Selfishness

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.

Riette, did you feel that when Tim said "Say What????" it was an attack on me? I didn't think it was. Can you be specific about what was actually said that you consider an attack on Tim? What do you feel is an example of someone being bitchy right now? I'm not getting your meaning. But I'm not feeling that there is no attacking going on. There may be. I would like to see what attack looks like to different people. I think we are challenging each other with worthwhile challenges. It's healthy when we question each other about what we're saying. For me it gets hard to tell whether people have different viewpoints or whether they misunderstand what the other person is saying. I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding what people say because it's hard for me to tell what they mean sometimes.....not all the time. So I'll say, "do you mean this or do you mean this or do you mean something else." A person can say, "why can't we all just be friends and enjoy a really friendly conversation together that really goes into some pretty interesting notions and feelings and topics and concerns and issues." But I might be sitting here wondering what is meant by "friendship" and "friendly". We might wonder what we mean when we say "love" or "fate" or "meaning". We could feel like it's quite interesting to investigate together. The questioning may get quite rich and so absorbing. Newton was sitting under a tree when the apple piled into his head, and right around then he had a eureka. But many months and years of questioning went into preceding that moment of eureka. And this was some pretty tough questioning he put himself and his colleagues through. He had to question what was taken for granted by conventional scientific theories of his day. When people do that, they can seem like heretics or very blameworthy. The Newtons may be very passionate in their questioning and the questioning can go on for some time, learning and changing and discovering as it goes. But the colleagues and others may get quite upset with ol' Newton, because his passion arouses theirs, and it may upset their need to hear Newton back (support) what they were thinking, and they might feel that he's deliberately being obstinate and not nice to them. They may want him to be supportive, not objective. They may want him to be not a scientist, and to not feel what he feels, and to be not honest with himself (and therefore with them). They may stop trusting him, and call him out as not acting like a friend anymore. Emotions will be triggered by disagreement. Even though we all feel that disagreement is bound to happen. I think there's lotsa room for improvement in the communication department. When we disagree, how do we do it constructively, rather than destructively? How can we be specific rather than generalize? How can we be objective rather than subjective? When emotions run high and we go very subjective, how do we begin to look at that subjectivity very objectively and specifically? What makes an attack an attack? I say it happens when we move from objectivity to blame. And when blaming happens, what specifically is a person saying when they are blaming? What's more important still is what is behind the blame. What, for person "B" is it in what person "A" said that is causing person "B" to blame person "A" for saying what person "A" said? Can we learn anything specific about negative emotions and blaming and attack while they're happening? If so, how do we do this? Would we prefer to say to each other, "We're attacking, let's cool off and do this better by talking about something else and just forget all this that we've been attacking each other about"? Or would we prefer to see what it is that we're doing and what causes it to happen, so we can learn about ourselves---and perhaps by understanding the whole dynamic of attacking behaviors, we can reframe it or alter it or resolve it in a deep and powerful way.....in a way where there may be alotta mutual discovery and discerning and connection around the new findings. That's being scientific, or neutral, or objective. It's good to have some of the scientist come out in all of us. Science is meaningless without passion or feeling. They go together so well, the objectivity of a scientist and the feeling of a very aware and responsive aliveness. If a feeling is very subjective, it distorts, becomes paranoid, and scrambles the truth. If a feeling stays objective, it listens in that much further to what is actually taking place without being thrown by judgment and mental blocks like fear or blame or woundedness or resentment, anger. Anger gets locked into itself, into the image it sets up, the image of the other person and what that person is supposedly doing: in other words, that other person's negative intent or motive. Objective feeling senses there are subjective feelings taking over, and it says, "I feel myself getting more and more subjective about this, do you feel it too in yourself? Can we talk it out? Do you want to go into it a little bit? I know you might feel too upset to do that right now, or you might feel that you're in