Classroom Talk
Fall 2002 Archive
Re: Being relaxed, and working a sticky conversation through. Posted by Eddie on October 19, 2002 at 23:47:35:
In Reply to: Being relaxed, and working a sticky conversation through. posted by John on October 15, 2002 at 18:38:34:
This marvelous old stallion with hoofs that have long since been
tattered and worn so; that some might expect could never make such
steep an assent. To watch as his movement seems almost carelessly lax,
even grabbling in fact, as he appears to almost be falling yet simply
side steps, over a wide daunting crevice in the near vertical wall.
With such precision positioning of front hoofs on a thin narrow ledge,
he begins shifting his haunches to catch firm hold on a solid shelf
stand. As if by some kind-a magic his whole torso becomes bowed near at
double, with a low sounding bellow from articulate nostrils, like a
burst from an over stoked locomotive, moves through too full extension,
then amorously jets into flight straight-up through mid air. Then
faster than mans mind can fully comprehend, turns full round then
stands nodding majestically to the valley far below, as if such
magnificent maneuvering was a mere matter of duty, and experienced
control. All the while with inner heart positioned as mans faithful
servant and loyal friend.
>I think we can agree that we are living through a generally mixed-up
situation,
I can certainly agree with this.
>a situation in which each of us seems to be having some profound lack
of understanding of the other.
So far Coach this is not being the case here with me. This is likely
because of your experienced ways of communication. I do not believe I
have even had the slightest misunderstanding with anything you have
been saying. The lack of understanding, and here I’ll just need to take
you at your word that you have not understood me yet, is due to my poor
communication skills I reckon.
>It is just another "sticky conversation" that ordinary people may have
with each other at any time.
I’ll go along with sticky all right.
>Now this is one of my teaching points in these days. If two people can
manage to become completely relaxed with each other, they are in the
best possible position to collaborate in an effort to find mutual
understandings in the midst of the misunderstandings that had been
going on.
Well since you are not being able to understand me and comment (attempt
to respond) from that vernacular, I will continue my attempts at being
clearer. And at the same time here even though you have apparently not
even gotten a glimpse at what I am trying to communicate yet, with the
original main issue at any rate, what you have been sharing has
been “great stuff”. Not withstanding it has absolutely nothing to do
with that I had wished to be collaborating with you on.
>I am saying that people often aren't understanding each other. This is
a cause of innumerable sticky situations daily, and hurt feelings, and
wounding engagements between people. That is a way it *normally* is
between people in the ordinary human condition. However, I am coaching
a deliberate strategy for a player of the awareness game to use in
addressing this observeable factor then, a strategy of recognizing the
causes of misunderstandings between people, AND cultivating a
deliberate communication style of intentional authenticity, that is, by
honestly making efforts at being more and more clear and easily
understandable . . . . . (while—as you all will remember—being careful,
at the same time, not to be wounding other people in the way you speak
about it…
Great teaching here Coach! And it’s being a tremendous experiencaul
work lesson for me right now. And whether you ever understand me or not
I’m feeling close and very relaxed with you here, in a situation that
would have in the not so distant past had me so agitated I would have
given up by now. And not only have I not given up but I’m feeling we
will be closer for all the efforts. And this is the somewhat odd part,
I’m actually feeling very relaxed and even enjoying the efforts of self-
observation it’s taking on my part to be accomplishing this internal
aperture, in here behind these eyes of mine.
>Now the way that I played with you around this subject was bound to be
confusing. I see that now. I wish I'd had "a hunch" that that would be
confusing for you.
I don’t believe I was confused about anything except that you were
stating every thing from the opposite of what I had been intending to
be speaking. My only confusion was and still is that you’ve not seen my
intents in what I thought was as understandable as “This Brick Is Red
In Color, set with it in your lap if you would like!” I’m still baffled
about that. But note please do not attempt to transfer this ‘apparent’
confusion to a misunderstanding of anything you have said thus far.
>An important technical point here is that the types in our wheelbook
are not sacrosanct.
