What do you mean by selfishness?

William -- I am glad you are taking the lead on a very important topic. I struggle with this myself. Sometimes my most "selfish" positions have been the most helpful to people. And, sometimes my best efforts at "being helpful and unselfish" have lead to the worst possible situations. Yeshe, goes right to the point and asks for a definition. I don't know, really. But one could start by saying something like: "Being selfish is being stuck in the illusion that one is the only being in the universe & not knowing it." How about that?

Selfishness: The act of being chiefly concerned with oneself without regard for the well being of others; egotistic. So, Americ, you're definition is right on track, although personally I distinguish a difference between being egocentric and being selfish.

Once there was a selfish man, who put every penny of profit back into his business. After 20 years, he was a billionaire, providing thousands of jobs to people. Once there was a humanitarian who gave all his money to the poor... then it was gone. The poor called out for more. Often times our 'selfish acts' are not seen in the larger scheme of things. What if your 'selfishness' is helping someone to see that they have an attitude of 'poverty' that they need to recognize and let go of? Are we not all in this together... to show each other where our judgements and guilts lie? Why do we persecute the messenger? Naaahhh.. we should all feel guilty as charged. That's what society dictates, so that's the way we should do it. I'm going home and eat chocolate so I don't have to feel this guilt!

The examples cited above are subjective, of course...from another point of view, that billionaire can be construed as stealing the labor of thousands of people... Re: the derided philanthropist- do I take the point to be that- the poor being the thankless, insatiable lot they are- the only genuinely valuable giving derives from the self-interest of capitalists? And actually, I think someone in need of a meal or a job, and receiving instead a lecture regarding their "attitude of poverty" is entitled, at the least, to regard it as selfishness...

Point taken. But the point is outside of 'original intent'. Philosophy is all about introducing new ideas, and looking at old concepts from new points of view... Not trading tit for tat with an old hat. Unless of course, if your running for political office? Consider this; Just for a fleeting moment, what if this person has spoken a 'truth'. What an interesting way that the universe works if that were true? One does not need to accept it. The idea is just to look. Otherwise.. we all end up going to war... and poverty does indeed grow.

There aren't too awfully many new ideas...usually just the same old crap, recycled for mass consumption with a little fresh (albeit cheap) paint... that "attitude of poverty" stuff is among the oldest... And if you'll take a look around you, Socrates, you'll see we've always been at war, and poverty indeed continues to grow (no matter how many dead ideas you throw at it)...

So your throwing in the towel Nick?

I think that all the ideas we have ever needed have been around for some time. The problem may be sorting them out, and overcoming the reasons why we won't initiate them. Could be that if someone handed us the perfect 'How to manual', No one would have the courage to implement, or they would be sure to 'interpret' in a way that kept things from changing.

I don't think so.

Please feel free to say more, Lamar.

Many acts which appear to be selfless are in fact selfish. For instance... I am walking down the street and I see a child whom I do not know,(I have no personal regard for the child) about to be hit by a car. I grab or push the child out of the way of harm at great risk to myself. Now was I selfless in my action, thinking only of the child or was I perhaps thinking how I could not live with myself if I did nothing, which would make my action selfish, wouldn't it? Point being.... Selfish is not always a bad thing.

selfish would be walking away because you were afraid of getting hurt. and i agree, one has to be selfish at times.

But how do you know when?

that's a tough one, wer. it depends on all the variables involved. i have trouble knowing when. in fact, anytime i get a bit selfish, i feel guilty...........