not such bad shape but that I look to you to be too upset right now, eh? Do you feel it might be interesting for us to experiment with this some right now, by seeing if we can look at and work our way into the upset emotion itself, rather than continue talking about what we were talking about (the issues that set off the emotion)?" Here's how I feel about blame and attack, and the emotions they set off. They are induced by disagreement. Which is not really true. Disagreement doesn't induce them. It's the way we deal with disagreement that sets off negative emotions. For example, we may really enjoy another person's conversation because their viewpoint is so different from our own. They might say, "Roger, I really like how you question me and question yourself as well, it would be awful if your questions were grinding away at the same thing in the same way, but yours don't do that, they really do break new ground, and you do such a good job of vulnerably showing me the reasoning behind your questions when you ask them, plus you're specific enough for me to follow quite easily what it specifically was that I said that made you respond to it with the questions that you asked." So what is it about the way we deal with disagreement that turns on the negative emotions when they get turned on? I think with blame there is a kind of judgment being made that has alotta necessity behind it. I mean, the blame happens because a person feels pressed into a corner, they feel opposed, attacked by the other person. But they also feel like there is no way out, which means it is getting destructive against them (and they might also feel that they then get destructive towards the other person in retaliation). So they say, "what's wrong with us?" Or they might say, "what's wrong with you?" They might say, "let's stop it---now---we are destroying each other!" I think the important thing to see is that blame comes out of threat, because a person feels threatened by the destructive nature of their conversation closing in on them, to the point where there it is: the point of no return, and so they feel that it necessitates decisive action, like "let's get over ourselves, let's stop this, quit and go and do something else, cuz this is just horrible." Here's another important thing to keep in mind---if we are practiced at being constructive and objective, we can be relatively unthreatened by what we would've been threatened by if we are unpracticed at being constructive. It's like what they say about stress, where the person who responds well to stress, sees it as not stress but a much more interesting challenge than what they were doing up to that point. Rather than trying to be pleasant with each other, why don't we see what it is, constructively, that causes us to feel tense and schismatic, dualistic? Why don't we look at it as a welcome challenge, to finally learn some things about ourselves that've been long in waiting for that to happen? A reason why we wouldn't look at it as a welcome challenge, is because we still aren't ready for that yet, because we are still so unpracticed at effective constructive ways to deal with blame and attack and stress and upset disturbed emotions and our resulting subjective overreactions and distortions. Questions to ask constructively are (not that this is a constructive way of asking them): "When you said blah blah blah, it made me feel you were blaming me and I felt pressed in a corner that I didn't feel there was any way out of, but what were you feeling when you said that to me, and what was your reasoning for saying that?---help me understand this better, okay?, I'm really upset and hurt right now, and I feel angry with you." "When I asked you that question, I felt like the tone in your response was indicating that you felt my question was part of what now has become a 20 questions headgame that you feel I'm playing with you. Is that true? Do you feel that you're repeating answers now to me? Do you feel like my questioning is getting compulsive and is happening because it looks to you like I need to ask questions just for the sake of asking them? Do you feel my questions are now moving into a direction where I'm trying to unilaterally push you into hearing what I want to hear you say?" "When I asked you the above question, it felt to me like you were being evasive because you didn't relate your answer at all to my question, or do you feel that you did? You very well may have. If so, how did you? I'm really wanting to know. I hope you don't mind my asking." "Do you get the feeling that we're now in conflict and to the point where it's reached an impasse? If you feel that too, how can we deal with that well, effectively....what do you say? Any suggestions on where we can go from here? Any impasse breakthroughs coming to mind? I think it's interesting that we are where we are with this now, don't you? What do we do now?" "Would you like to know why I feel so hemmed into a corner right now by the sequence of our exchanges? Can we go into that just for a little bit? I would like to see how you feel about the way I'm feeling about it. Can I talk to you about that? I would really like to. Is it okay with you?"

