Well, I have some work to do, that is certainly clear.  I am just
going to have to take a break it appears, and stop trying to think and
discuss.  No matter what I try, it is not working, so it must be my
problem.

I would like to leave you with a little story though.  Just for fun.
To lighten things up a little.

I was looking at my "to do" list.  (I just love making lists of what
to do, and then crossing them out,  you?  doesn't matter)  Anyway, I
came across the message "PHONE BILL"
Well, I could not remember a reason why I needed to phone Bill, I
could not think of anything I needed to tell him.  Then I realized I
had misinterpreted MY OWN message!  Now you can see what a crazy world
we live in, and how crazy I have become.



On Aug 29, 10:44 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> somehow we have come back to the cynical, in faultfinding, disbelief
> in the sincerity of the motives of others, examination through sneer.
> "if you bothered," relates distrust and disbelief, and separates the
> "you" from the speaker.  I think if the self is always central to
> relationship - what "I" am saying and what is said to "me," it may be
> easy to fall into the more egotistical or cynical view.  In my
> experience with relationships and groups, the exchange is more
> seamless and less self centered, something more like Pat's exchange of
> other within the one, that has a natural flow if indeed, we come from
> this viewpoint and suspicions have fallen away.  This is why I began
> my examination with trust and trustworthiness and the comfort zone
> therein, although in Pat's model, this is also seamless because all
> intention is for the greater good if we are truly seen as one.
>
> On Aug 29, 1:24 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > While you display much decorum, it is not like do not offer your own
> > "cutting" opinions, at least from my view.
> > Do I mean "cutting" as in "malicious?"  No, not necessarily, and
> > certainly not for the most part.  Many things we say in here may be
> > preceived as such, but "cutting" is also just an attempt to "cut
> > through"  to the "perceived truth"  one might think or feel at this
> > point in their lives. Most of what is said in these groups is an
> > attempt to cut through, I really believe that, and not to cut others.
> > Controlling how each message is received is very difficult!  And yet
> > just how they are perceived (as evident by the respose)  "also" says
> > something about each of us.  It is all very complicated.
>
> > While the bad kind of "cutting" happens too,  it is often just dressed
> > up in really nice decorum. I don't see that as any benefit, if it is
> > really in there, in fact it makes the problem worse.  But I am
> > "trying" to view these posts as NOT having a malicious intent to them,
> > after all, "we are all one...we are the mirror...how you treat others
> > is how you treat yourself"...ect.   ect.   Well if you really believe
> > those things then we need to look closer at just what we are saying,
> > myself included.  We might simply be trying to help by offering what
> > we see as "not seen"  or even the wacky idea of "the truth" even
> > though we know we don't have it.  It is so difficult to figure all
> > this out, yet we keep trying.  Put a gold star up there for "effort"
> > on us human's report card for in trying to figure things out!
>
> >   Maybe my point is that some "need" to say some things, this is
> > apparent, and the motive behind that need, while questionable, should
> > not be judged too quickly.  Some are more "direct"  and "hold back
> > less"  but that does not necessarily mean they have "bad intent."   I
> > am not very good at holding back. This is obviously a danger and
> > something that will no doubt "stir up"  but honestly, I do not see
> > that as a bad thing!
> > does a painter try and "stir up" emotions?  "Stir up" is also "a re-
> > examination"  isn't it?  I realize there is a balance, and it may be
> > easy for you, but not so easy for me.  Expression is what we are here
> > for.  Does holding back expression do any good?  Can we truly
> > "protect" the receiver?   Can we "insure" the "intent" of each post?
> > We are obviously all different, and all take different approaches.  If
> > we assume bad intent, then there is going to be trouble.  If we ignore
> > what we see as bad intent there will be trouble too.  I don't know the
> > solution, but dressing up bad intent in a nice classy disguise does
> > not seem to be the answer either.  Not that you would do that!  I
> > believe you are a very nice person with genuine goals of seeking,
> > feeling, learning, and you believe in harmony and peace.  Those are
> > wonderful qualities!
>
> >    As to Jim's OP,  I do some adapting to other people, this is
> > natural, but I am always myself. Are there different facets?  Of
> > course.  Should we always "adapt?"  I am not sure.  If it violates
> > something important in you I don't think so. Some core philosophy? No,
> > but then that can be discussed.  Everything needs to be discussed!
> > That is my core philosophy!  Hey, I discovered a new one!  thanks for
> > listening, if you bothered.
>
> > On Aug 29, 6:05 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I had to give this one some thought, Jim, and examine the way that I
> > > interact in a group.  I'm not sure what you are going for here, but
> > > for me, relationship and group dynamic always has time coming in and
> > > going out aspects.  I cannot say that I behave the same everywhere I
> > > go, because I find myself sizing up the environment to establish a
> > > comfort zone for the exchange - what others are comfortable with, what
> > > I am comfortable offering.  Issues of trust and trustworthiness are
> > > present in every relationship and group, and they can take awhile to
> > > establish.  But even if the group is only together for an evening,
> > > there will be a getting to know you period, a bonding period, a
> > > deconstructive period, and a coming together before separating
> > > period.  Happens every time.
>
> > > I also choose the topic for discussion based on the receiver's
> > > receptivity.  I don't try to discuss Esoteric philosophy unless I
> > > first see interest and foundational knowledge.  I have found that
> > > allowing people their comfort zone can bring the best out in them.
> > > However, there is also an edge where they will begin to feel
> > > threatened and challenged if they are taken beyond it.  I have noticed
> > > that some people prey on this, and like to disturb and stir things
> > > up.  I take the other route, as my mother taught me that ladies and
> > > gentlemen do what they can to make everyone around them comfortable,
> > > and it is a good way to live.  I think there is something to be said
> > > for this kind of virtuous nobility.
>
> > > All of this is to say that, while I am always me, I respect those
> > > around me in each exchange, which gives particular flavor to each
> > > exchange and may bring up different aspects, as you say, in me.
>
> > > On Aug 28, 2:19 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >         I thought for a long time that I was the same “me” wherever I
> > > > was and whoever I was with. But then, in recent decades, I began to
> > > > notice differences in the “me” that was present, first with a few
> > > > people, then more and more with more and more. For example, I might be
> > > > witty with fast comebacks with one person, and yet with another I was
> > > > more dull and boring. Even when I tried to lighten up with the second
> > > > person, I did not seem able to – I couldn’t call forth the facet of me
> > > > that was present with the first person. Hmmm.
> > > >         Have any of you noticed this? Probably everyone has, and just
> > > > as probably many have written about it. Do any of you know if this is
> > > > the case? And has anyone tried to explain the different facets of
> > > > one’s personality that seem to naturally shine with different people?
> > > > Or am I just nuts? Jim- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to