Gee, you made me pull “Old Man Webster’s” book out to comment on this
one, heh, heh! I do not feel this is at all even an issue with any
thing I had been intending to say. And frankly I’m totally surprised
(not so much at first though, but by now…) that you would be spending
so much of you post here addressing this. Though as I have already said
it’s great teaching simply not pertinent to what I had intended to be
and still would like to be discussing. But you know me I love the
attention, especially from a Mindfulness Warrior of you caliber, so
I’ll talk with you about anything you wish.
> if you see some kind of a pattern in the idea of "the Not-So-Kind-
Helper" that you recognize as
recurring in your life, you could adopt studying that as a legitimate
work task, and go on observing your life and studying your life, and
identifying and listing the specific characteristics that you recognize
as fitting with that Not-So-Kind-Helper context that you
invented . . . . . and you could work
productively in that way, too.
... If you would create a new type that you could actually recognize in
the daily flow of your own behavior when you would wake up and spot it,
that would be *just as good* as using the Judge, or the Rebel, or the
types used in the awareness game. That's what I was trying to get
across at that time. All I was really meaning to get across in all of
my remarks on that subject was: "If you'd rather make up your own named
type for working with that actual stuff that you have recognized in
high relief, that will work out just as well for you as the wheelbook
types . . .
Coach this is very generous of you, and I copied it all here for the
sole purpose that for all that may be looking in, that it would
exemplify the simplicity, adaptiveness, and openness of this particular
study system you have developed here. But note these next two
sentences “you wrote”, are not only what your entire previous post
hinged on but also the first third or so portion of this one that I’ve
been responding to here has referred to. Now pay very close attention
here please if you will. This has been to my understanding where you
have not heard me, or at least I have not caught where you have
actually made such an acknowledgement as having understood me at any
rate. Which at this redundant (to me) point by now has been the place
you have gotten completely turned around.
>… I really *liked* the sound of "Not-So-Kind-Helper." That sounded to
me like a neat nickname for a personality type.
To start with if you will please do me this very special favor, and
copy these next four sentences I am going to write here to you right
now, in your next response to me I will be extremely grateful. (I will
place them between five [[[[[*]]]]] brackets here so to assure
clarity.) [[[[[I never meant for my idea of the “The-Not-So-Kind-
Helper” to be seriously considered as any legitimate type of any form.
But of most immanent importance, to me anyway, in our discussion is
that “The-Not-So-Kind-Helper” was never in my mind being considered as
being represented as a “Personality” type in any way! I was totally
expressing this nickname as you have put it, to be wholly, completely,
undoubtedly, fully, entirely coming from “Essence” only. And in my last
post I even changed the name entirely to “The-Not-So-Kind-Worker” so to
make sure there could be no way you could miss it. And here to
exemplify even further, I will make another change to my apparent, yet
in no way actual, New Essence (or Essential) Type, I will now call “The-
Apparent-But-Not-Actual-Not-So-Kind-Yet-In-Reality-Essential-
Worker”]]]]]. And if you insist, we could add here as well [[[Your]]]
idea of “The-Not-So-Kind-Helper”, simply by a slight change in the
wording too: “The-Oh-So-Kind-Helper” as it’s
corresponding “Personality” type. But please note here again, that this
was never my intention, nor is to be here) to be creating a “ninth”
type of any thing. And “most assuredly”, it was never in any way ever
my intention that my original theory of "The-Not-So-Kind-Helper” should
be considered as coming from personality much less to be an independent
personality type.
.
>I wasn't lying when I said I enjoyed your invention of that name very
much! I was telling the truth when I said that was a "great moment" for
me in the class. It was an unusual thing to happen. I admired your
creativity here.
Yes but only from the wrong way around so to speak. And that’s only
assuming that you still hadn’t understood my full intentions in
inventing that nickname to simply depict an aspect, of ones “Essence”,
that could be referring to which ever of the existing Essential Types.
>Now maybe I made much too big a deal out of it, in calling attention
to the fact that inventing your own type would seem to fit the patterns
of the independent Rebel on our wheel, Eddie. But you *knew me after
all*!
Yes but in my thinking at that time you would only be able to make the
response (or reaction) that you did if you chose to ignore the “Full”
implication, no wait my flat out, straight forward statement; that “The-
Not-So-Kind-Helper” was referring to Essence and not personality way
back there then. So my problem had never been your expressing that
pattern that had been fitting so well for you there. Because you do
know me oh so well after all in my independent Rebel patterns. But what
you had been observing that day was not my Rebel, or even my Judge. Yet
it was rather instead my “Artist” and “Player” in trying to point out
the idea of a quality from the side of ones “Essence” that you have in
times past and seem to be continuing here to be having a bur of some
sort under your phenomenological saddle here with.
