Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 19:21:49 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. Other than the cause of the feeling, what exactly is the difference between contrived happiness and some other kind of happiness...if you feel happy you feel happy, or angry, or whatever....haha, are you saying that the only genuine 'feelings' are the ones that result from some random response from an outside stimuli? If that is so for you, than I am concerned for you E...having emotions tied to stuff outside of yourself, means that you are a slave to situational happiness, instead of having mastery over your own emotions, and just deciding to be happy when you want to. Gosh, that was one of my earliest realizations on the path of self discovery, i.e. that outside influences and situations are NOT needed for me to feel love or happiness, and outside influences could not make me angry or sad unless I choose to let them on some level. Haha, if the only emotions that are genuine are the ones that are a knee jerk response to outside stimulus, then I hardly have any 'genuine' emotions or feelings at all lol. I am the master of my mind, not the other way around...my mind and emotions are tools and entertainment, not some involuntary reaction that I judge as 'genuine' or not based on whether the feeling arose by choice versus unconscious reaction....how is it with you? With regard to you are Marie's relationship, I call BS...When she says she trusts you, its her way of telling you that she feels secure with you, which in turn makes you feel validated, along with those 'you're so wise and smart squirrel satsangs'...I'm not trying to belittle your relationship in any way, it seems like a beautiful SHARING where you both give the other what they need most in some way. But to say that it is totally without expectation or an unspoken give and receive equilibrium of some type is probably overly optimist or idealistic. Leave your garden behind, Move to the ghetto, handle your finances poorly, start getting calls from bill collectors, and don't reassure her in any way, and see how long that 'trust' lasts, and how much validation she still gives you during those squirrel satsangs. Hah...if I were you, I'd keep things the way they are though...seems like a good unspoken deal you've worked out between you two, and human nature is human nature. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 24, 2014 19:24:07 GMT -5
I said there's not much danger of losing one's 'I'. I haven't talked about what might happen as a consequence, nor do I know that suicide is one of those consequences. Ah okay, I understand what you are saying there is not much danger of happening. Mind doesn't have to see what it doesn't want to see regardless of how obvious, as we see in all sorts of less dramatic ways here on the forum. This, really, is the primary obstacle to self realization, for which there can be no corrective practice or instruction. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 19:32:17 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. 1. 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. 2. You recommand relationships based on need?  3. That sounds like a quote from a Dale Carnegie book.  1. Hmmm....have you seen a woman's private bits?....seems like there are some significant 'differences' between men and women...and those physical differences equate to many mental differences as well...as an aside, differentiation does not mean in-equality, so please don't make that leap. 2. No...I'm saying that all relationships generally begin based on need or desire...and are most often sustained or ended over needs and desires...I am not offering an ideal of how things SHOULD be, I'm commenting on what you might call WIBIGO ;-) 3. Haha.... Now who went moralistic lol....hehe, as a side moralistic tangent, if you had to choose one or the other, would you be happier living by Dale Carnegie's ethos, or Nietzsche's ethos. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 24, 2014 19:58:06 GMT -5
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. Other than the cause of the feeling, what exactly is the difference between contrived happiness and some other kind of happiness...if you feel happy you feel happy, or angry, or whatever....haha, are you saying that the only genuine 'feelings' are the ones that result from some random response from an outside stimuli? If that is so for you, than I am concerned for you E...having emotions tied to stuff outside of yourself, means that you are a slave to situational happiness, instead of having mastery over your own emotions, and just deciding to be happy when you want to. Gosh, that was one of my earliest realizations on the path of self discovery, i.e. that outside influences and situations are needed for me to feel love or happiness, and outside influences could not make me angry or sad unless I choose to let them on some level. Haha, if the only emotions that are genuine are the ones that are a knee jerk response to outside stimulus, then I hardly have any 'genuine' emotions or feelings at all lol. I am the master of my mind, not the other way around...my mind and emotions are tools and entertainment, not some involuntary reaction that I judge as 'genuine' or not based on whether the feeling arose by choice versus unconscious reaction....how is it with you? With regard to you are Marie's relationship, I call BS...When she says she trusts you, its her way of telling you that she feels secure with you, which in turn makes you feel validated, along