Why would walking away be selfish? Why could it not be disinterest? Or even prudent? Perhaps a child is a wrong example. (pushes to many hot buttons). Let's take for instance the Kurdish people in Iran. Now they are being sorely oppressed by Sodamn Insane but I am not interested enough in their plight or their outcome to invest myself physically, mentally, emotionally or financially to alter the outcome of their fate. Am I now to reproach myself as being selfish towards the Kurds because I in essence walk d away? I think ultimately every action we take is selfish because everything is filtered through our own individual perspective. Maybe a better question would be to consider wrong and right cases of selfishness then.

whether or not you reproach yourself is a manifestly personal choice- and if calling the Best Madman (U.S. Tax) Money Can Buy nasty names is how you deal with it, more power to you... the only thing that pisses me off about all of this cant re: "selfishness" is when it's used not to assuage the guilt (or whatever) of the unmoved (which is it's only semi-legitimate value), but instead to demean the intelligence/value/motives of ordinary human selflessness (which is not so ordinary that it doesn't deserve b tter)...

We are self-absorded human beings. We have great intellect and are emotional creatures. We make choices that first benefit ourselfs and then benefit others. But I (speaking as all), always come first. The only person who is going to take care of you is yourself. No need for guilt, unless you were extremely selfish. But a person who is extremely selfish? Do they have a guilty caunious?

If 'they' believe they are extremely selfish, then they probably do connect it with guilt. But if its just an outsider judging them... maybe not. They might have self righteous reasons for what they do.

Does a selfish person have to be intentional about their selfishness? I could image that an person ignorant of their so-called "selfish" is not truely being selfish.

Yes. So it goes with everything. The 'disgusting drunk' is rarely disgusted with himself. The disgust is in the eyes of the judgemental one. (Judge not, lest ye be judged stuff) On another note, The beautiful woman you have a crush on (and does not know it). Does she feel your love for her?

If you could sucessfully convince the person that he was being selfish, then you could help create a little karma for him! And so we teach our children.

I have always had difficulty discriminating between selfishness and selfcentered versus self concerned. Like Wolf, I tend to feel guilty if I complete something with only my interests at heart (stemming from years of the All-American, guilt ridden family, I'm sure). Thankfully, I've learned that taking your own interests and making them a priority (not necessarily THE priority) is truly unselfish or at least can be rationalized in that matter. After all, if we don't take care of ourselves, our needs, or d sires, how can we expect anyone else to? Or how can we expect to be whole enough to care for anyone else? But guilt is a powerful emotion...

...and not altogether a bad thing... it is an important component of the glue holding civilization together... guilt gave the world the carnegie, and rockerfellar foundations... led to the civil rights act of '64...etc... think what a terrible state the world would be in, was guilt not such a motivating/altering force in our behaviors... (one really needs look no further than cher)

Stacey, your fighting a major paradigm when you nurture yourself before others. Society looks down on that still, but is slowly changing. If you believe in a world of reflections, then you have to nurture/love yourself first, to see reflections of a nutured/loving world. Good for you!

Nick--LOL!! (the Cher reference)

In philosophy the most consistant viewpoint is that only one person exists in the universe -- one's self. You cannot prove the existance of anyone else. Without yourself, your perception, nothing else exists. You exist, the universe exists. I can doubt the existance of other minds; but I cannot doubt the existance of my own mind.

So, who am I talking too? And if I could convince everyone that "knows" me to truly believe that I didn't exist, would I finally find peace?

"Nothing can bring you peace but yourself." -- Emerson

yeah, yeah, yeah...

"peace is in the grave- (yet) the grave (also) hides all things beautiful and good; i am a god, and cannot find it there..." (shelley) have all eternity for peace... rather strive for the beautiful, and (relatively, situationally) good, wouldn't you?

Peace, phththpthpphthpth.... who needs it?...

did admire your beatles impression though, wer...

LOL! (again!)

Nick: let it be...

so, like, this bird has flown?

don't know 'bout that, but this bird will never change...

fly on, fly on little birdy! *smile*

maybe it is time to migrate...

to warmer climates?

If there is a www.spring.com, there should be a www.summer.com!

*big smile* and I believe WER would appreciate that, thanks americ

actually, that would be www.autumn.com...tis my favorite season

but Austin has no autumn to speak of...

thus one of the reasons to migrate...

what's going on? still bad mojo at work?

at the minimum, Stace...

sorry if it seems like i'm following you two around, am not. on the subject of selfishness, is it selfish to need to vent? to need to be a b-word once in a while (and if you're wondering, not PMS)

no, all that sounds perfectly normal to me! *smile* vent at will!

should probably start another topic and warn the unsuspecting!

