Classroom Talk
Fall 2001 Archive
A "Hummmm" to the wise . . . Posted by John on November 20, 2001 at 17:21:58:
Woweee!!! This is sure a fascinating episode in our classroom history . . . . . the guys against the, uh, women. I never dreamed I'd see that happen
here. But, again, we are a microcosm of society in this class.
All of a sudden, there is an epidemic of people rubbing people the wrong way around here—like a sudden plague of grasshoppers. And I think it was
*me* that started this latest round!
Remember that crack I made about psychotherapy only teaching people their own self-defeating types, and this training teaching about the self-
defeating types of all people? Well, I didn't know it was "a crack," at the time I said that. In fact, if one of you sharp students had posted a warning
to me: "Uh, Coach, aren't you sort of picking an argument with Deirdre here? Isn't this a stinger that is going to rub her the wrong way?" . . . I'd
have gone back to the game-tape and sat with what I'd said like a brick in my lap, and come back saying "No way!!!"
Like I said the other day, we are all rubbing some people the wrong way without realizing it. And sure enough, back comes Deirdre (what is the
person doing here?) arguing with me about it (in a *very nice* way, of course!).
Now be cool, please. I'm not even thinking about what's right or wrong in this argument, if anything. I'm only looking at the form of the behavior
here. It seems to me this is a Judge, setting me straight about something that *really matters* to her, correcting the record, arguing with me for the
sake of identifying something that is wrong, and getting it . . . right.
Do you all see what I mean? I had no notion whatsoever that my statement was provocative.
And Deirdre was incredibly fair about it, by the way! (Being fair, being balanced is the *hallmark* of the essence of the Judge, the Player.) But even
so, as soon as I heard what she said in "Psychotherapy Challenged?" I heard my Self arguing and arguing with her in my thinking mind. And what I
was arguing seemed altogether logical to me. Arguments are always about what's logical. My thinking mind came up with a sarcastic line that is
interesting to contemplate. I said, "Oh yeah, Deirdre? So, are you claiming that a person who has been treated for Affective Personality Disorder
comes through that successfully with an understanding of Borderline Personality Disorder?"
Isn't that cruel and mean? And if she could answer that one, I would have to take my hat off to her, and beg her apology, because the truth of it is,
after all these years, I *still* don't understand the full nuances of Borderline Personality Disorder. I always failed with those cases when they came
along in my psychotherapy practice, years ago. But did I have to be that mean to Deirdre, and fight with her that way? Did I have to make a big
personality war out of it? Yes, I did, in my thinking mind, for a little while. I'm only human. And that angry vicious argument went on in my thinking
for several minutes . . . . . until I woke up to what was going on.
Now Deirdre was coming from a place even deeper than mere logic when she posted "Psychotherapy Challenged?" She said:
>John, my experience is very strongly that when I know MY OWN self-defeating patterns and work on them.. to my surprize that alone seems to allow me to understand others very well too. Understand them and accept them for who they are.
In the world of mindful warriors, *experience* trumps logic every time. If I had not had a knee-jerk-reaction to the fact that she saw my remarks as
challenging the rich value of psychotherapy—had I been awake when I heard Deirdre saying, "my experience is . . ." I would have realized immediately
the basic truth in what she was saying. For I have that very same experience, too!
I know exactly what you mean by that, Deirdre! You're absolutely right (except about what you thought you heard me say, heh-heh). It's true for
me, too, that merely having been a client in psychotherapy has helped me all the time, in a general yet also specific way, with humbly understanding
and accepting other people.
I love many of the modern psychotherapy approaches, and I recommend being in psychotherapy with someone you respect and trust, someone who
shows real caring for you and your sufferings—I recommend this to *everyone* as a part of their education . . . . whether "they need it or not," so to
speak. There's nothing in this training that can equal the personal, one-on-one, face-to-face healing experience of being in psychotherapy. It's so good
to have a caring, yet firm, therapist sitting there with you, observing the psychotherapy process moment by moment as it's going along.