with those 'you're so wise and smart squirrel satsangs'...I'm not trying to belittle your relationship in any way, it seems like a beautiful SHARING where you both give the other what they need most in some way. But to say that it is totally without expectation or an unspoken give and receive equilibrium of some type is probably overly optimist or idealistic. Move to the ghetto, handle your finances poorly, start getting calls from bill collectors, and don't reassure her in any way, and see how long that 'trust' lasts, and how much validation she still gives you during those squirrel satsangs. Hah...if I were you, I'd keep things the way they are though...seems like a good unspoken deal you've worked out between you two, and human nature is human nature. Contrived feeling is a mind game, much like the smile game idea that started this conversation, only turned inward. It makes sense that you would play the same games with yourself that you play with others. Fulfilling your need to be happy by entertaining yourself with happy thoughts is a paradigm that went out with Norman Vincent Peale. (Well, mostly) The issue is not whether contrived happiness is any different from any other happiness. Rather, it's whether happiness results from contriving the feeling at all. Again ,the idea that you can control your feelings follows from the idea that you can control your mind. Both are games you play with yourself to make yourself feel in control, which even for you is more of a need than feeling validated. I understand your cynicism about relationships, given your understanding of what folks need and how we should respond to those needs. Relationships based on mutual fulfillment of expectations does not work. At best they are business deals, at worst they are soul sucking hells of endless demand. As Reefs says, everybody just wants to be who they are, and if no judgments are made, no validation is required. One must 'come empty' to a relationship, which means not coloring every perception with one's own judgments, biases, needs and expectations, and just seeing what is there. There is nothing wrong with 'what is there', and folks value your ability to not see what is not there. It's all so absurdly simple. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 24, 2014 20:06:22 GMT -5
 But I want to agree with both of you! 
|
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 24, 2014 22:21:21 GMT -5
Contrived feeling is a mind game, much like the smile game idea that started this conversation, only turned inward. It makes sense that you would play the same games with yourself that you play with others. Fulfilling your need to be happy by entertaining yourself with happy thoughts is a paradigm that went out with Norman Vincent Peale. (Well, mostly) The issue is not whether contrived happiness is any different from any other happiness. Rather, it's whether happiness results from contriving the feeling at all. Again ,the idea that you can control your feelings follows from the idea that you can control your mind. Both are games you play with yourself to make yourself feel in control, which even for you is more of a need than feeling validated. I understand your cynicism about relationships, given your understanding of what folks need and how we should respond to those needs. Relationships based on mutual fulfillment of expectations does not work. At best they are business deals, at worst they are soul sucking hells of endless demand. As Reefs says, everybody just wants to be who they are, and if no judgments are made, no validation is required. One must 'come empty' to a relationship, which means not coloring every perception with one's own judgments, biases, needs and expectations, and just seeing what is there. There is nothing wrong with 'what is there', and folks value your ability to not see what is not there. It's all so absurdly simple. Hey, was there another marriage before Marie? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 23:46:58 GMT -5
Contrived feeling is a mind game, much like the smile game idea that started this conversation, only turned inward. It makes sense that you would play the same games with yourself that you play with others. Fulfilling your need to be happy by entertaining yourself with happy thoughts is a paradigm that went out with Norman Vincent Peale. (Well, mostly) The issue is not whether contrived happiness is any different from any other happiness. Rather, it's whether happiness results from contriving the feeling at all. Again ,the idea that you can control your feelings follows from the idea that you can control your mind. Both are games you play with yourself to make yourself feel in control, which even for you is more of a need than feeling validated. I understand your cynicism about relationships, given your understanding of what folks need and how we should respond to those needs. Relationships based on mutual fulfillment of expectations does not work. At best they are business deals, at worst they are soul sucking hells of endless demand. As Reefs says, everybody just wants to be who they are, and if no judgments are made, no validation is required. One must 'come empty' to a relationship, which means not coloring every perception with one's own judgments, biases, needs and expectations, and just seeing what is there. There is nothing wrong with 'what is there', and folks value your ability to not see what is not there. It's all so absurdly simple. Hey, was there another marriage before Marie? Haha...good catch, nuthin gets by this crowd |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 25, 2014 0:05:39 GMT -5