Oops, I obviously stumbled in here by mistake. I'll go now. Carry on (looks like you were already doing a fine job of that without my imprimatur, however... :-} ).

In Response 101, I ended it with 5 questions. Those questions weren't meant as questions I was asking of anyone, by the way. They were meant as prototypes. Many better prototypes exist than those I came up with. They were just 5 shots at it. Sort of giving myself some practice, too, was what I was doing. It's fun, isn't it?, to see what prototype questions different people can come up with to use to intervene constructively in conflict situations. I wonder about the reasoning behind my 5 questions. I wish people would question my reasoning more, so I can see more of the holes in it, and take that seeing and grow. I like criticism. I can really benefit from it. People's words have interesting meanings behind them, and it's fun to see if my meaning for their criticism is anywhere close to the meaning they have for their criticism of my reasoning and intentions and values.

Jim go read through the other conferences. WHEN has Wer suddenly turned into the silent listener????? That's NOT how I know him. He may listen, but he is never silent. I have to confess that I haven't read through all of your response; At this point I simply lack the patience to carefully analyze and ask the right questions like a good person should. All I know is that for months now there has been practically NOTHING going on in the Spring. Then a new person comes, which is exactly what we need ar und here to liven things up again. And nobody cares. They just sulk on! Is it any wonder half the Spring is overcome with depression and sadness? I just get fed up with the fact that nobody's making an effort around here anymore. There is no more interaction, no more attention, no more interest even in each other's lives. See, I was under the impression that we were all friends around here.

Sure, take your time. It's too much to read anyway. I always overdo it. I'm probably gonna overdo it again right now. And don't worry yourself about being good or doing what you "should". That sounds like your putting alotta unnecessary pressure on yourself that might be getting in the way of your wellbeing or something. Take care of yourself and go gentle into the lightening up process. I'll just talk about stuff with you here. And I'm sure others who read your Response 104 will be glad to talk to you, too, as they drop by, because it was an interesting and very engaging one from you. For some reason I just wanna talk about WER first. My feeling about him is that he covers alotta territory, alotta ground, he probably reads everything posted (who knows, I really have no idea.... it's just how I imagine him). I sure don't. I hardly read anything here. But when WER does a response, he always writes something very brief. So anyway, I'm just guessing he reads maybe twice as many topics as he responds to---maybe 3 or 4 times as many (like I really know anything like that?---so I'm just imagining that about WER). In philosophy he doesn't really seem to say very much, but I can tell he's there reading everything. Well anyway, I just think maybe that's the kinda thing that he meant. Plus, he might be saying what you're saying, that if things are slow right now, he feels somewhat compelled to engage more than he normally would, and that when it picks up again, he'll curb back into his usual comfort level of less participating and more listening, much to all our loss, cuz it don't get no better than WER around here, at least for me (I really like his responses). We gotta remember too, with WER, that if Stacey were around, you can forget about that whole 'listening' bit, he'll be as livened up as we'll ever see him. So I'm saying, that, to me, I see what he's saying about himself and how he is here. On the other hand, I haven't been to many other conferences, like Screwed or Art or Food or, y'know, just about all of 'em. So my impression is limited. Does it sound like I'm making no sense right about now? I just don't have any idea what's going on in the lives of Wolf and Ray and Stacey. They haven't been here that much, right, lately?, like yer sayin'? But I haven't heard them say they're depressed or sulking. Have you? Are people here really being sad, to you? Terry seems to be here as much as he ever was, yeah? Autumn seems to be around less than usual, right? Maybe only because there's less going on. But I just can't tell that it's deliberate or psychological in any way on anyone's part. Maybe it is. But I can't say that there's a certain cause for it, if it is deliberate or psychological. Do you feel that less activity has a direct correlation or something to people wanting not to be friends anymore? I've read a bunch of the responses that go on back and forth between you and Tim, here's the effect it has on me: it just looks like you guys are so into each other that I, well I don't know what to say..... can you put yourself in my position? Well, for one thing, I'm not so good at jumping into conversations, but if I see something that gets to me with a spurt or squirt of blurt in a worn out shirt, then yeah I'll pop off with some dumb darn crazy thing. So it just doesn't happen that much with me. I basically food fight the movies and then get philosophical about it, right? That's pretty much me, here, right? So, but like I was sayin' with you and Tim, I just see you two goin' at it and at it and at it, that I sorta start to blend in with the background, withdraw into some darker shadows and kinda merge with this sleek swipe of moisture that just evaporates. You guys have something real strong going on, and I just shalom away into the dunes of Namib. You don't understand, do you? That's hard for you, isn't it? You didn't wanna hear that, huh? You're glad I'm bein' honest with ya, but it hurts and it angers you, doesn't it? Well tell me some things. Gimme some more of yer impressions. Ya know I wanna hear 'em. And hey, I can listen even as good as WER can, I promise ya. I may not ever be able to be any kinda like the friend you want. But no can beat me up or punch me out or even come close to stoppin' me from bein' yer friend, as dopey dope as I might come across half or all the time towards you. I love you (as a friend). That line might look unbelievable or inscrutable. But it sure is pure truth. And it can't be forgotten. I dunno what else to say. I probably didn't respond too good to what you had on yer mind. I probably don't make no sense. Maybe I slip through too many other fences to keep track of. Every time I come up to the canvas I keep knockin' it over by mistake with ma beeg fat butt. I dip my brush in some cool lookin' paint and turn to the canvas and there it is again, flat face down on the floor. I pick it up and the brush falls outa my hand onto my toes. I pick it up and the canvas falls over. An engineer came over one day, and said, "Jim, put the darn canvas against the wall." So I tried that. The wall fell down. He left pretty quick. The great outdoors came indoors that day. It was an outside wall, not one of those in-the-room interior walls. I'm a mess. But I'm lookin' at ya. I'm always close.....so close I think I can smell ya.... Well anyway....so, uh......well anyway.......