I think I am quite selfish on the whole.

Selfishness is many a splendored thing. Only now am I learning the finer points (and the necessity) of selfishness in relationships, with time, with emotion. However, some of my most selfish actions help revitalize my wounded spirit so it may be more generous for others.

Well put, Stacey! As a woman I can only thoroughly agree! I'm not particularly proud of my selfish traits, but it comes in handy at times, doesn't it? Oops, my three year-old has just woken up - time to stick my selfishness where it belongs, and see to her . . . will finish later.

Back again. You feel you have to be selfish in your relationships? Does it protect you in any way? Why do you need that sort of protection? I ask a hell of a lot too many questions; I can assure you I'm not nosey - I just want to understand the things you say, gain more insight.

yes, at times in all relationships. With my students... the drama and poinaiancy in their lives can sometimes drain mine. I only have so much to give and am only capable of extending and changing to a certain degree. I cannot become better parents for them nor can I make their lives (away from school) any more bearable, but I can give them tools to work with. With my family... now that I live over a thousand miles away from my parents/sibling, the times I spend (or don't spend) with them can be very demanding. I have always got to decide how much I can handle first, because they may monopolize too much (with time or guilt!) With my lover... to be a full partner I need to spend some time by myself, exploring my interests, thinking my thoughts. I need space and freedom and energy from other sources... so yes, I am just learning how to be constructively selfish in many different ways. Does it protect me? In some ways, I suppose. It protects me from being completely drained with nothing left to give, it protects me from losing touch with my favorite personal idiosyncracies!

fair enough

I think giving your students tools to work with is rather unselfish. Selfish would be if you were not prepared to do that, if you merely taught them what was in the cirriculum, no more, no less. The family reunions I can also sympathize with - Grandma always goes on about how this might be the last X-mas she will be spending with me, and so I should stay for another four weeks . . . she's 65 and fit as a fiddle!!!! But luckily guilt trips are selfish too, so I don't get bothered by them. I think needing and taking one's own time and space, and letting one's partner do the same is actually quite an unselfish thing. One's relationship with other people should on paper look like overlapping circles. Where they overlap being the time spent together and interacting. The rest of each circle still belongs to the others, but with space for itself.

wow. I would never even attempt to put my relationship with Mr. B on paper... scary thought. *smile*

Perhaps I should ask my two year-old to do it for you? ha-ha

tell her to use a lot of colors!

Afraid she's having her blue snail period right now. Would that be accurate, do you think?!

I think that I have a different definition of selfish. Than you two, Riette and Stacey. When I think of selfishness, I think of acts of self gratification that take time away from commitments or responsibilities, for no reason except self gratification. The things you two were describing were vitally important to who you are. Without doing those things you wouldn't be recognizably you. That is not selfish Certain things it is necessary to do to be you. To do these things is self maintenance. Everything needs maintenance or it breaks down. I think not to do these things would be selfish.

And I fear I am very guilty at this moment of an act that takes time away from my responsibilities. Did you HAVE to remind me that I'm supposed to work???

Sorry Riette, That wasn't my intent.

I hope you don't think I was angry - I was just teasing.

I am very relieved to hear that, Riette, I did not intend to put you on a guilt trip.

Don't worry, it takes rather alot to do that!

I'm glad. If there is one thing I hate it's head games. I would hate to be misunderstood to the point where it seems like I'm playing head games. I do play head games, but only with people I dislike.

No head games. If I'm angry, I'll tell you I'm angry. The rest is all play. That's how my head works.

there are lotsa head games that have these real funny rules. one of 'em goes like this: "you can play this head game with anyone and think that you know for sure that it's not a head game" they're probably the most often-used head games of 'em all.

