re another possible strategy / Communication

[Guest guest]

Hi Amanda,

 

I agree very strongly with almost all of your comments here. I disagree

somewhat with the first bit though. You say Assuming the best"

requires a certain level of trust and asking for

clarification, an even greater level of trust."

 

As I see it, this is true on one level and not true on another. So if I

am identified with the ego, it is true. (If I am concerned with the

intent of the other person). So assuming a positive intent could well

be a screen behind which I hide from actually knowing the intent. But,

if I am not identified with the consequences to me of the intent of the

"other person", I have sufficient trust to see through any harmful

intent whatsoever. (I don't mean to bring up Adolf again, but I do mean

"any") Then, I can look for beneficial results of any comment

regardless of the intent. So, for example (to take a more

understandable perspective than I have in the past about the holocaust),

in the holotropic breathwork that I do, now and then someone will, in a

nonordinary state of mind, engage in a battle with someone who harmed

them as a young child. A facilitator can help with this process by

playing the role of the aggressor, and the client can shout all sorts of

horrible obscenities at the facilitator, and the facilitator knows that

the intent of the comments is beneficial. (The client is exorcising the

event.) By knowing that there is no personal harm being intended to him

or her, the facilitator can avoid being harmed. Now interestingly

enough, this is not trivial for most facilitators. Even with a clear

understanding of their therapeutic role, which is by and large to get

out of the way and not let stuff attach, stuff still does. So I am

proposing (to myself more than anyone else here, but if it seems useful

to someone else, then by all means try it out and let me know the

results) to take on a practice of always being in that "facilitator

role", of looking for the catharsis, the... whatever beneficial result

....of any action first, rather than scanning the environment for

potentiallly harmful meanings. I'm not talking at all about sending

out, I'm only discussing the incoming. So, I agree wholeheartedly with

Greg's sensible suggestions for posting (okay, I admit I'm rambunctious

in my own posting style often - I don't claim consistency here). I'm

just trying to read each post with this non-harmful attitude, and then

notice when I fail to accomplish the goal, which is sadly most of the

time, but at least I'm trying to work on it.

 

I guess I'm saying that when we think of ahimsa, we tend to think about

what we put out into the world, but we can equally benefit from using

ahimsa to guide how we take things in from the world.

 

Love, Mark

 

 

 

 

I guess we're back again at the interpretation and

trust themes of

communication.

 

"Assuming the best" requires a certain level of trust

and asking for

clarification, an even greater level of trust. In most

instances, it simply

doesn't happen because trust is not present. It's

difficult to trust others

when you don't trust yourself. Ppl have mentioned

before on this list the

necessity of "having compassion with one's own

conflicts" and that is something

that may be an introduction leading to developing more

trust.

 

Internet communication is often severely lacking in

trust, maybe due to its

faceless and gestureless nature, lacking all those

little pointers for

interpretation and interpersonal signs that seem to be

vital for human

communication.

 

You suggestions for ways of creating and demonstrating

more trust online are

really good ones, good additions to Greg's reminders of

internet communication.

Printed out and forwarded to other who may like

to hear them too.

 

A level of trust is alpha and omega when it comes to

spritual communcation and

so is a level of receptiveness. The two are pretty much

the same. However,

there is usually very little receptiveness until the

mind is exhausted enough

to let go of its own arguments and views, or the self

clearly and irrevocably

knows it is not the arguments and views contained

within its mind, and then,

more talk is not necessary.

 

Sure, communication and interaction always contain

chances for interesting

encounters and you could say someone hurling insults

and abuse at you (or vice

versa) is a trust granted by the heart, sort of an

event which bypasses the

restrictive mind and comes directly from the heart or

gut or whetever. But this

reaction of defensiveness doesn't always mean the mind

is open and receptive.

It usually means there is a sense of helplessness and

exhaustedness of the mind

and emotions in it, but I don't find it much of a

fertile ground for further

communication. Lessons "learned", if at all, in this

kind of state seldomly

stick due to the adrenaline, kind of like trying to

teach a puppy not to do

things by scolding it. Takes time, is effective

sometimes, but doesn't always

stick and the chance that the deep reason for the

reaction will only bubble out

into another area is very great. I see the best way of

communication is by

positive encouragement, not punishment.

 

 

Love,

 

Amanda.