Jim, Riette was really upset with the attitudes some of the men on the conferences. and last night she decided to leave the conferences for good. She is not upset with you.

Okay, maybe I'm beginning to understand some things. But maybe not. See what you think of this. Tim, the "attitudes of some of the men" has to do with how they are towards you, am I right? You're not talking about attitudes they have toward other stuff, it's how they're acting toward you? I went looking around and found some things in Screwed and Sex that may have to do with what you're refering to. I'll take one example, and I'd like to ask you if you feel it's representative of the kind of thing that's been going on that's become a difficulty: Topic 20 of 21 [sex]: Your biggest turn on Response 46 of 55: Tim Guenther (TIM) * Mon, Nov 30, 1998 (01:36) * Whatever you want, Riette, anytime, anywhere. Topic 20 of 21 [sex]: Your biggest turn on Response 47 of 55: Riette Walton (riette) * Tue, Dec 1, 1998 (01:34) * To hear you confess in church while standing next to the priest? Topic 20 of 21 [sex]: Your biggest turn on Response 48 of 55: Tim Guenther (TIM) * Tue, Dec 1, 1998 (01:39) * Kinky, Riette, however I'm up for it if you are!! First, though you'll have to find a church that uses that kind of confession and has priests. There are no priests in my religion. Topic 20 of 21 [sex]: Your biggest turn on Response 49 of 55: wer (KitchenManager) * Tue, Dec 1, 1998 (22:08) * There's priests in Christianity... there just may not be any in your denomination... Topic 20 of 21 [sex]: Your biggest turn on Response 50 of 55: Tim Guenther (TIM) * Wed, Dec 2, 1998 (00:39) Somebody totally missed the boat here!!!!!!! I Believe we were talking about the church where i worship. What difference does it make if the church next door has a priest, unless they have the same belief in confession?????? Topic 20 of 21 [sex]: Your biggest turn on Response 51 of 55: Riette Walton (riette) * Wed, Dec 2, 1998 (01:07) * Tim, stop that! I know you and Wer don't like each other; he didn't like me either when I first came, and at this point doesn't like me too well either, but come on, sweety. Try and be nice - if you give him a reason not to come anymore, then my argument will not be valid anymore. See? Now, get over here. biggest biggest kiss ever Topic 20 of 21 [sex]: Your biggest turn on Response 52 of 55: Riette Walton (riette) * Wed, Dec 2, 1998 (01:08) * 1 Please don't be angry. But if you are, I'll understand. Topic 20 of 21 [sex]: Your biggest turn on Response 53 of 55: Tim Guenther (TIM) * Wed, Dec 2, 1998 (01:24) * Riette, I hate it when I do that. The man is performing within his abilities and I'm Holding it against him. Topic 20 of 21 [sex]: Your biggest turn on Response 54 of 55: Riette Walton (riette) * Wed, Dec 2, 1998 (11:26) * As long as you don't get angry - it will sort itself out at some point, I'm sure. Topic 20 of 21 [sex]: Your biggest turn on Response 55 of 55: Tim Guenther (TIM) * Wed, Dec 2, 1998 (12:09) * Yes, Riette, that's the point exactly. __________________________________________________________ Here's a possible response that could have occurred: wer: Tim, I'm glad you said why you felt somebody totally missed the boat. You felt it was because we were talking about your church, and because it wouldn't make any difference if we were talking about any other church, unless they have the same belief in confession. I really only said what I said to you because I thought it would be cool if there was still a way you could do with Riette what she suggested, so I suggested that there are priests in Christianity, because maybe there was a church you could go to in Austin that would be okay with you, and you could still do that confession to a priest just as Riette said, after all. Tim: That sounds different now from how I first heard it. I made some negative assumptions about your response and I didn't test them out by asking you whether you also felt it was true that we were talking about just my church. Riette, you made the statement that wer and I don't like each other. That felt like an assumption that you did not check out with either wer or me. How come? If you had, it might have been a real effective way to learn if your assumption is true or not. I do like wer and I feel he likes me. There are times when we misunderstand each other's statements, but we both like each other. Maybe that's how wer was with you, too, at your arrival here at Spring. In fact, it often happens that we like a person quite a lot and our feeling for them goes into why that feeling we make our assumptions with is as strong as it is, except we so often don't test out our assumptions with the person we make them about, and we often don't illustrate what we mean by them or really give ourselves much of a chance to be the friend we all say we want us all to remember is so good to be. Riette: Okay, but I wish that the first time around that wer had anticipated how easily it was gonna be for you to interpret the way you did what you thought he meant in his response. I wish he had somehow worded what he said differently. I assumed he was trying to sound, um, sort of undermining in some way, like he was holding something against you and that he wasn't saying what it was. On the other hand, it's nice to know what he was really feeling and I'm glad he was so easily forthcoming about it, even though you worded what you said to him the way you did. wer: Perhaps the other things I've said elsewhere to you that has made you upset with me, Riette and Tim, were also looking like this first looked like to you: ***"There's priests in Christianity... there just may not be any in your denomination..."*** I'm sincerely sorry my wording sounded as bad to you as it did. Is it possible you can hear me when I say to you, I like you guys? I mean it. I am learning from you and I'm glad we could manage to have this little conversation. How are you feeling? _______________________________________________________ So anyway, that's my first play. It needs some more scenes that can go with, and follow, that scene. Are we going to go to our very own theater stage and see how they play out? And I guess what I'm saying, too, is that there's stuff that goes on in human nature that has like a causal theory that goes with it, something like: Is this of any help? No? That's okay.....I know I don't do this very well. Wish I could actually do some of that good communication stuff well. I always crap out, though. I talk too much for one thing. And lotsa other things. I'm not hopeless, but progress is slow. Oh well.