I'm not too sure about that. That makes it all too easy. And too difficult. I've always thought of head games as a sort of defense mechanism - but I may be wrong.

a defense mechanism that's so internal and automatic that it bypasses awareness, is the kind of defense that makes possible that crazy rule: that people can play a head game with anyone and think that they know for sure that it's not a head game. it's one of those unwritten rules that's extremely potent and common. it's very human nature in nature....like it's second nature for all of us.

Riette, I find you refreshing in your honesty.

I suppose you are right, Jim. I also think that people can be too unwilling to trust in those they call friend to realize that not all games are head games. I think the two are usually combined, and make a pretty destructive duo for any friendship. Thank you, Tim - personally I don't consider it much of a virtue. Sometimes it's better to keep one's big mouth shut, and I normally don't know how.

No, Riette. What you have in your honesty is a virtue, so rare, flawless diamonds are common by comparison.

That is very sweet. Thank you.

You are very welcome, Riette, you had it coming.

I don't want to take anything for granted.

Riette, you never take anything for granted, and when given your due, half the time you deny meriting it.

Stop that! It's not true at all!

Of course it is, Riette.

TIM! If my ego grows any more than it has done since you've been here, my head's going to burst!

Just the truth, Riette, Just the truth.

If something is wrong, it should be understood, not accepted because it's sweet, if it is sweet but wrong. A friend would want to understand what's wrong. A friend wants to be honest by being in contact with what's true. If it's true that a game is not a head game, then a friend would want to focus on the games that are head games, not on the games that are not head games. And to avoid understanding games that are head games is not honest or trusting; it's not what a friend does. Friends make mistakes. Friends want to see how the mistakes happened or happen. It's true that it's a mistake to mistake a non-head game for a head game. And it's a mistake to avoid understanding how that happened or happens when it does. Friends want to understand how their mistakes happen. That kind of cooperative spirit gives a friendship the kind of trust and honesty that the friendship will need to grow in what is true. Many head games are seen as not head games, because they are caused by what's going on in our depths, under the surface. How clear are we about what happens in areas of our selves that we're not aware of? Friends want to learn about each other and get clear on what's unclear in their depths. Friends want to do that because it involves who they really are.....it involves what's true about them. Friends want to get clear with each other about what mistakes they are making about mistaking non-head games for head games. And they want to get clear on how to notice or sense or inquire into a head game that doesn't look like one. Plus, they want to get clear on head games that do look like head games. Working on this is vital to a friendship and the work can't get anywhere at all unless both friends understand how it is just as vital that the way they go into it together is done in a way that's mutually kind and exploratory and interested in understanding. To do that, friends need to be vulnerable and curious, they need to be open to what they don't wanna hear, they need to be willing to be surprised. It won't happen unless both are listening very closely from the heart. Emotions need to be gone into....hurt emotions and anger and disillusionments This is not easy, and can look at times like the other person is being dishonest or distrustful or is playing a head game about understanding head games. And when that happens, it needs to be pointed out as it's happening, and then that becomes the focus and deserves a great deal of vulnerability and sensitivity that's mutual and intent on listening to or trying to pick up on what is true. It's a different kind of honesty than just saying what's on our minds and being refreshingly direct. That's important, very important. And, but it's also no less important to explore deeper, hidden layers of honesty where we may not normally like to go, and could in fact be quite dishonest with our own selves about, as well as dishonest with others. Often when one person goes there, the other person feels intruded upon or imposed upon, controlled, or head-gamed with. That needs to be brought out, gently, with great care, as true friends are wont to do. The friendship deepens as it moves into areas once thought impossible by both friends. Does this all (or parts of it) that I'm saying here sound more than a bit suspect?

