Re: Being understood is possible, if you keep at it.
Posted by Eddie on October 22, 2002 at 18:53:17:

In Reply to: Being understood is possible, if you keep at it. posted by John on October 20, 2002 at 22:16:22:

Coach:

>Now I see how much they remind me of you.

This may well be the grandest complement I have ever received. With it
you literally opened that heart of yours so wide, I could ride right
into the very core of your being horse and all. Thank You Coach.

>Well, I am in a better position than you are to know, from my own
experiences… whether you seem to be understanding me.

What?

>I do see some ways that you have not apparently been understanding me.

Coach I know this is one of you strong points, yet this is not and has
not been my experience as of yet, sorry. I truly do wish I could
accommodate you for the sake of the class, and our own conversation,
but its just not being the case with me here. But that’s ok, because if
in fact it is true and I am not as yet seeing it. But if it is a fact,
I know I will sooner or later.

>And absolute proof of that is my experience now of understanding what
you *did* mean, instead of the things I previously thought you
meant . . . now that you have persevered in making your meanings clear.

The absolute proof to me that you have now understood me with
the ‘part’ you are directly referring to here is that you’ve said it,
and in the correct vernacular. Though the further (as in more intimate)
understanding with the more touchy aspect of my observations have not
been strictly or directly commented on. Actually you’ve even omitted
that part from those sentences that I had ask you to copy and have
chose not to comment on the most pertinent of others. And this seems to
me to be a “pretty fair” proof in my books anyway that you have indeed
understood me completely. And I am perfectly ok with leaving it all lay
exactly where it is.

>I am coaching all the others in the class, as well, at the same time
(or, such is my intention). I'm not so sure you have been understanding
that.

I’m sorry here Coach, I thought you clearly knew this about me. If not
from all my direct input along these lines in my last post, that
was ‘full’ of such reassurance. Then surly in so many of my past post
when I was thinking you for the tremendous lessons I was personally
getting when you were talking to others. That it was feeling just like
you were talking directly to me. Or maybe what you were saying
seemingly to me here was simply another example of a time like that the
other way around. But I agree that statement I was making could have
sounded like I was putting myself down, or it could have sounded like I
was be sarcastic; but neither were the case I don’t believe.

>And I remember all the others who have usually been here when I am
talking to you, Eddie, and adjust the remarks I make accordingly, all
along the way.

I miss them all to Coach. (Note: I wrote this before Rob posted.)

>Man. I think you've really demonstrated that you've got what it takes
now to do what you've wished to do since you were a boy. Yes, you
*can* "be a writer." That's what I say.

Thank you Coach, but I don’t really know how to pursue it, at least
along the lines of writing professionally?
Do you have any input along these lines?

>It's important to understand that the types that the writers of
diagnostic tools come up with are not sacrosanct. There are some
qualities that are important in good diagnostic systems—that they be
comprehensive, for instance, and balanced. But the forms of the
different types found in each system are not sacrosanct.

Not withstanding my not recognizing the meaning of this word sacrosanct
at first, I had thought I had mentioned this quality of the work way
back, I can’t even remember when now, even before I had ever heard you
talk about it. Now I do not mean you hadn’t actually mentioned it, or
that it may even be in the curriculum, I can’t remember. What I do mean
is this principle has always seemed apparent to me. Actually this has
always been an aspect of my personal philosophy, that I have only begun
to question from a certain vernacular sense I have been studying Nicoll
and Shah. So the best I’ve came up with from a personal standpoint is
there must be times either ideal could fit?

But I do understand what you are teaching along these lines here now,
and it seems sound to me.

>You didn't seem to fathom why I would have liked the nickname "Not-So-
Kind-Helper" so much . . . but l honestly did! You wondered why I would
put in so much time discussing the whole subject, but I did so, gladly,
on the chance that it would be valuable to some of you in the class.

From this standpoint I understood perfectly, why you liked it so much;
it was simply obvious in all you were saying. And great stuff to, as I
had mentioned at the time, more than once. I would have thought this
would be clear beyond a shadow of a doubt by now.

>a Not-So-Kind-Helper would help other people only when appropriate,
and not put on the role of kindness coming out of guilt. Does that jibe
with your sense of what you were meaning to say?

Yes that’s a base hit, no double or homerun, but you’re definitely in
the park here.

>[[[[[I never meant for my idea of the "The-Not-So-Kind-Helper to be
seriously considered as any legitimate type of any form. . . . [It] was
never in my mind being considered as being represented as
a "Personality" type in any way! I was expressing this nickname . . .
to be coming from "Essence" only. In my last posting I even changed the
name entirely to . . . make sure there could be no way you could miss
it. . . . And here to exemplify even further . . .]]]]] Yes, I
understand all this now.

Oops! Do you mean only what you’ve posted here, or all that I posted
between those original brackets I had sincerely ask you to copy?

>I feel like passing for now on any more comments on "perfect masters,"

My intentions never were to be conversing on “perfect masters” any way;
you’re the one that brought that into the playing field not me dear
John.

>Likewise, the question of whether Christianity has been more good than
bad for humanity.

My original point on this was never more than a side issue in the first
place, a mere example of the big picture I had been attempting to
address. If you will remember I had made clear mention if you preferred
to not discuss it, that would be very understandable, as in ok with me.
Yes, merely a simple example of the idea I was expressing.

> I'm sorry you had some trouble with posting last week. I don't know
what happened either. I hope you retrieved the work you had done on it.

Thank you for your concern but you did finally got it all.

>I wrote another piece on the topic that the forms of metaphysical
models, are also not sacrosanct.

This sounds very interesting, and just as I had enjoyed your prior post
even though they had been being not what I was trying to talk with you
about, but I had stated many times back there in many ways it was
great. So I’m sure it will be here as well.

I hope you are still feeling relaxed with me. Where I almost chose to
not make many of the comments I have made here out of fear they will be
misconstrued and misunderstood as some sort of jab. They are not I
assure you, yet I would feel very phony if I had not made each one of
these responses here. I hope I have left you a clear out on this whole
discussion, while at the same time not having to be felt misrepresented
in my full original intentions to begin with.

Your friend and fellow;

Eddie the WizLou Wizard’s Apprentice.

Follow Ups:

Continue with Fall 2002 Classroom Talk or
Post a new discussion in the current Classroom Talk

Archived 02/04/2003