Here's the part again that didn't all transmit with the above response: And I guess what I'm saying, too, is that there's stuff that goes on in human nature that has like a causal theory that goes with it, something like:

Last attempt---hope it works this time: And I guess what I'm saying, too, is that there's stuff that goes on in human nature that has like a causal theory that goes with it, something like:

And I guess what I'm saying, too, is that there's stuff that goes on in human nature that has like a causal theory that goes with it, something like:

And I guess what I'm saying, too, is that there's stuff that goes on in human nature that has like a causal theory that goes with it, something like: If someone produces unillustrated evaluations or assumptions, whoever receives the evaluations or attributions will not know the basis of them unless they are illustrated, by specifying what exactly the receiver said or did, and then interactively testing out the assumptions by explaining why the assumptions were derived from the receiver's statements or actions, and then by checking out how valid the attribution seems to the receiver of the attribution. The receiver of unillustrated, untested evaluations will feel bewildered and misunderstood. He or she may therefore react defensively (unless they are afraid or prefer to be dependent on the evaluator).

If we were dealing with an isolated incident here, and only an attack on me, I could agree with you a little. I could overlook the fact that the response was totally inappropriate for the discussion. I could call it an honest mistake. But the attacks have been continuous and made with considerable finesse, so that it is hard to look at one occurrence and call it an attack, however, if you look at all the responses made by wer and ray prior to 0000 thursday, and After the 10th of november, and look at the new topics started by them during that time, a true and ugly picture emerges. So, Jim look at all the topics in screwed, sex, food, art, philosophy, music, restaurants, porch, science, environment, austin, vc, education, web, and computer. look at how often responses were inappropriate when dealing with Riette or myself. As against dealing with anyone else. Look at the new topics created in screw during that time. Inappropriate? Maybe not. Excessive? definitely. One more thing. Riette is not the only person to leave the conferences for this reason. Kristin left for the same reason. Had a problem with the same people. Now we have a mutually exclusive situation here. Neither Riette nor Kristin want to be a part of conferences with wer and ray. So, either we have Riette and Kristin or we have wer and ray, Now, we don't actually have this choice because wer and ray are entrenched here. However, if we got rid of wer and ray, and brought Riette and Kristin back, I think we'd have a lot more discussion going on than there has been the last two days.

well for heaven's sake, i just dont know what to say. i am completely flabbergasted by all of this. i *never* intended for anyone to be hurt by anything i have written here, but apparently i fucked up somewhere along the way. i am totally, totally at a loss to explain any of this. ask and you shall recieve, tim. i shall not be signing on anymore to the Spring. the nature of ASCII based communication is such that i really do not have the time to spend worrying about how some will misinterpret what i say and write. i live on the Well and on Rheingold's Brainstorms community as well, so i will still be in cyberspace, as i have been for the past 20 yrs. my email is rlopez@texas.net in case anyone wants to keep in touch!

