--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- akasakasha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > snip > > > > > Peter then asks that I "Next time just call[him] > > fuck-face and things > > will be clearer for all of us. My two main posts > > were not hostile to > > Peter. I thought they were collegial. He then finds > > hostility and > > phantom attackers somewhere in the written words, a > > hostility > > sufficient that one would call him a fuck face. > > Huh???!! Where does > > this come from inside Peter? > > Okay....I thought about this for awhile and I think I > came upon why this is happening and this entire > exchange demonstrates the point.
While your points are well taken, below, I sugest there is a additional factor contributing to the miscommunication. You did't read the posts -- you skimmed one and ignored the next, and appear not to have read any of the prior posts in the thread. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/64612 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/64654 In not reading the primary posts, to you the main point of the posts was the "tacky" comment. To me, that was just a small aside, the major points in the posts revolved around the theme of expectations, judgement, judgemental views and an exploration of such. Here are some excerpts from the posts that I thought had put things in perspective -- that is, the "tacky" discussion was a small springboard into the larger, more generalized theme of expectations, etc. ---------------------- And I know Unc was making a joke [about "tacky"]. So we could just laugh it off as not relevant. .... But hey, I know both Uncs and your comments were jokes. I can just laugh. But they are helpful to me in tracing throught this odd little thread in all of our lives called "expectations". ... I was using the "tacky" statement just a springboard for discussion. It in itself was not any great sin. But I do hold there is a useful and instructive distinction between saying you don't care for something (a judgement pertainng to your own decisions and actions -- which is fine),.... .... Well, again "tacky" was a starting example for discussion. .... Again, I don't find your jokes as great sins against humanity. They were springboards to explore a theme. You can make all the MMY jokes you want, and I may laugh and get pulled into the monkey mind chatter. Who knows. (who cares) ----------------------------- >My words > mean one thing to her and something different to me. > When I work with couples, this happhappens the time. > The real mess starts if one or both people insist that > the intent of their communication is the only meaning > that occuoccurredis is what is happening between > AkasAkasha myself. > AkasAkashaat I see happening with the "tacky" > communication is that you are teasing out all the > possible logical implications of the communication: a > quasi deconstruction. Again, this discussion in my view was not about "tacky" much at all. I was using that as a juncture point to explore larger themes of expecation and judgemental views -- the "tacky" comment being just one small and insignificant example. You appear to be obsessed with the idea that I was obsessed with the "tacky" discussion. Which side of the fence is the obsession coming from? > If this is done with any > communication you end up with a welter of meanings > that will contradict one another in many instances. > The intent of my "tacky" communication was not to > insult the DimiDimickswever, it is quite easy to > deconstruct the communication and logically arrive at > the meaning both you and Judy came to. Or it could be the first, common sense, common usage meaning that first came to me when I saw the word in the context used. no bbig fancy deconstruction necessary. I didn't go through any contortions to get to my "connotation". It was the first, primary and fundamental meaning to me from the start. I did recognize you were taking a different slant on the word, and was sesnsitive to such, though a bit baffled that you did not see how loaded and value-laden a word "tacky" is in current ussage. > What sticks in > my craw is your privprivilegingr meaning over my > intent and then ,it seems, insisting that this is the > actual/real/true meaning of my communication. Well, you have got a phantom reptile stuck in your crawl. Its a shame that you get so worked up by a snake that in reality is a harmless rope. I never insisted that "this" is the actual/real/true meaning of your communication. In this small side discussion of "tacky", a tributary off the main point of the discussion, I was periodically trying if I could get you to see that the word "tacky" is a quite loaded, value-laden word. > You then > go on to question why I'm saying "these things"-these > things being the logical implication that now has been > marked by you as the intent of my communication. Again, Peter, you are seeing phantom snakes here. You appear to have let a molehill grow into a moutntain inside of you. > I try > to say that I didn't mean that and you say that I did. I tried to point out to you that your words have other powerful connotations other than the one you have