|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 23:16:46 GMT -5
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.  Right, and no amount of quoting what was actually said makes any difference because there's no longer any interest at all in what was actually said. The focus is on how to change the present feeling. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 23, 2014 23:19:20 GMT -5
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. Of course, neither of these views come very close to describing how life unfolds for couples and people everywhere in this world and um there is a balanced view of how these things work between the two ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 23:21:07 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. Many marriages, indeed most relationships would be greatly improved if both parties gave the other what they needed, egolessly, and without reservation in this regard. Try going around for a week making every woman you encounter feel more security, and every man you interact with more respected and validated, and see how drama free your week goes in comparison. 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. That's tricky, because as highly socialized beings, only few really allow themselves to be as they are. I'm not much into the gender differences because you can always find exceptions to those rules of thumb. So I speculate that different folks with different personalities and therefore different preferences will seek different kinds of validation. In society, however, one is trained since a very early age what kind of validation one should seek and in what area as a boy/man or girl/woman. It probably works by assimilation. It's basically pavlovian. As long as there is only one person around to please, that might even work. But when there are two or more of them and all in the same room and all want you to do things that are in opposition to what the others want then there's a dilemma. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 23:27:26 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. 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. That's the point. If it's genuine, then you don't even have to say that in the first place, because it will be clear. So insisting on saying it anyway would be the actual problemo. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2014 23:36:47 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. That's tricky, because as highly socialized beings, only few really allow themselves to be as they are. I'm not much into the gender differences because you can always find exceptions to those rules of thumb. So I speculate that different folks with different personalities and therefore different preferences will seek different kinds of validation. In society, however, one is trained since a very early age what kind of validation one should seek and in what area as a boy/man or girl/woman. It probably works by assimilation. Yeah, most (not all) gender difference seem to be social programming. It seems silly to program certain needs and then go around trying to fulfill them. Yeah, the smile game gets exhausting purdy quick.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 23:45:01 GMT -5
Perhaps a good example of that lack of understanding you refer to is how a moralist might mistake this critique as an advocacy of amorality or an amoral lifestyle. It's not, and it's just yet another example of an absence not being a presence ... but there's no way to sustain that conversation without first accepting the notion of a pointer, because in a literal sense, amorality is just that: the absence of morals. Yes, that's something we encounter here all the time. As if absence of morals would mean being a savage beast from the jungle or something.  Yes, the higher the spiritual circles, the more subtle the moralistic weapons in the "I am more enlightened than you" game. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2014 23:59:27 GMT -5
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.Right, association fallacy, guilt/honor by association. Exactly my point. No doubt about that. However, this only applies to personal growthers, because their focus is on behavior (or improving behavior) by default which means it's hard to keep the messenger and the message apart. There's no such dilemma in non-duality discussions where behavior is irrelevant. Which means if you preach the ideal of unconditional love and how it applies in your life and how you are making progress and then you go on a hate rampage against your archenemies then there's an obvious credibility gap. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2014 3:55:56 GMT -5
The source of the drama is in translating "not listening" into an objectionable behavior. Sorry, what did you say?....I wasn't paying attention.  Objecting to lack of attention in and of itself is one kind of drama. Another scenario is that attention to the lack of attention can point the drama up for what it is. Whether it leads to more drama or not at that point is just WIBIGO. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2014 4:09:45 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. Advocating action invites the question of intention. On one hand this difference between the genders can be seen as nothing more than any other cultural cue, like "dress well for a job interview", or "don't ask someone you don't know very well how much money they make". On the other hand, it might just be about getting what you want out of people. Influence cuts both ways, and when overapplied, tends toward coercion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2014 4:14:46 GMT -5
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 laughter on Apr 24, 2014 4:26:27 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. Intimacy is something that is natural and available in every human interaction but there are some folks who are averse to it, especially when it comes to strangers. There are also some folks and situations where the openness to intimacy can be seen as an opportunity for exploitation. Cultural cues and psychological insights come in handy in dealings with such folk and situations, but only handling the tools TM when absolutely necessary is, in itself, a great tool! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2014 4:31:26 GMT -5
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.  Unless the meltdown happened long ago and yer just dealin' with a puddle of goo! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2014 4:36:02 GMT -5
Yup, that's when folks ignore what has actually been written and the meltdown countdown starts. Of course, neither of these views come very close to describing how life unfolds for couples and people everywhere in this world and um there is a balanced view of how these things work between the two ideas. Think back to arguments you might have had with your ex-husband. Was there ever one where you and he disagreed about a sequence of events that led up to the argument itself to the extent that you each concluded that the other was living in some sort of alternative reality? Or ... ever been in a business meeting and argued with a peer about the best plan of action? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2014 4:39:45 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. That's tricky, because as highly socialized beings, only few really allow themselves to be as they are. I'm not much into the gender differences because you can always find exceptions to those rules of thumb. So I speculate that different folks with different personalities and therefore different preferences will seek different kinds of validation. In society, however, one is trained since a very early age what kind of validation one should seek and in what area as a boy/man or girl/woman. It probably works by assimilation. It's basically pavlovian. As long as there is only one person around to please, that might even work. But when there are two or more of them and all in the same room and all want you to do things that are in opposition to what the others want then there's a dilemma. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2014 4:43:08 GMT -5
That's tricky, because as highly socialized beings, only few really allow themselves to be as they are. I'm not much into the gender differences because you can always find exceptions to those rules of thumb. So I speculate that different folks with different personalities and therefore different preferences will seek different kinds of validation. In society, however, one is trained since a very early age what kind of validation one should seek and in what area as a boy/man or girl/woman. It probably works by assimilation. Yeah, most (not all) gender difference seem to be social programming. It seems silly to program certain needs and then go around trying to fulfill them. Yeah, the smile game gets exhausting purdy quick. Vive le differance! |
|
Unless the meltdown happened long ago and yer just dealin' with a puddle of goo!