Classroom Talk
Fall 2002 Archive
When confusion reigns . . . (the ex post facto prequel). Posted by John on October 01, 2002 at 19:00:55:
Let me start here near the present and work backwards, if I may.
>...thanks for the feedback and... Your suggesting the line between Essence and Personality might be broad and fuzzy opened a window for me.
Neat that you are both grappling with this at the same time, and knowing this exploring of this area as students together.
And it calls to my attention that I, as a coach, would like to try to make the distinction between Essence and Persoality as clear and easy to recognize
as possible. For there are objective ways that you can tell the differences between each of these (as these terms are used in this training), if you wake
up in there behind those eyes and remember to see.
Lets take the Dictator, Student John. You brought up the other day that you didn't care to just be "learning to be a better Dictator or a better Judge"
in the practice of this game.
I am not trying to coach people to be "better Dictators" or "better Judges" in these classes. I am trying to coach people to recognize when they are
playing Dictators or Judges (or whatever their personality types) and be able to "transcend playing those parts," so to speak.
If you transcend the Dictator, you immediately become the powerful Can-Do Person. You are not playing the Dictator any more. There are
differences that can be seen. You are no longer being "demanding" with certain others, for instance. You are no longer demanding respect, or
pushing others around, because that would be completely superfluous in this transcended state. Instead, you would simply be doing your Can-do
thing with great mastery and competence. And others would be inspired to follow your leadership in experiencing the obvious example of competence
that you show.
Can-Do People have a natural ability to lead, because of the raw competence that they naturally have. You know the types, among both men and
women, who are like this. They are Mister and Miz Can-do-ness in all that they do. They can do it with their own hands, and show others "how to
do it." (Several of you in this class may well be like this, for all I know.) Those who will follow their lead will do so because they are inspired by
recognizing the competence that they show. There is no need for them to be putting out any demanding or ordering around, no need for
manipulative pressures on others in living the dynamics of this state.
As logically follows with their personalities, these people become top sergeants, and shop-bosses, and union leaders, and certain of the politicians
certainly are Can-Do/Dictators, some of those leading advisors around the President, especially those who are relatively more warlike and dictatorial,
and, oh yes, the CEO's of powerful companies, and sometimes the leaders of powerful countries, are often of this type. (Though I don't remember the
music of George as "a Dictator type" in reflecting on what I've heard of him on television. I don't see him being that way—only the most powerful
advisors around him. I see other types in George, that may be potential pitfalls, for a President of the U.S., for goodness sake, in a tense world
situation, and a possibly dreadful internal economic situation like we face in America today! Whew! What a heavy load!)
So, it is obviously different to see a person who leads by the quality of the competent living that they do (as parents, and grandparents, for instance,
uncles and aunts, and mentors, and colleagues, and with friends we know). That vibe and the music of that inpiring and powerful can-do-ness is
obviously different to behold than when a person is manipulating to get other people to do what they want them to do by demands and by force.
And so, the distinction can be clear and obvious around the wheel. The Con Artist who is no longer acting superior to other people becomes the
down-to-earth thinker who can communicate with other people. And the Teacher emerges, where the Con Artist used to be. The Judge gives up
judging all the time, and the others can laugh and relax, and be Players with them again for the fun of it. These are two distinctly different modes of
relating with other people—punishing and playing, that is. They are not hard to tell apart. When the Rebels no longer are compelled to shove their
most outrageous differences into other people's lives, and the knee-jerk rejecting is finally over, that's when the greatest jams of Artists come into
being. When the Doormats give up playing to others from their helplessness, and speak up and just go ahead and do what it's in their hearts to do,
again we see the difference in the music of a transcending like that taking place. Believers, although often the best of Students, need to get over so
much depending on others for confirmation and direction, and tune in more often to their own intuitive compass for their everyday direction. Many
Students, too, go on to become great Teachers in their turn—skipping over the Con Artist habits of being conceited about it, and just carrying
forward to greatness as Teachers on the enthusiasm of their interest. The Martyr gets over manipulating for being loved in return, and yet goes on
being tender and loving with the world (where someone may pop up to stand by them, or pick them, as the case may be, at any time). Going on being
the loving person who asks for nothing in return is quite different than the suffering that may go on instead over "not having enough love." And
finally, around the wheel, the Kind Helper gives up that part of their giving that the receiving person is obviously not wanting, and instead starts
giving that giving to their own life, instead. That's how healing power grows in a healing practioner, and not through "giving away everything they
have to others who say that they don't want it."