I had not meant to be "challenging psychotherapy" when I made those remarks, but it is interesting to see that the way I said it apparently rubbed you
the wrong way . . . without my realizing that would happen. You know how much I respect your personal teacher—a psychotherapist and
mindfulness teacher. I would not put the personal work that you have been doing during these years down knowingly. And I think you see now
that I have no beef with psychotherapy at all.
The way I said it was insensitive. I apologize to you for that. I hope you'll accept my apology. I stung you without meaning to. I think this may be an
insight for you. If you think back, there have been a number of times in the past when I felt I recognized that you were reacting in a posting to
something insensitive that I later sensed had rubbed you the wrong way. On those occasions, either you couldn't see it, or maybe it wasn't really
there. Perhaps, however, you are now in a fortunate position, for both of us, to realize that you can forgive me for all of those other times, as well,
when I inadvertently brought pressure and impact into your space.
And I'm grateful for the fairness and balance that you show (even though I didn't even recognize it on the first reading, until I later woke up):
>I believe that understanding the full wheel ADDS to the benefits of psychotherapy and even replaces or substitutes psychotherapy for individuals who might not go into therapy (for whatever reason). They are both incredibly useful IMO.
Bless your heart, Deirdre. Notice "IMO," meaning "in my *opinion*, fits right in with the music of this post. Even with a note of Judge here and there,
you're a mellow Player, indeed.
.........................................................................
Now, Bruce, to me, the *greatest thing* that you've done in this last post is to *free me up* to be spontaneous here today. I'm grateful to you for that,
from the bottom of my heart. I'm eager to finish that jigsaw puzzle exercise, but I don't have to feel "in a hurry" about that now . . . for I'm even more
eager to be able to feel free to relate spontaneously with the new here-and-now dynamics that emerge before our very eyes in this class.
I hadn't been meaning to put-down psychotherapy at that time, but only to point out a clear distinction between psychotherapy and what we are
doing here. The biggest blatant distinctions are that we are not sitting face-to-face so that I can observe your sharings moment-to-moment (and
respond to them when I choose to right on the spot), and secondly, that we are, so obviously, not being in a hurry about it, deliberately.
When I was being a psychotherapist, years ago, I *was* being in a hurry with the people I saw hurting in my presence every session. I am not able to
provide that kind of service here, and that is not the intention of this training. I like to call that to your attention in high relief, as I have pointed that
out to everyone who is here along the way. But I do do the best I can in providing this *other kind of service* as a coach.
...........................................................................
Now, Lou, I'm delighted with your contributions to making the new kid feel at home around here . . . . . . yet . . . . . is it possible you've impetuously
stepped onto the very edge of "deep doodoo," as they say, with this wholesome offer of "male-bonded friendship" to our newcomer? I'm not sure
that the, uh, "gals" in our class have been quite comfortable with this conversation, though you've certainly tried your damndest to be a gentleman
about it.
I thought, by the way, that Deirdre's "Hummmm," was the best warrior move of the month. If any of you have printed out the page of non-
manipulative candid communications from the wheelbook, please pencil in "Hmmmm," to the list of non-judgmental, non-committal phrases at the
bottom of it, along with "Oh," "I see," "I hear you." "Hummmm" deserves a place of its own on that short list!
And whenever any of you students may chance to hear it, a "Hummmm" to the wise is sufficient, I might add. {wide grin} It may signal, albeit
peacefully, that the other person has been rubbed the wrong way, and even stung.
>Man do I relate to this one, but after being around here for a while, I've came to see that they are truly great gals to have the privilege of being in my life at any level.
Now, you didn't know that you might have spoken a stinger there, did you? And you simply misspoke, and then felt a bit of consternation about it . .
. apologized even. That's good. You had a blush. Your contrition showed. You meant to say that you are grateful to have "***them***" in your life
here in this class.
But it may be this whole idea of "us, guys," and "them, uh, women" that is the touchy issue here.
