as you care about yourself.
Kinda goes back to that axiom I offered a while back: Where you choose to place your attention determines so much of your experience and quality of life.
In this case, if your attention is exclusively on your own thoughts and feelings, then making folks feel more comfortable, secure, and validated while they are interacting with you can only seem disingenuous if you yourself are not feeling secure or validated.
On the other hand, if your attention is not exclusively centered on your own thoughts and feelings, and instead is focussed on your fellow Being's thoughts and feelings, then making them feel more comfortable, secure, and validated, has nothing whatsoever to do with being genuine or not, rather, its just about simple kindness, empathy, and compassion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 20:53:46 GMT -5
The whole idea of making someone feel more secure or validated being a kind of lie, or disingenuous, seems very 'self centric', and lacking in empathy and compassion. What about making folks feel more comfortable, secure, and validated is disingenuous if not that you are in some way being disingenuous to yourself? And what 'self' are you being disingenuous to? Are you being disingenuous to your own feelings and thoughts, and if so, isn't worrying more about being genuine to your own feelings and thoughts to the point were you don't want to make folks around you feel more secure and validated a pretty severe form of disconnected self centeredness? Maybe I have it all wrong, maybe making folks around you feel more secure, comfortable, and validated is being disingenuous to that other person and not yourself? If so, a feeling is a feeling, I have never been able to tell the difference between a fake feeling and real feeling have you? So if a feeling is a feeling, how is helping someone feel more comfortable, secure, and validated disingenuous to that other one? Seems to me that the whole idea that making someone feel more comfortable, secure, and validated being disingenuous has nothing to do with being disingenuous to another, rather, its really a false perception about being disingenuous to an imagined self, in such a way that is lacking empathy or care for others as much as you care about yourself. Kinda goes back to that axiom I offered a while back: Where you choose to place your attention determines so much of your experience and quality of life. In this case, if your attention is exclusively on your own thoughts and feeling, then making folks feel more comfortable, secure, and validated while they are interacting with you can seem disingenuous if you yourself are not feeling secure or validated. On the other hand, if your attention is not exclusively centered on your own thoughts and feelings, and instead is focussed on your fellow Being's thoughts and feelings, then making them feel more comfortable, secure, and validated, has nothing whatsoever to do with being genuine or not, rather, its just about simple kindness, empathy, and compassion. TMT I suggest you take your own advice: You know too much my friend, most of that is just ego centered mental masturbation  Better to be alert, quiet, and empty ;-) And let all that stuff you figured out go hehehe |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2014 21:09:27 GMT -5
The whole idea of making someone feel more secure or validated being a kind of lie, or disingenuous, seems very 'self centric', and lacking in empathy and compassion. What about making folks feel more comfortable, secure, and validated is disingenuous if not that you are in some way being disingenuous to yourself? And what 'self' are you being disingenuous to? Are you being disingenuous to your own feelings and thoughts, and if so, isn't worrying more about being genuine to your own feelings and thoughts to the point were you don't want to make folks around you feel more secure and validated a pretty severe form of disconnected self centeredness? Maybe I have it all wrong, maybe making folks around you feel more secure, comfortable, and validated is being disingenuous to that other person and not yourself? If so, a feeling is a feeling, I have never been able to tell the difference between a fake feeling and real feeling have you? So if a feeling is a feeling, how is helping someone feel more comfortable, secure, and validated disingenuous to that other one? Seems to me that the whole idea that making someone feel more comfortable, secure, and validated being disingenuous has nothing to do with being disingenuous to another, rather, its really a false perception about being disingenuous to an imagined self, in such a way that is lacking empathy or care for others as much as you care about yourself. Kinda goes back to that axiom I offered a while back: Where you choose to place your attention determines so much of your experience and quality of life. In this case, if your attention is exclusively on your own thoughts and feeling, then making folks feel more comfortable, secure, and validated while they are interacting with you can seem disingenuous if you yourself are not feeling secure or validated. On the other hand, if your attention is not exclusively centered on your own thoughts and feelings, and instead is focussed on your fellow Being's thoughts and feelings, then making them feel more comfortable, secure, and validated, has nothing whatsoever to do with being genuine or not, rather, its just about simple kindness, empathy, and compassion. TMT I suggest you take your own advice: You know too much my friend, most of that is just ego centered mental masturbation Better to be alert, quiet, and empty ;-) And let all that stuff you figured out go hehehe I hear ya my friend, its an astute and valid point.... Its also kinda funny in the perspective of this thread, the nature of the OP, and the direction the thread went in  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 21:15:05 GMT -5