I submit that these perspectives may help in making the line between ego-driven Personality and Essence less fuzzy.
Can-do-ness? Or being dictatorial?
Brilliant communication? Or conning and being vainly intellectual?
Fun and play? Or, hurting others with judgments and ciriticisms?
Artistic beauty? Or, just outrageous art for art's sake?
Empathizing, with strength? Or just tired, and not speaking up?
Inspired intuition of your own? Or, still too trusting of others.
Not having to be loved in return? Or, always having to be.
Nourishing one's own being, too? Or, only helping the others?
I think you could put every finite behaviorism that's described in the wheelbook under one of those pairs of headings there.
And at any time, whether looking at your own behavior or somebody else's . . . . . what's obvious and apparent? Is it Can-do-ness? Or is it being
dictatorial? You'll see. If you wake up and study it objectively, you can tell if it's Essence or Personality (in the sense we use those terms in this
approach).
Essence is always constructive. Personality is usually destructive. Coming from Essence, we can support other people being who they are, and at the
same time speak up for who we are. Coming from personality (whether bullying, lying, laughing at, rejecting, begging off, clinging frantically, suffering
over not enough love, or worrying too much about everyone and everything) we do these acts to attempt to manipulate other people to do what we
want them to do.
Personality is wanting other people to be who you want them to be. Essence is loving whatever you do love of who other people *are already being*.
Coming from Essence is being free to be, and making other people free to be. Personality is trying to control what other people do (by manipulations
that are sometimes aggressive, and sometimes passive, depending on the personality type). If you wake up and study what's going on at any time,
you can just tell if what you see is the Essence described in this training, of if it is Personality. The lines of difference—in this approach at least—are
pretty distinct and clear, I think. Do you see what I mean?
Now, with some important teachers of these same kinds of studies, the term "Essence" is taken to be synonymous with "union with God," or "ultimate
Enlightenment." Many Sufi and Buddhist writers use the terms this way, for instance. Here, in the awareness game, I am only positing that the view
of "Essence" that we study in this class, is—so far as I know, harmonious with the characteristics of Essence that are given by these teachers. One
might say that this approach here is an intermediate step in the direction of their experience of Essence as an ultimate state of Being. Or, I hope that is
so. It seems that way to me, yet I don't know all the way through to those ultimate experiences so far.
At any rate, the study of the Essence, as presented here, offers a realistic alternative and more peaceful path to the long-engrained and conditioned
patterns of the ego-driven personalities in our lives. It is a legitimate transformative effort in the real world to recognize and step aside from a
conditioned ego-pattern, and to be free enough in those moments to deliberately choose any of the moves that come from Essence, such as expressing
authenticity, without wounding others.
>I've been wrestling with the notion if both parties were acting from their Essence and yet one or both had a score on their boards, what could be going on?
That's easy. What would be the truth of it for that to be going on, you ask??? Either or both had been rubbed the wrong way? For, there was
score on the scoreboards? And yet both were acting from their Essence? Either or both of them would have to be mindful warriors in that
circumstance. Otherwise, ordinary people would be reacting in sleep to that score on the scoreboard, and coming, like knee-jerk reactions from their
Personality rather than from their Essence.
Some stinger must have happened. But coming from Essence, the receiver here, didn't have to automatically sting back (i.e. reacting in Personality).
Perhaps communication would happen between them then! "Ow." The other, also being awake, would understand that something happened. And
by being authentic with each other, they would communicate some mutual understanding about it. Maybe contrition might happen. Maybe an
apology. Maybe none needed for two such alert companions as these. Heh-heh.