>I hope you can understand now where I was coming from when I wrote
that stuff on that topic. It was just a common sort of
misunderstanding, back and forth between both you and me. And the fact
that I was less than clear about it, didn't pause and make sure there
was a better chance you could understand what I was intending to say to
you then, says to me, de facto, that I was being in personality then.
Now, this is something for me to sit with!
Can you see Coach how every thing you would or could be stating from
this perspective would by necessity be coming from the wrong way around
now? Coach there was never the slightest question to me in my
understanding of where you were coming from…”the wrong way around, on
the wrong side of the block, actually on the wrong block entirely”. And
Coach I’m still not quite sure how you missed from my post at –Re:
About the art of softening statements. Posted by Eddie on September 30,
2002, -that stated>“The Not-So-Kind Helper”. Which in my not so humble
opinion basically resembles my “Judge” in a vague way, [[[but not from
personality]]]. Triple brackets added only here by me now.
>So there was some ego-driven personality in it somehow, that I was
being less than clear and understandable to you then.
You were perfectly clear, only not speaking from what I had actually
said as a whole.
>Okay, let's admit it! There must have been some reaction of my own
Rebel in it. I finally see that now! I wasn't aware at the time, but I
must have felt rejected to some degree in that situation. I must have
had *some kind of personality reaction* going on, per se, if I had to
be talking to you in a way that was so *hard to understand* that way.
Yeah, that's it!!! It's coming home to me *right now*. I did that "song
and dance" with you because I was feeling rejected right then. How
about that?
This is great Coach and its very honest that you have observed your own
Rebels reaction with what you had misperceived to be me messing with
your design, which I think you know by now I had never intended to be
doing that in any shape, form or fashion. But my only question with
this, what seems to me here to be honest contrition on your part, yet
is it still at this point, as it obviously was above, coming from the
wrong way around? And I will concur here if in fact you had missed my
idea that my new type, and I only say ‘type’ here because that is the
way you’ve put it, was referring to “Essence” then it is understandable
that you could have this reaction. But on the other hand it would be
equally, (if not more so from my perspective) understandable to me if
you had, even not so consciously, yet subtly glimpsed that I had been
referring to an assertive (as you have put it) aspect of “Essence”. And
that the rub you were feeling had not been some kind of personality
reaction going on because I was messing with your design, per se, but
rather because I was messing with your own misconception of your own
personal essence. Because it was and is here obvious to me I am not
messing with your design, but rather, your perhaps long time stuck
inner preconceived psychological notions, in your own personality that
you may have falsely taken to be from your “Essence”.
>Except for those who become "Perfect Masters," personality does remain
in this human form in this body on this earth anyway!
Ah, this is an interesting concept; Jesus had “no” Personality. I
thought this was the whole point that He came to earth, and became as
man in every respect yet without “Falsity”? I can’t really buy this
one. Oh without “False Personality”, yes undoubtedly, but
without “Personality”, that would not be my idea of any type of
a "Perfect Master”. But it is definitely food for ‘some type’ of
thought; though I’m not at all certain how that line of thinking could
possibly be any type of psychologically healthy “Food”.
>the metaphor of personality as the wood
Ah yes, plenty of wood here in me, and it makes for some pretty darn
good burnin when I’m willing to gather it and offer it as fuel to stoke
the flame of my own “Essence”. Otherwise it remains silt and nothing
more, and never develops into any type of proper fuel! And by the way,
the way I read it Jesus had plenty of wood as well, I’m certain vastly,
much, much, incomparably, more than me. And He not only had infinitely
more in quantity, but the “Highest” form of “developed” quality, (of
hard, sweet smelling wood from all the vireos fruit bearing trees known
to our sweet Mother Earth) on this earthly realm of human “Personality”
beyond a man at my level to even begin to understand. For he was able
to become a “Light” to the whole world, that had, and has the potential
for anyone who has eyes to see, and ears to hear, to be individually
set on fire for God’s sake!
