--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- ... > These behaviors often take the form "How DARE you accuse > me of the thing I just accused someone of? > > But there is another behavior one sees in this situation. > I'm not completely sure its a more highly evolved behavior > (although I definitely swing in that direction), but it > sure is a more interesting one. > > Seeker A flames Seeker B. Seeker Z busts Seeker A for > projecting his own faults onto Seeker B. And then, instead > of getting angry and denying it, Seeker A STOPS THE > WORLD (snaps the binding lines of a samskara) and says, > "Oh. Cool. That *is* a valid way of seeing myself, and > thus the stuff I've still got to work on. Thanks." Yes. We chould always check to see if i) we are projecting, and ii) if any criticism has some degree of validity -- regardless our preception of the mental state of the critic. Thats why i raised the question from Tom's post yesterday. It appeared that someone, any one (not specifically Tom) taking the same stance as him, might be consciously, or unconsciously, avoiding or deflecting off valid criticism. Avoiding or turning ones back to criticism, by using platitudes, seems unhealthy to me. Look at the crticism to see if one can learn from it. The key point, regardless of the source, all criticism is good to look at as a stimulus and feedback on improvement. Even if one is totally "pure", that someone views specific faults in them, opens the door on how to act/write/speak in such ways so that even such misunderstandings are avoided. > I kinda like the second scenario. I've seen in on other > forums a lot. It shows me that the person being busted for > "projecting" actually does GET Jim's argument, and GETS > that he has the same qualities in himself. And he GETS > that's the reason he's lashing out when he sees that > quality outside of himself. If you are posing this as an absolute, "always" has these qualities, i disagree. Its always ripe ground to look for such personal projection in oneself, but that does not mean all criticisms of "the world" weather of art, writing, politics, film, peoples behaviors, etc are projections. If you believe they are "always" projections, then you are in essence calling Jim a dumbfuck. :) The train of logic being: Jim, on numerous occaisions has been highly critical of GWB. Essentially echoing in meaning (though not her words), Nalatie/Dixie Chicks comment, now on film, that "GWB is a dumbfuck". If Jim sees GWB as a dumbfuck, and if all perceptions and criticisms are ALWAYS projections, then, ergo, Jim must be a dumfuck. Of course i don't hold that all criticsms are projections. They might me. Thus while Jim may be a dumbfuck, you may be a dumbfuck, I may be a dumbfuck, but IMO, any of us calling GWB a dumbfuck does not necessarily make us dumbfucks. > It's like if you could read the "subtitles" of "Oh. Cool. > That *is* a valid way of seeing myself, and thus the stuff > I've still got to work on. Thanks," they would say: Its a way of seeing "me". Maybe "valid" or not. If valid, there is work to do. If not valid, its still someones perception, and there is work that could be undertaken. > "Oh. I accused such-and-such of being a LIAR. Hmmmm. Now > that you've brought it up, I do this a LOT. I wonder if > one of the reasons I do this is that I'm a LIAR, too. Yes, always a good thing to check. However, saying someone is a liar, if they demonstratably lied, does not necessarily make the critic a liar. > Let's examine that. Hmmmm. No, I don't lie to other people > very much...that is right out. But yes, now that you mention > it, I lie to myself ALL THE TIME. Damn. I'm not nearly as > perfect as I thought I was. I still have stuff to work on. > Wow. What a concept. Thanks." Yes, We may EVEN see things the critic does not. Due to their prompting to look within. > I don't know about you, but I think the person who reacts > the second way has more of a clue than the person who reacts > with anger and denial. Yes. That's what struck im in Tom's post (which may or may not apply to Tom). People who see ALL criticism as projection of the other, are in denial. > We're all sincere spiritual seekers here. aka "sincere", Speak for yourself, you dumbfuck :) [note to Peter, that is actually humor. Maybe good humor. Maybe bad humor. But its certainly not "anger". If you see it as anger, well, possibly, not necessarily, you may be seeing some internal overlay, not what IS.] > Every last one of us. > > And we're all assholes here, assholes who > still have a LOT to work on. See you are getting it you asshole dumfuck! :) > Every last one of us. > > In my opinion, that's cause for celebration, not anger. > > Think how boring things would be if your really WERE > perfect. Party tonight to celebrate our assholedness. Bring all your dumfuck friends. Even if they have badges. :) 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
