--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> 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.
Sort of. However I would amend your logic by saying that if I see GWB as a part of myself and call him as you say, that is how I choose to treat that part of myself. If you look back on my posts, yes, I am highly critical of him, but would not say anything about him that I would not say to myself. The thing that makes this difficult to understand and accept is if we continue to see ourselves as our bodies, period. If we gain a more fluid sense of ourselves, then this whole 'you are me' orientation, and resulting behavior begins to make sense. 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/