Ah you’re a tricky o`l stallion as I alluded to in my opening
allegorical piece. I’ll save this topic for our discussion of
Christianity. Tricky, tricky…tussah.
>Gee, I'm feeling glad that you *have* posted this, Eddie! It seems to
show a leap in the direction of the very things I'm wishing to be
coaching you about.
Thank you Coach this statement feels extremely genuine and heart
feltingly expressed. And it’s very genuinely comforting to me as well
to know that you are in fact feeling glad I had made that post in
particular, to which I had, had serious concerns. And this comment you
have made here helps me to have been and be here completely relaxed
with you now. Even, as I have expressed, if you are still yet, not
understanding me in any way. Where it seems to have became an exercise
in practicing, or rather honing my communication skills, in a more
light hearted and friendly way. And it feels good to me to be getting
somewhat better at this skill, that in my opinion you have became
somewhat of a master in your own rights so to speak. .
>Yet I'm sure this is a powerful uneasiness in you, here, Eddie. The
way you express it here near the end of your communication seems to
convey a powerful uneasiness in you, somehow. Might this be an
uneasiness at anticipating rejection by me? I don't know. What is your
experience with this? What do you see happening in your thinking that
you would regret with such powerful uneasiness?
My uneasiness actually is not having ‘so much’ to do with normal human
misunderstanding, as pertaining to being authentic and being
inauthentic. Or with intellectual vis-a-vis experiential communication,
and with softening expression and making conscious efforts to be clear
and understandable, yet not being wounding. Nor in particular in, the
value of being able to be completely relaxed together, in examining and
attempting to understand what we have to say to each other, per se. Yet
in continuing to address each other with authenticity as the
communicating goes on from here, all of the above do, and should come
into play granted. So please do not think I am not acknowledging
the “profound importance” in each of the tremendously valuable even
essential aspects of any real human communication that you’ve stated
above. But the real cause of my uneasiness is to the question of
[[[whether or not]]] there can be any authentic value in my attempt of
the intentional exposure of that you seem to be having a blind spot
with. This is in [[[regards to the one issue]]] that I have now gone to
great lengths to express. That from my perspective at any rate, within
your own psychological pre-programmed thinking, reasoning and even
ideal there may be somewhat of a block between what you are considering
coming from “your” Essence, yet it’s actually coming from a ‘refined
aspect’ of the personality. And please note I am not talking about your
curriculum for this class. This is from my perspective the profound
dilemma I am facing. I in no way hold the idea, nor intend to leave the
impression I am at anywhere near to your level of “Consciousness”
Coach, generally speaking in terms of “Awareness”. Yet you have called
me a “Warrior”, and fundamentally speaking in warrior terms, “Iron
Sharpens Iron”. And this is where my inferiority’s and lack of
experienced understanding with being “Iron” with another try’s to step
in to deter my strength at standing up and being that ‘being’ of metal
so to speak. I will add here, or actually reiterate, that all your
points I quoted above are surely fundamental parts of one standing up
in this regard. Yet the element of whether one is entirely ready to
stand up in this regards is extremely important. But maybe most
important in my regards here, is are “you” ready [as in is it your
time] to be seeing this aspect of your self, that is if I am correct in
my observation, defiantly comes into this particular field of play I
believe at any rate.
>I'm going to take a look at those four new posts you just put on the
board today, Eddie.
I hope you will not find it necessary for those four posts to be having
any strong influential change in the direction and flow we have the
potential to be getting on into here currently; other than to
understand that I never intended “The-Not-So-Kind-Helper” to be
depicted as a “Personality Type” at all. Actually it would profoundly
please me if you could simply consider the whole ball of wax as “One”
post. Being that is what it was. Except for reasons unknown to me that
portion was somehow mysteriously deleted when it showed up on the
classroom board. I had spent quite a lot of energy putting all that
together, and even more here with this one. And I sure do hope I will
not run into similar problems here to night, where as I am about to
post this one right now. It’s very late but I wanted to have it there
for you to review at whatever time you might get to class tomorrow.
Yours truly;
Eddie
Continue with Fall 2002 Classroom Talk or
Post a new discussion in the current Classroom Talk
Archived 02/04/2003