--- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Caffeine.
Sorry Jim, i gave up caffeine four weeks ago. And I feel better. I found that the lift it gave me was simply borrowing "alertness" funds from about 4 hours into the future. When that next four hours rolled around, i was deeper in debt. But I am guessing you didn't actually read the post. Theres a lot of that going around. (And its not even flu season). If you do find interesting points in the post, feel free to comment. > --- 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/