for it. > Obviously this is going to irritate me. A mountain inside of me crawling with snakes would irritate me too. But Peter, you created the mountain and you created the snakes. They are not there on the written page. > For example, I > find many of your responses to me to be dripping in > passive-aggressive sarcasm. To me you seem to be angry > at me and waiting for any opportunity to discount me > (thus the "fuck face" comment). Ah ah. I think we are finally getting to the heart of the issue. You appear to have an image of me, my motives, means and character, set in your mind prior to reading my posts,You perhaps look for interpretations of my words that fit your preconceived profile. When you find several such interpreations that fit, perhaps the anger grows in you because it becomes clearer in your mind how right your profile is. But all the snakes ar just rope. Perhaps read my post on this thread about this. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/64676 some excerpts: --------------------------------- I think at least part of the dynamic, ... [is] having a formation in ones head prior to or during an exchange, of where the other person is coming from, what their assumptions, moods, understanding, knowledge, biases, SoC, are, etc. Instead of just listening/reading the words as they ARE, without preconceptions as to what the person means to say. It means dropping past "ques" and clues one has built up about the person and their behavior, motives, desires, etc. Who knows, maybe they had a transformation last night and are a new person. It means no "profiling" - which is another form of pre-judgement. That is, no quickly sizing a person up as a certain type, and then reading them from the standard characteristics of that type. It means dropping all these things and simply listening/ reading what IS. And drawing NEW conclusions, AFTER the exchange. Or simple drawing no conclusions. That is, not making judgements when such do not pertain to personal decisions one must make. ---------------------------- You know Peter, 2-3 years ago, I went through a period where my posts had more of an edge, I used sarcasm to make points. I have lived in various environments where sarcasm is the spirit of the day and in the right context found it can be funny and instructive. And conducive to lively banter. But one day, two years ago, you said directly to me in a post that my sarcasm really peeved you and pissed you off. I stopped that day. In two years, my posts to you, as far as I have intended have not had any sarcasm. I am guessing here and may be wrong, but it appears perhaps you are still stuck in your mindset about me and my posts as you were 2-3 years ago. That you continue with old outdated "profiles" about me and these have clouded your vision and you are not seeing the actual words on the page -- that their style and content have changed. Thats why I think its improtant to drop all preconceptions about a person when reading their words. Who knows, they might have been radically transformed last night. Read the words, not past ghosts in your mind. And to get away from being "profiled" is the raeson i have occaisionally posted anonymously. There are lots of anonff's out there so it forces a reader to drop preconceptions as to who the writer is and to focus on their words. I remember you loudly protesting in dismay about the many anonymoussff postings "why can't you guys sign a name , even a fake one, this is so confusing, I can't tell who is who". Perhaps that is instructive if indeed such feelings came from the insecurity of not being able to profile a poster and prejudge their angle, tone and motives prior to opening thier posts. > You are flabbergasted > at some of my responses to you. Yes, when there are no mountains or snakes on the written page and you start angerly complaining about such, I am indeed flabbergasted. > Well, that is what > your responses initially mean to me. But when you > state that you had no intention of insulting me and I > re-read your post, then I understand, to a greater > degree, the intention of your post. So this supports the premise that its your preconcieved or at least concurrent (to reading the posts) view of me and my motives etc that influence how you interpret the words on the page. Why not start each post with a clean slate, or even posit the best intentions to each poster and see how your interpreations of thier posts may change. Way less snakes snarling and hissing at you, I promise you. > I still find the > comments offending, but now I understand that your > intent was not to insult me so I just chalk it up to > miscmiscommunicationen this occurs between us or > between anybody, the miscmiscommunications not lie in > one person only ("...where does this come from inside > Peter?") but is the result of the > non-identical,assumptive or "meaning" generating world > of both people. Yes. And with such understanding, one might avoid this huge detour revolving around a small insignificant aprt of the thread (the "tacky diversion), and allow all minds to focus on the really interesting issues in the main part of the thread. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