No, it doesn't. It sounds good. But it also sounds complicated. It is good to explore these things, I think, but too much of anything can simply get too much. If one asks oneself all the time, am I playing head games with my friend, is he playing head games with me, am I his friend because of selfish needs and vice versa, do I love my friend for the wrong reasons, does he really mean it when he says this, or does he merely THINK he means it - that can simply make friendship a very explosive thing, and turn every area of it vulnerable to the point where any said thing, and any done deed seem like malice. Why should one keep focussing on what could wrong when so much could go right? Is it not easier to say: Look, my friend, here's what I'm like, this is how I feel about you? And vice versa. And take it from there? I'm not saying one should not explore the vulnerable points and the good points thoroughly - just to try and be free of suspicion when doing so, and to be as honest as one can be with your friend. There is probably no such thing as absolute complete perfect honesty (because of unconscious intention etc.), but I think if you can be honest and clear about the basics, that is already a good foundation to build friendship upon. I think there can also be such a thing as destructive friendship. Where one is so desperate for the friendship to be, or where one feels very vulnerable for other reasons, where the friendship is simply unable to function without unnecessary difficulties and games. In such a case it is better to call it a day, and go apart fondly rather than tear each other apart. I think it's better to build friendship upon trust rather than truce.

That's good! Riette, I like it.

If trust is where we want the other person to overlook our meaning and intent if they suspect something about it, then it's no longer trust---it falls into the �ignorance is bliss' way of relating to people. It's important to listen to ourselves and others throughout the day every day. When we do that, there will be times when questions come up about where a person is coming from when they say or do something. If we inquire into it with the other person, and if we do that more than that person considers normal, then they are likely to recoil with some kind of agitation. If I inquire into a person's behavior and it becomes focused, it can explode because it's not handled constructively. Both me and the other person can feel like malice is at work in those cases. But what often happens is that the person who doesn't like that kind of thing to happen, may say or feel that the other person does it all the time. When really it may be the case that the person inquires into what's going on in the other person only occasionally. The severity of the explosiveness can necessit te that one or both people get the impression that it happens all the time. That creates a defensive self-protective wall to prevent emotional disturbance from entering their lives. And that prevents the inquiry from being complete or thorough, which prevents trust and learning and honesty. Having a good foundation for trust and honesty can make for a constructive inquiry into each other, rather than explosive inquiry that has malice taking it over. It's also interesting to note how much inquiry is done into the good in others where we aren't suspecting anything amiss, and we just want to know more about the good thing the other is involved in---so we ask, "what was it like to do what you did?", or "tell me more", or "who was that friend from Africa you spoke so highly and dearly of?" It' interesting to note how that might not get a mention when we think back about what happened to us---we might think that all that other person did was focus on and inquire into stuff in us that was bothering them. It's hard to be vulnerable and non-defensive. But a good foundation for trust and honesty is to listen closely to what we feel, to be specific, to be objective (for perspective), to illustrate with examples so the other person gets a much better picture of what we're talking about, to give our reasons so it's more clear to the other where we're coming from and our real intent or motive, to be receptive by listening with an understanding heart, and to really see deeper into exactly where the wall or fear r source of where the emotion (or suspect emotion) is coming from, and then to experience it completely by experiencing it directly by going all the way into it by facing the truth about ourselves with the innocence of a child. If we aren't constructive, we complicate matters, and the inquiry only infuses our minds with overreaction, and we then naturally and defensively say that the other person is overreacting and being excessive (or doing the "hurtful" thing all the time). A community, a virtual community, a group of people, a friendship, they all are stronger if they include this kind of inquiry and conversation in their lives and learning. It's important to grant ourselves room to air grievances so that the airing has a chance to mature and evolve into interested listening, receptive learning, dialogue. Can we all give us a chance to do that more? And can we do it constructively? What do any of you say about any of this?

jim, you have very succintly pointed out what to me are the most important aspects and foundations of building and developing relationships on-line (and relationships in general) one of the most important things that one can do is to go back and analyze one's interactions with others. pretty much any wise person you can think of has said this differently in one way or another. it is important to look at your interactions with others and ask yourself, "where is the other guy coming from? why does he think that way? what can i learn from him? how can i make our future interactions win/win situations for both of us? can we do anythiing together that would be beneficial to someone else?" it is very easy to do these sorts of self reflections when all of the things that have been said exist as typed text. to me, this is one of the many wonderful virtues of vitrual communities. i don't know if "trust," as you use the word, exactly captures what is needed to spur great interactions and conversations on an on-line medium such as the spring. i think it is more a matter of "attitude," and we can debate the meanings of these terms if you like. what i mean is that there needs to be an attitude here encompassing the idea of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" and also the idea of always assuming positive intent. i think it is very possible to have a community where lively debats and conversations can be created where all parties involved come out of it learning something new. to learn new things and make new friends are the two main reasons i do this on-line thing at all.