Contrived feeling is a mind game, much like the smile game idea that started this conversation, only turned inward. It makes sense that you would play the same games with yourself that you play with others. Fulfilling your need to be happy by entertaining yourself with happy thoughts is a paradigm that went out with Norman Vincent Peale. (Well, mostly) The issue is not whether contrived happiness is any different from any other happiness. Rather, it's whether happiness results from contriving the feeling at all. Again ,the idea that you can control your feelings follows from the idea that you can control your mind. Both are games you play with yourself to make yourself feel in control, which even for you is more of a need than feeling validated. I understand your cynicism about relationships, given your understanding of what folks need and how we should respond to those needs. Relationships based on mutual fulfillment of expectations does not work. At best they are business deals, at worst they are soul sucking hells of endless demand. As Reefs says, everybody just wants to be who they are, and if no judgments are made, no validation is required. One must 'come empty' to a relationship, which means not coloring every perception with one's own judgments, biases, needs and expectations, and just seeing what is there. There is nothing wrong with 'what is there', and folks value your ability to not see what is not there. It's all so absurdly simple. Hey, was there another marriage before Marie? It's a reasonable guess, but no. However, I have learned my share of hard lessons.  I guess I kept asking 'what in blazes is going on here?' until I found out. The irony is, one is never ready for a genuine relationship until one no longer needs one. Need is the death knell of all relationship. Folks join together to celebrate life, not to survive it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 25, 2014 0:15:33 GMT -5
Hey, was there another marriage before Marie? Haha...good catch, nuthin gets by this crowd A great deal gets by this crowd on a regular basis.  Shall I tell you the real reason you chose the name 'empty'? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 25, 2014 0:23:10 GMT -5
Hey, was there another marriage before Marie? It's a reasonable guess, but no. However, I have learned my share of hard lessons. I guess I kept asking 'what in blazes is going on here?' until I found out. The irony is, one is never ready for a genuine relationship until one no longer needs one. Need is the death knell of all relationship. Folks join together to celebrate life, not to survive it. 'Need is the death knell of all relationship(s).' sure sounds catchy and kitsch. Actshooally, they DO join together to survive - and to celebrate! I guess it sorta dove-tails from where I'm sittin'.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 0:27:59 GMT -5
Ah okay, I understand what you are saying there is not much danger of happening. Mind doesn't have to see what it doesn't want to see regardless of how obvious, as we see in all sorts of less dramatic ways here on the forum. This, really, is the primary obstacle to self realization, for which there can be no corrective practice or instruction.  have you read this? how does it end? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 25, 2014 1:51:31 GMT -5
It's a reasonable guess, but no. However, I have learned my share of hard lessons. I guess I kept asking 'what in blazes is going on here?' until I found out. The irony is, one is never ready for a genuine relationship until one no longer needs one. Need is the death knell of all relationship. Folks join together to celebrate life, not to survive it. 'Need is the death knell of all relationship(s).' sure sounds catchy and kitsch. Actshooally, they DO join together to survive - and to celebrate! I guess it sorta dove-tails from where I'm sittin'. From where you're sitting, you need to survive and want to celebrate, so that's what you use relationship for. But to the extent that you bring need into a relationship, you compromise it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 25, 2014 1:52:50 GMT -5
Mind doesn't have to see what it doesn't want to see regardless of how obvious, as we see in all sorts of less dramatic ways here on the forum. This, really, is the primary obstacle to self realization, for which there can be no corrective practice or instruction. have you read this? how does it end? Never heard of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2014 2:01:56 GMT -5
Haha...good catch, nuthin gets by this crowd A great deal gets by this crowd on a regular basis. Shall I tell you the real reason you chose the name 'empty'? Ahh come on, now your just pouting... Its just some entertaining conversation my friend. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 25, 2014 2:10:57 GMT -5
'Need is the death knell of all relationship(s).' sure sounds catchy and kitsch. Actshooally, they DO join together to survive - and to celebrate! I guess it sorta dove-tails from where I'm sittin'. From where you're sitting, you need to survive and want to celebrate, so that's what you use relationship for. But to the extent that you bring need into a relationship, you compromise it. Everybody has needs....I think you'll have to be very specific about the type of 'need' to which you are referring. Heh, life is a crapshoot -- there is nothing but compromise to it. Life itself is The Big Bet. |
|
But I want to agree with both of you!