I'd say women seek validation at least as much as they seek security. If there's a gender difference in terms of the need for validation it may be that women seek to have their feelings validated while men seek to have their thoughts and actions validated. As for going around trying to fulfill expectations, it's a game destined to fail. Partly because it's disingenuous and subtly deceptive, partly because there's no end to the expectations because getting them fulfilled is not ultimately satisfying, and partly because there's likely to be resentment following on the heels of fulfilling the expectations of others while rarely getting your own fulfilled.Don't try that at home, folks. A genuine relationship is accepting and appreciative of differences and devoid of expectations.This rings true, yeah.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 21:20:39 GMT -5
TMT I suggest you take your own advice: I hear ya my friend, its an astute and valid point.... Its also kinda funny in the perspective of this thread, the nature of the OP, and the direction the thread went in It was just something interesting I've noticed. You seem to lean towards more thinking recently. It looks like the pendulum is swinging into the opposite direction again. Just wanted to throw that in. I'll address some of your points later.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 21:26:38 GMT -5
I'd say women seek validation at least as much as they seek security. If there's a gender difference in terms of the need for validation it may be that women seek to have their feelings validated while men seek to have their thoughts and actions validated. As for going around trying to fulfill expectations, it's a game destined to fail. Partly because it's disingenuous and subtly deceptive, partly because there's no end to the expectations because getting them fulfilled is not ultimately satisfying, and partly because there's likely to be resentment following on the heels of fulfilling the expectations of others while rarely getting your own fulfilled. Don't try that at home, folks. A genuine relationship is accepting and appreciative of differences and devoid of expectations. Yeah, I agree with you about both men and women seeking validation. The security thing seems more dependent on the culture and environment - in, say, a war-torn country or violence-ridden city you'd probably see women looking for security over validation. We're generally out-muscled. Yes, I think the whole culture/community would move security higher on their priority list. It wouldn't. I was really addressing Steve's final recommendation: "Try going around for a week making every woman you encounter feel more security, and every man you interact with more respected and validated" No doubt, and every once in a while, like now, I'm reminded that I don't do that as much as I could. However, as I say, that doesn't seem to be the main issue. Try going around for a week making everyone feel that you heard what they said, while expressing a contradictory view. I'm guessing you'll have very few satisfied 'customers'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 21:38:53 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with you about both men and women seeking validation. The security thing seems more dependent on the culture and environment - in, say, a war-torn country or violence-ridden city you'd probably see women looking for security over validation. We're generally out-muscled. As far as fulfilling expectations, though, why would it be disingenuous and deceptive to say, "I heard you."? Assuming it's true, of course. I think Steve has a valid point that a lot of the drama gets triggered by the sense that the other is not hearing either what's said or the intent behind it. The source of the drama is in translating "not listening" into an objectionable behavior. Sorry, what did you say?....I wasn't paying attention.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 21:47:58 GMT -5
No! No! Nooo!! It's not about right or wrong! You're just not listening to me!!!  You're going to get some nasty wrinkles if you keep making that face.  **stands up at the AA meeting** Hi, my name is Quinn and I like to be heard when talking. **all the non-dualists lower their eyes so the horror doesn't show** Hehe. Makes no sense to jabber on if nobody's going to listen. Assuming one has been invited in some way to converse, it's also rude to not listen. (Have you ever talked to peeps (in person) who have the habit of seemingly rehearsing their next line while pretending to listen to you?) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 22:06:58 GMT -5
I've noticed that most of the food fights that are going on here refer in one way or another to a rather strict moral code which most are obviously not aware of or else they wouldn't be so surprised when they are called moralists. To all who are interested in WIBIGO in that regard I suggest to take a look into one of Nietzsche's books, "On the Genealogy of Morality". In that book he describes how morality has become a weapon over time, a weapon of control for those who perceive themselves as less fortunate against those who they perceive as more fortunate. And I've noticed that this scenario also applies to this forum. It's a common phenomenon here on the forum to resort to moralism in a debate when one has run out of valid arguments. Some debates are even started without any valid argument to begin with and are based on pure moralism alone. So, in order to translate that model into this forum environment, the less fortunate in this case would be those who don't understand what's been talked about (or don't care to understand for whatever reason) and who orchestrate and perpetuate the style discussions based on moralism; the more fortunate would be those who know what's been talked about and who orchestrate and perpetuate the content discussions. Those who understand what's been talked about don't have any need for moralism. But some of those who don't understand (or don't care to understand) what's been talked about do have that need for moralism. Probably because they don't have any valid arguments, so they won't be taken as seriously as they intended. And if they want to be taken seriously they either have to come up with a valid argument or they have to find other means to that end. And moralism seems to be the preferred one, it's easy to use and easily understood. So, content discussions about valid or invalid arguments easily turn into discussions about good or bad arguments and from there it escalates into good peep vs. bad peep dramas. If it could be pointed out as early as possible that someone starts a discussion that is solely based on moralism, I think there's a chance to