I think inquiring is good. Finding out about stuff is good. But when you ask someone a question, why question the answer again and again? Would that not make the person feel distrusted, and like anything he says is in some way or other dishonest, though he doesn't know how, and finally, would that not make the person feel like there simply IS no way of being good enough in his friend's eyes? I think finding out with interest cannot possibly offend anyone. Finding out with a criticism ever ready, is what becomes hurtful. Like for example: If a person tells me, look, I don't play headgames, then I have two choices. I can believe him, and try amd accept his ways; even when he expresses himself a little differently from how I would. Or I can believe, and make sure he knows, that even though he THINKS he's not playing headgames, he might be doing so sub-consciously. Where does that leave the person? He can assure me once again that he's not playing headgames - and probably doubt whether he'll be believed second time around. Or he can change his whole personality to accommodate my egotistical needs. Or he can question my intentions. Because, after all, he gave me an honest answer, which I was not willing to accept. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I feel one can find out things about the way people are without having to question their every word, their every move. Asking him about his day's events is so much easier, and kinder a way of getting to know someone's personality than asking him about his day's intentions. I think by starting out on simple things, you can easier gain the trust needed to talk about difficult things without hurting either way. But I guess we each have our own way of thinking about it.

Hi, Ray! You little slipper!!! How have you been??

We can't question an intent without there also being an action or a statement. So a person wouldn't just be questioning intent all by itself. The action or verbal response leads us to or expresses their intent. If we question someone's words and the intent behind them, it doesn't mean we are questioning every move they make. A reason to have a few rounds of questioning about a single statement, is to get clearer about what the other person means. That can be quite difficult if the other person is not used to being specific and clear---and it can take a few questions around a single statement. If this kind of inquiry is felt to be criticism ever-ready, or an attempt to offend, or an act of distrust of the whole person, or a means of pointing out how dishonest the other person is, or an aggressive act of malice, then the outcomes will surely by counterproductive. Intent does exist, and never alone, never without action or behavior or words. Intent is part of what is true and who we are. Inquiry is about finding out what is true. To be defensive about our intent instead of open and forthcoming, that is an anti-learning way of orienting ourselves toward life and people. We didn't learn about this stuff in school, and after school we continue to fend off this kind of learning, probably because it makes us feel like we're being attacked. It makes us feel uncomfortable, agitated, disturbed. We get upset because we feel the other person is acting disrespectful toward us. We have our self-image, and we want it to stay stable so we don't become insecure about ourselves. When we feel insecure, we panic, we become more and more subjective, and we tend to distort and portray situations in more of a one-sided interpretation. That's what we do out of self-protection. Then we feel awful because we see and feel just how screwed up we are, and how little we've progressed since (probably) grade school. Emotions are powerful forces. Emotions can be understood. So can intent. So can inquiry. Inquiry can be felt to be quite illuminating. Vulnerability can be felt be a strength, more and more, with more of this kind of learning (people learning, life learning, self learning). But vulnerability wouldn't be vulnerability if it didn't involve some hard to swallow scary perceptions about ourselves, our limitations, our intent, our self-isolating activities and emotions, our needy needs and compulsions. The thing is, this kind of learning can be quite fun, quite substantial, and worthwhile. So let's engage each other with a desire to learn who we are. If we don't engage a person's meanings, and instead just read responses, we are not truly relating. We learn stuff about another person that way, but we don't discover how they relate to how we relate to what they relate to. Life is not a passive experience. And we can't use inquiry just to inquire about pleasant things that we like about another person. That would be avoidance behavior to be so exclusive.....another form of sheltered resistance and self-protection against disturbance, and against potential repercussions to our self-image and our sense of security and pleasure. How is this going over for you? Anyone?