I've noticed that I, and other men I know, don't seem to mind if we are referred to as "guys." But the term "gals" seems to have become a sticking
point in relations between the sexes. I don't find it's comfortable to use that term any more, personally. If women don't like it, that's okay with me,
and I go on trying to understand and empathize. Many years ago, I had trouble giving up the term "chick." Can you imagine that? But eventually,
thank Heaven, I *got it*.
"Us" and "them." I guess it will always be somewhat that way when us guys are talking with each other alone. I hope this can change over time, but it
hasn't completely changed so far. And most women that I've known definitely would not like to hear it.
I think the whole problem—and it pertains to our group participation here in class—is that women are fed up with the very existence of "us and them"
thinking. They don't want to be thought of as "women," either. They just want to be thought of as people, as human beings, with the qualities and
talents that they have. And certainly none of the women in this class ought to be treated in *any different way whatsoever* than the men who are
here in our group . . . or in the places they work, the places they socialize, or any of the places where they hang out with other people. They don't
want to be separated out into categories of "us and them" any more.
That seems obviously righteous to me now, but the issue is far more complicated than mere logic would make it out to be. Androgeny may be a
healthy and happening thing in society for certain people, yet when Jennifer Lopez does her special on TV tonight, I imagine she will still get a lot of
anonymous attention for other than the highly competent work that she does. I don't know if we will ever wipe this frailty out, or if we ought to,
indeed. In the 21st Century, we'll all go on looking for answers in this thorny dilemma. There is a fundamental fairness issue here, that has to be
addressed!
And meanwhile, in female-bonded friendships, and gatherings of women on their own, are there not these same kinds of corresponding "us and them"
conversations going on? I guess we men will never know. One thing we do know, is that women have had to endure the strident tones of "chicks"
and other such phrases in public. And we men will never know the kinds of names, in those private moments together, that they call us. Maybe it's
something a lot worse than "guys." And if so, I hope I never have to find out. ;-)
I do agree with your sense of it, Lou, that women seem to be somewhat higher up the evolutionary scale than men. I can't put my finger on it, to
explain it either . . . but, perhaps that explains, after all, why it seems to be *so hard* to get over this Us-and-Them categorizing that we men seem to
be Fated to do.
I don't know if there is any ultimate enlightened teaching on "men and women." If we look back over the last fifty years, and the many scandals that
have been reported, it seems that *so many* of the most widely recognized and admired spiritual teachers—most of them men—have flunked this
course, if there is one. Maybe the answer to that is that this world needs a century or two with more women enlightenment teachers. You would
think it shouldn't make any difference . . . but maybe it does. I don't know.
But I can say this: Deirdre, you're a really neat, uh, person! And Lou, so are you!
........................................................................
Bruce's posting, which might have been titled "The worm turns," was impressive, all right. Speaking up like that is a healthy sign of progress, Bruce.
That's for sure. I liked it as much as you did, Lou . . . . . right up to near the very end. But, I don't agree with your perception that he did the whole
thing "without presenting any stingers." Missing this—especially as you are generally so perceptive—couldn't be a case of a guy sticking up "blindly"
for his male buddy, could it? . . . Boys against the girls, so to speak (in a context of eight-year-olds)? Heh-heh. Yeah, re-framing it in that childhood
context is clever. And the patterns we have today in this DO go all the way back to those childhood days!
Sometimes friendship can blind us. Other people may say this or that against our friend, but we don't see it. We stick up for them. We don't care
about it because it IS our friend. It doesn't bother us that our friend does that.
>Sally, take a chill pill—all you need is Love.
Hummm.
Heh-heh. If I'd been able to speak up at just that moment, I can't think of any better warrior move I might have made than saying that. ;-) And then
I'd have just remained quiet, to leave a space for Bruce to be catching on.
But, imperfect as our medium here is for doing that, I'll go ahead with my points. If you hadn't "put Sally in her place," the other day, Lou, I fear this
move by Bruce may have done so. Here is the newest kid in the group addressing one of the oldest members of the class that way.
