Caffeine. --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- 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/