great points! i personally find a Socratic method of questions, answers, and refutations to be be the best way to learn where someone else is coming from. Jim's ideas above seem to suggest that as well, though he is a hell of a lot more eloquent that i am. i have never felt that questioning someone repeatedly on a point is suggestive of distrust. like Socrates, i try and play the part of the ignorant fool, looking for as much new information as possible. i have found that when people engage me in such discussions that i not only learn new stuff, but my own ideas are strenghted further. my views on life, philosophy, science, ethics, politics, abortion, religioin, you name it, have all been shaped in this way. it is always best for me to assume that i do not have all the answers and that i can learn something from everyone and anyone. engaging in a serirHes of questions and answers (a "dialogue" as in Plato's dialogues) is the best way to learn. at least its worked for me so far!

Well, each has his own way. And I'm not really the never-ending 20 question type.

Having dealt with both sides of the coin, Riette, I find your approach easier.

Let's say someone asks me how I like my dog. And I give them my answer, which goes like this: "I know why you asked me that, I like my dog a lot, but I don't treat my dog like you treat yours, that's for sure, and I don't whimper and grouse about it either, you know what your problem is? you let things get to you and you're very thin-skinned." That can have a strange effect on the person who received my answer. They may think that my answer came back punctuated with quite a load of assumptions and biases. So they may want to ask me about my answer. After they ask me about my answer, I might think that their question is loaded with assumptions and biases, so my second answer might tell them that. There may be a number of exchanges like that where the distortion and error escalates and reinforces whatever the basic or strongest assumptions and biases may be going on in both myself and the other person. I may feel that the other person just doesn't trust me. I may feel like I'm in the middle of a game of 20 questions that they're playing with me. I may feel that my first answer was extremely well put, and that the other person just doesn't know how to hear what I'm saying because of whatever their personality makeup is and because it clashes with mine and because of whatever issues are going on in their life that makes it hard for them to trust and relate. I may feel it sure would be a lot easier if they'd just get what I mean with my first answer, or at least by my second answer. People wonder why communication can be so hard. And they like to think how easy it is when people trust each other and just take an answer and make do with it and let that satisfy. The reason for using inquiry is for when answers raise more questions than they answer. Another reason for using inquiry is to learn more about what people are doing in their answers that causes the answers to raise more questions than they answer. What I'm saying, I guess, is that I'm interested in increasing the other's capacity to confront their own ideas, to create a window into their own mind, and to face the unsurfaced assumptions, biases, and fears that have informed their responses toward me and others. And likewise, I'm interested in their increasing my capacity to do the same. Plus, I'm interested in increasing my own capacity to do that with myself. I want to advocate my principles, values, and assumptions in a way that invites inquiry into them and encourages other people to do the same. So I started this response off with an illustration of how things can go bad when answers are not presented constructively and when all the responsibility for the negative consequences is placed on the shoulders of the questioner. While it's true that we all have our own way of responding, it's also true that we may be using ineffective ways that we are almost completely unaware of what we're doing to make them ineffective. To go along with a person's ineffective answer may be easier, but it prevents communication and it gives sustenance to misunderstanding and/or distrust, and a need to defensively keep these things undiscussable. Inquiry can look like 20 questions. Then, as inquiry is understood better, it can look like an attempt to really learn and clarify meanings and intentions. Vulnerability is great when it leads people to realize how much effort they'd been putting into relinquishing their own self-responsibility, and projecting it onto others. That kind of new self-responsible vulnerability strengthens trust, honesty, clarity, communication, and the whole fabric of democracy and community living, to say nothing of friendship and relationship. A person can play 20 questions and think that they are being objective and genuinely inquiring. Just because I want to learn and be vulnerable doesn't mean I'll be able to stop playing 20 questions. I am defensive. I'll exploit the game of 20 questions by acting like that's not what I'm doing, by acting like what I'm really doing is objectively inquiring into what a person really means and by acting like I'm only testing out some assumptions I have. I have my biases and fears, which I try to protect myself from learning about. This creates problems for other people I'm around. On the other hand, I think we're all doing this, whether it's through politeness, respectability, or flattery, flirting, or some other means. And so I'm saying that we can find out what causes us to do it. We can begin to see together what's really true about ourselves. We can learn how to learn, together, and see how to constructively go into rather difficult questions and concerns, and how to go into rather difficult answers. If we frown upon this kind of learning and inquiry, when it comes up, and here we are an interactive virtual community that is all about responses that we make to responses that others make, wouldn't the frowning be a form of censorship that would lead to unintended negative consequences overall? We don't like when someone plays 20 questions with us, and we don't like when negative emotions surface, we don't like when we're disturbed by someone who's being direct with us and they seem to us to be distorting and projecting it onto us in the form of pointed assumptions, so what do we do? We tend to collectively create a group norm that limits learning. We all have much in this area to learn about as a community and as individuals, so why not see how we're being anti-learning at those times when we are, and instead encourage and invite negative emotions to surface with the desire to, maybe for the first time in our lives, and in a safe environment, learn how to constructively find out what causes them and prolongs them and strengthens them, and through this understanding learn and experiment with more effective alternative feelings and assumption creation and better attribution testing? We would be finding out about what we're doing here and what we could be doing that is better than at those times when it's not so good. I think when things are going good, alotta times they really aren't, but our need to not say what we're afraid to say wins out in a win/lose or lose/lose opiated acceptance formula of collective "let's not make waves". Let's please each other and try to be upbeat.....sometimes you can just feel that's what's carrying people on auto-pilot, while under the surface we want to say things that we don't, and that may be at least partially because we don't put such a premium on trust and honesty, because what are we doing to create conditions that encourage that kind of learning and openness and vulnerability and questioning that would make trust and honesty more likely to happen? We really don't trust another person's ability to react non-defensively, do we, some of the time? So we normalize ourselves into viewing a response like Response 96 as sort of a "well, we all have our own way, and that Response 96 way sure isn't for me". I've been too brief with this, haven't I? You'd have liked for me to go on for another 200 lines, right? Is there any response to this whole thing? Do you have any reactions?

