BB - yes, I bothered to read to the end. Because these facets are a
puzzle to me.
I don't think the facets I'm talking about result from adapting
my conversation to the listener, although undoubtedly that occurs to
some degree. As I best understand it at present, I seem to show a
different aspect of me to different people. It is not a conscious
decision. Rather it seems to be triggered by the other person, or
result from a meshing of our vibes or whatever, and result (to express
it in extremes) in a dull, dense me, or a sparkling. lively me, or a
teasing, humorous me, or whatever. There is no conscious decision on
my part to show such a facet - for me, it just happens. Have you ever
noticed that - that different people bring out different aspects of
the total you, and not from any conscious decision on your part?
On Aug 29, 10:24 am, 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