prevent a full blown drama from happening. The question, however, is: Is drama maybe wanted? And I think there's a handful of members here who really want drama to happen. Some of them just seem to come here for exactly that, they want to express their frustrations and vent. And usually this is happening on the expense of the entire forum. How often has it turned out at the end of a drama that what triggered the drama had nothing to do with what actually happened on the forum but only with what happened in the mind of the dramatist? So, I think by shining a spotlight on the role of moralism as the source of drama creation, it could be possible to reduce the number of dramas or at least the size of dramas by pointing that out right from the start and so prevent unnecessary collateral damage. This reminds me of the style talks we've had. I don't have any doubt that moralism can be used as jewel encrusted bludgeon when the chips are down using just reason and rationality. Examples are everywhere. I think one of the reasons style and moralistic arguments come to the surface is because of what you say -- the moralist or style police is seeing the underpinnings of their other argument chipped away at to pile of nonsensical dust and so they pick up a new, even more subjective weapon. And that style/moral weapon will have more bludgeoning capacity the more it is based on perceived shared truth, or mutualconditioning, perhaps. Like manners, if the style and moral arguments are traced back, there may be a rational core. For example, the table manner of spooning the soup away from you is to save a bit of costly/time-consuming laundering and also to keep stains from distracting your compadres the rest of the evening. Similarly, some of the style/moral issues that come up are probably rooted in efficiency of communication. The reason insulting someone doesn't work is because it makes it really hard to communicate afterwards. Therefore insulting is 'bad.' So there is often a grain of truth in the moralist bludgeon, howeverso it be a desperate distraction from the original discussion. What makes matters even more murky is that the main topic of discussion here -- something about spirituality, I'm told -- has wrapped up with it the expectation of some sort of enlightened conduct by those tagged as spiritually advanced in some way. Yes, not everyone has this expectation, but I do think it is widespread. Methinks that the moral/style complaints come up because the opportunity of showing a hypocrisy with respect to enlightened conduct seems so ripe for the picking. Soitainly true. Also, inherent in speerichuality, at least in the self improvement level of it, is an internal examination of motives, projections, denial and general unconsciousness. If and when any of this is approached by another, there's a natural backlash that usually takes the form of suddenly going more unconscious and expressing more of precisely those aspects that were being approached. That reaction may or may not take on a distinct moral tone, but in some way the approacher is going to be made wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 22:17:49 GMT -5
I'd say women seek validation at least as much as they seek security. If there's a gender difference in terms of the need for validation it may be that women seek to have their feelings validated while men seek to have their thoughts and actions validated. As for going around trying to fulfill expectations, it's a game destined to fail. Partly because it's disingenuous and subtly deceptive, partly because there's no end to the expectations because getting them fulfilled is not ultimately satisfying, and partly because there's likely to be resentment following on the heels of fulfilling the expectations of others while rarely getting your own fulfilled. Don't try that at home, folks. A genuine relationship is accepting and appreciative of differences and devoid of expectations. I don't feel as though I've been heard at all. What doesn't? I didn't offer any practical advice. I didn't say or imply that you did. I simply mentioned that genuine relationships are based on those things, and are devoid of expectations. What other so called straw men did you find? **Makes eye contact, smiles and speaks in placating, pandering tones** Yes, Steve, I heard you..... I've been in such a relationship for 10 years. I am sorry to hear that genuine relationship is so foreign to you that you can't even imagine it.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 22:31:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with you about both men and women seeking validation. The security thing seems more dependent on the culture and environment - in, say, a war-torn country or violence-ridden city you'd probably see women looking for security over validation. We're generally out-muscled. As far as fulfilling expectations, though, why would it be disingenuous and deceptive to say, "I heard you."? Assuming it's true, of course. I think Steve has a valid point that a lot of the drama gets triggered by the sense that the other is not hearing either what's said or the intent behind it. Hi Quinn, Yes, both men and women typically seek both security and validation, but in most case, if one is forced to choose to have one over the other, a woman will chose security over validation, while a man will put security at risk to get validation. Knowing what one's most basic needs are, and doing a little something to help them realize those needs, does not to me seem to be disingenuous.That's not the same as: "Try going around for a week making every woman you encounter feel more security, and every man you interact with more respected and validated" It's disingenuous because it's not genuine. It's contrived. That's also not the same as: "Try going around for a week making every woman you encounter feel more security, and every man you interact with more respected and validated" Experimenting is fine, but how much experimenting do folks need to do to figure out that telling them what they want to hear will keep them smiling? It's called the smile game. Don't do this at home, folks.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 22:59:17 GMT -5