Say What????????????

"We really don't trust another person's ability to react non-defensively, do we, some of the time?" No, Jim, we don't.

Aren't we getting just a little PERSONAL in this supposedly neutral discussion about selfishness? What the hell is wrong here? What the hell is everybody pissed off about? Get it out of your systems so we can start talking to each other again, will you?? What do you people have against Tim? Is it a male ego thing? ARe you jealous of him or something? Because as far as I've seen, you guys have ALWAYS treated the new girls very nicely. Now we have a new guy, and finally a person who isn't leaving af er two responses, the first person since I came many many months ago, and you want him out! WHat the hell kind of a conference has this turned into, hey?! Does it piss you guys off that he's intelligent, and charismatic and funny? Do you think him 'competition' or something? He has had nothing but bullshit from you guys since the day he came - WHY? God, and they say women are bitchy!

I have nothing against Tim. For whatever reason it is being taken that way, I apologize. You especially, Ree, know when I attack someone versus when I simply post whatever comes to mind first. And if everyone around here looks back over the responses in several conferences, I have made several apologies when my initial responses crossed over some line, have defended people and their responses when necessary, and broken up discussions when they have gotten out of hand. I am most sorry that it seems to anyone that I am attempting to run anyone off, as the more people who regurlarly post on here, the less I have to say thereby letting me take up my natural habitat of staying in the background and listening. I am, once again, at a loss for words except for: I am truly and sincerely sorry for any discomfort that I have ever caused anyone in this community.