That could be- perhaps we are all spinning our legends and others have chosen a "you" based on their assignment of "roles". Then, there is the internal/external you- and they sometimes do not match up which creates discomfort, I find. Etiquette and "fitting in" may be required arts for getting along while we struggle to quash a zinger of truth or a whallop of humor- or you may be admired for your unpredictability which isn't necessarily a "bad" thing- it just depends on the relationship. I can accept another's expectation/view when it doesn't jive with my own self-understanding as long as it is not a threat. I have also been amazed at how little some people require beyond a very superficial encounter/memory, but that also depends on the relationship- it might be okay for a situational friendship that will pass away but not so with one that requires intimacy and honesty. And here we may have the basis of therapy- the disconnect between what we seem and who we are. :-)
On Aug 30, 1:26 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > I have experiences like you describe Jim. It might have something to > do with chemistry. Not the science kind but the relationship kind. > I've found that I infuriate some people. Seriously. Me. Go figure. > Other people seem to enjoy my company quite a bit. On a couple of > occasions I've run into people I haven't seen in several years that, > in my opinion, go a bit overboard in their excitement on meeting up > again. They talked about stuff I'd forgotten about years ago and > seemed to really remember liking me for some reason. I, on the other > hand, remember thinking they didn't care for me that much. Weird. I > think maybe they remember that TIME in their life rather then me > specifically. > > dj > > > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM, retiredjim34<[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