If there was score on their scoreboards, maybe each of them would be alert enough to tune in to the tensions in their bodies, and process these
negative feelings on through and out of their body on the spot. That would make it a lot easier to go on relating from Essence with each other.
Can you relate to this view of it, John?
>Coach, this brick arose in our communication relating to "anxiety as suffering" For reasons I couldn't understand I felt wounded by your response.
I think I get what happened. I remember doing a lot of illustrating for you of phenomena you might see if there was anxiety going on (and the
personality stuff that goes around that). And I also did a lot of the same illustrating of fear, and the stuff that may go on around fear.
I didn't list that anxiety stuff because you were "supposed to find that in your make-up." It was for you to find out, or not! I listed stuff that may be
illustrative of either anxiety, or fear—so *you could check them both out on your own*, and see if either one of them seemed to fit in with your own
experiences. Perhaps the reaction you had to "trying on that anxiety stuff," was simply your own experiential sense that "No, that pattern is definitely
NOT what is going on in your own experience of your Being and Self.
I'm sorry if I wounded you in getting you to try that ill-fitting costume on. No harm intended. Of course, I could easily be "barking up the wrong
tree" in listing all that anxiety stuff. And maybe I was barking up the wrong tree in listing the fear stuff, too. You didn't mention that side of the
exercise. Maybe you're still sitting with that part of it like a brick in your lap. No hurry.
>The source of my "Ouch" is still a work in progress
I guess you're referring to that exercise there.
Likewise, if I was mistaken that you had an authentic "Ouch!" coming, back at that time you mentioned, I apologize. Of course, *only you* can know if
you've got an authentic "Ouch!" coming. What do I know, sitting way over here in the desert? I can't feel what you are feeling. Is there pain, or not?
Yet, it seemed like you had an authentic "Ouch!" coming at that time. I guess I was wrong. {confused smile}
>but I suspect [the source of my pain is] a disappointment from an unrecognized expectation flowing from Essence.
Huh? I don't understand a word of that. You went intellectual on me there.
>Perhaps my holding back the "Ouch" from you was an aspect of Personality.
Might be. I don't know. The first question would be whether there really was a pain for you at that time. If so . . . well, I'll just take "a wild shot," if I
may here, and wonder: . . . . . if that *was* an aspect of Personality, could that aspect be a desire to appear "tough" and seem "stoic?"
Those are two common aspects of the personality type that goes with fear, rather than with anxiety. In fact, it could make any red-blooded man or
woman Can-Do/Dictator squirm with pain and feel wounded to suppose that others might be looking upon them and thinking that they were nervous
and anxious, and might easily faint. Among the things that Can-Do/Dictators are most commonly admired for are their courage, and their unflinching
stoicism. Does that costume maybe fit?
>Eddie, your posting has furthered my understanding. It's nice getting to know you.
Yeah, it's great to be *human* and share about expereiences like this, John! There seemed to be a new music to me in this last posting of yours here. I
have a notion that you are deliberately applying the things that you are learning here.
This posting is *very human*. It's full of experience-sharing, and empathy with others. Except for that one bafflingly intellectual line, every bit of it is
easy to understand. It is *very authentic*! It's just real, and open, and matter of fact, laying out experiences and even sharing being wounded by me
in a simple, relaxed, honest, non-dramatic way. It's a refreshing sample of a human being just being a human being, to me—easy to be with, not
making any big deal out of anything, yet speaking up and being . . . . . yes, that's the best word to sum it up, simply being *authentic*. I like that
quality in a Man or a Woman.
Coach
As for "When confusion reigns," I'll go back in time to comment on those postings, next time that I can. Good evening, Folks, for now. Ah, early
dinner for me! I feel good. I've got an appetite! I got some work done here today. Feeling really cheerful now, for the first time in several days.
Continue with Fall 2002 Classroom Talk or
Post a new discussion in the current Classroom Talk
Archived 02/04/2003