"Take a chill pill?" Is there anybody else in class who doesn't recognize that's a stinger?
But, you're only human, Bruce. You have knee-jerk reactions like all the rest of us. Although you demonstrated great growth and progress
throughout that posting, just at the very end there . . . well, that wasn't "the awareness game." Heh-heh.
If you had only said "All you need is Love" that would have been a perfect ending. And you do get "extra points" around here for singing a Beatles
song, as I am ever a fan. {friendly grin} But . . . . . how would you put it? "The Devil made me do it." You fell asleep, and had to even the score with
Sally.
Some unconscious urge came up in you—perhaps flushed with all the power and strength you were feeling then—and you had to "go too far." You
had to "take on the Champ." The behavior went over from essence into personality. It as definitely aggressive. And it offered to wound, as well.
What is the person doing here? Reacting to the stingers of a Dictator, you went *all the way across the wheel* from being a Doormat, through being a
Hard Worker (which you were being through most of that post) across the center of the wheel to the reciprocal side, through being a Can-Do Man
(which you were being through most of that post), and out on so far in that direction that you finally came out . . . . . playing the Dictator. "Up with
your dukes, Sally!"
What is the person doing here? "Take a chill pill." You are giving a direct order, a command! You are making a demand. You are controlling. And,
you are pounding on your classmate pretty hard here with this "right cross to the chin."
Oh, it's all so human. This illustrates perfectly how subtle and difficult the task of attempting to live among our fellow humans in peace and harmony
can be for All of us! For—in each of us—there is this unconscious tendancy to get even, to even the score, to get back at the person we feel stung by.
It is this very conditioned tendancy that each of us must learn to recognize in our own patterns, and become able to step aside from, if we would like
to become real warriors for peace.
This course is about learning how to change the everyday human knee-jerk reaction of "get a stinger, give a stinger back" into "get a stinger, create a
space, intelligently, for a possibility of peace."
Why is this strategy so practical, and important? In the situation that was going on around Sally's expressions referring to you, Bruce, we had reached
a point where it was at least possible that Sally might have reached a point of experiencing some contrition about all that. Who knows? Perhaps she
might have had a chance to sincerely apologize to you for things she said—but then, wham-o! You hit her with a stinger, first chance you get!
It's not that I "blame you." I hope you understand what I mean. You are only being human like all the rest of us in our class, including me. On a
logical plane, we might say that "Sally asked for it," perhaps. Stingers don't happen in a vacuum. She gave a stinger; she got one back. What else is
new? But a chance to make *an aware bid for peace on purpose* may have been lost. This stinger, too, may beget another . . . and another back . . .
and another. So it goes in ordinary human relations, where people are unable to wake up, unable to see, and unable to "guide their own step," as it
says in the Old Testament. We are into slipping the ordinary human condition in this training here. There is still a space for Sally to do that. Her very
silence, so far, is a great awareness game move in itself (if she intends that, or not, I don't know).
Those of us who have known Sally a long time know it's *possible* she's gonna pin your ears back. But we always go by who the person is being
NOW in this class. With every new posting that is ever made here in Classroom Talk lies the opportunity of being a fresh new person. And those of
us around here who love you, Sally, which is practically all of us as far as I know, are cheering you on here. Do whatever it is that you do, and we'll
love you just as much still! You are fore-given by me in advance, in this playground brawl, to do whatever you do.
And if you have warrior strength enough, in this heavily impacted situation to hear the non-stinging side of your adversary's last wounding remark,
all you DO need is love, if you can find it.
Coach
I love you All. Is everybody cool???
Don't you see, Folks? This is what it would take in Israel/Palestine, and in Afghanistan, too, for the whole solid system of back and forth stingers to
ever unravel, and leave a space, finally, for a possibility of ongoing peace in the land.
Continue with Fall 2001 Classroom Talk or
Post a new discussion in the current Classroom Talk
Archived 01/08/2002