The whole idea that making someone feel more secure or validated is a kind of lie, or disingenuous, seems very 'self centric', and lacking in empathy and compassion. Why is does making folks feel more comfortable, secure, and validated seem disingenuous if not because you are in some way being disingenuous to yourself? And what 'self' are you being disingenuous to? Are you being disingenuous to your own feelings and thoughts, and if so, isn't worrying more about being genuine to your own feelings and thoughts to the point were you don't want to make folks around you feel more secure and validated a pretty severe form of disconnected self centeredness? Maybe I have it all wrong, maybe making folks around you feel more secure, comfortable, and validated is being disingenuous to that other person and not yourself?That's right. Between a contrived feeling and a genuine one? Absolutely, Steve. I'm genuinely concerned about you. There's nothing wrong with making others feel comfortable, ever. There's nothing wrong with making them feel secure and validated when to do so doesn't require that you violate your own integrity, and therefore the integrity of the relationship. Something Marie often tells me is that she trusts me. She doesn't mean that she trusts me to make her feel comfortable, secure and validated, and as you can well imagine, I sometimes make her feel the opposite, so why in the world would she trust me, and what does that even mean? It means that she knows that what I say will be the truth as I know it, that it will be genuine and uncontrived. she also knows I can't really hurt her because I have no weapons, which is to say I have no judgments or expectations that she be anything other than who she is. Lets talk about needs. Do you know how precious it is to have someone in your life who knows who you are, and accepts you as you are? If you know such a person, I predict this person is your best friend who you would trust with your life. That's what trust means. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 23:03:53 GMT -5
Cool. I've read his major books and I have to say I'm not a fan either because mostly it's just about belittling others in a rather polemic way. But I think he has some good points about morality and how it developed into what we have today and what we use as some kind of compass to guide our interactions with others. I get what you're saying, and surely moralism is used round these parts, but it also seems that underneath that is this basic need to be heard and acknowledged that some are driven by more than others. A smart guy once said that above all else, women crave security, and men crave validation. I've found that if you deny a woman a sense of security, drama will invariably ensue until that need is met, and if you deny a man validation and respect, drama will ensue until his needs are met. Everybody just wants to be who they are. There's no difference between women and men. The differences you mention only exist thru the filter of society. You recommand relationships based on need?  That sounds like a quote from a Dale Carnegie book. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 23:07:31 GMT -5
I get what you're saying, and surely moralism is used round these parts, but it also seems that underneath that is this basic need to be heard and acknowledged that some are driven by more than others. A smart guy once said that above all else, women crave security, and men crave validation. I've found that if you deny a woman a sense of security, drama will invariably ensue until that need is met, and if you deny a man validation and respect, drama will ensue until his needs are met. There's no difference between women and men. The differences you mention only exist thru the filter of society. That's basically what I just said to him. I now feel comfy, secure and validated. Hehe. Are you as worried about his relationships as I am?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 23:09:18 GMT -5
I've ways assumed that most of the drama that happens here, is because one or more parties REALLY want to be heard, and then, not disagreed with, though that last bit is secondary to just 'being heard'. People then 'fight' for attention when they do not feel adequately acknowledged or listened to. Seems like most arguments and dramas could probably be avoided if the devil's advocate simply acknowledged the speakers desire to be heard by saying something like, "I hear you and respect what you are saying, but here is my take on it"....instead, fuel gets added to the 'I need to be heard and acknowledged' fire, when someone just says 'you are wrong and here is why'. In those instances, the one wanting to be heard and acknowledged seems to usually just assume that the only reason you disagree with them, is because you have not 'really' listened to them. Maybe that one could be bit more open minded too. They then try harder to be heard, and drama ensues. Just my 2 cents. People pop in here all the time just wanting their big new thing to be heard, folks like that one who wrote the text wall about infinity, most leave when they are disagreed with, or not feeling like their big thing is not getting the attention they want it to, and very occasionally, one sticks around and fights to be heard, like Tzu. I sometimes shake my head at the close mindedness and outlandish things that people will sometimes do to 'be heard' here, but I don't have an issue with someone wanting to be heard per se....is a bit of a natural human instinct in a way....some people are just ran by that need more than others. Yes, the need to be heard is very strong, though often that takes the form of being agreed with rather than simply understood. Folks believe in the validity of what they are saying, which is what they really want to convey, and it's usually not enough to feed back a clear understanding of the ideas, while still contradicting another's viewpoint. I'd say the biggest factor in the emotional reactions we're calling drama is that what's being said results in a negative feeling in the listener, and then the response is designed solely to eliminate that feeling. Suddenly the interest is no longer in whether or not the idea is valid, but rather how to counter it so that the feeling goes away. Mind may actively seek to negate the message and/or the messenger and disregard the truth/falsity of it completely.Yup, that's when folks ignore what has actually been written and the meltdown countdown starts. |
|