ENVIRONMENT topic 10 responses 9 and 19 real quickly

That was very helpful of you. I appreciate your being specific like that. It was just what I needed. I think I see, Tim, the kind of thing you're referring to: Topic 10 of 10 [environment]: global climate change Response 9 of 25: Ray Lopez (ratthing) * Wed, Nov 18, 1998 (16:22) * 13 your family may be lucky, or simply have a genetic predisposition to be better able to process the carcinogens in cigarette smoke. your small sample in no way negates what many years of research on many thousands of people indicates. your soft drink example is also poorly expressed. no one has everys said that "cyclamates cause cancer." exposure to them may up the chances of getting cancer, but the issue of causation is too complex for anyone to make any strong claims straightout. same goes for smoking. _________________________________________________________ The way Ray says "in no way negates" and "your soft drink example is also poorly expressed" felt to me to be somewhat contentious. The "in no way negates" may be true, but I was feeling Ray was in debate mode, not dialogue mode. __________________________________________________________ Topic 10 of 10 [environment]: global climate change Response 19 of 25: Ray Lopez (ratthing) * Fri, Nov 20, 1998 (11:53) * Vaccines The microprocessor Longer lifespans Satellite commo Better weather prediction electricity tv remotes radio so what's your point? you still have not specified any good reason why you hate me and my kind so much. is it because science is not perfect? i challenge you to identify one human endeavor that is. in your post above, you present a mishmash of products, some are bad, some good, but why blame science for all of this? you are entitled to your opinion, of course. and you can pull a kaczynski if you want, withdraw from technology, and live in a shack in montana. i just dont think is is very polite to go spouting off about how bad and stupid a certain group of people are just because your life has been inconvenienced, especially since you seem to be ill-informed about the ways of science. your black and white view of things will not work here. ________________________________________________________________ The "so what's your point?" "hate" "mishmash" "pull a kaczynski" "withdraw from technology, and live in a shack in montana" "spouting off" "bad and stupid" "you seem to be ill-informed about" "your black and white view" "will not work here" are wordings that feel antagonizing and undermining, to different degrees. ______________________________________________________________ Topic 10 of 10 [environment]: global climate change Response 15 of 25: Tim Guenther (TIM) * Thu, Nov 19, 1998 (13:07) * 3 Scientists, by their irresponsible rantings, are messing with my life, indirectly, but still a pest. Part of the problem is that scientists refuse to take responsibility for the results of their actions. ________________________________________________________________ "their irresponsible rantings" "messing with my life" "pest" and "refuse to take responsibility" are wordings about scientists that feel contrary and counteractive. Since Ray invests alot of himself into being a scientist, for him to hear someone express theirself negatively toward science will tend to make him bristle, right? Would that be in some way similar to if someone were to speak negatively of your church, and raising your ire? Even after that, he felt good enough about you and Riette to say what he said right after you two in "Crosby, Stills and Nash", in Response 43. That made me feel he appreciates being able to engage himself in enjoyable, divulging conversation with you. An act of sharing. Tim, you're a guy who has a lot to say about alot of things, and in a situation like that, you're bound to run into different points of view from others. When that happens, both you and they move into more of a debate way of relating to each other, as you all get more and more personally invigorated and self-invested in the force of meaning the subject matter matters to all of you. Not always, y'know, but it happens. Could I suggest a whole different approach? In the cooperative-and-community spirit of love thy neighbor and the golden rule, how do you feel about being the one who takes the initiative, the first step in that other better direction of regeneration and understanding? Can any of us begin to understand the nature of human mistakes? Aren't we all fallible? Could it be that I'm goofing up, and/or have goofed up here, as much as anyone? Sure. I see mistakes being made. We're just so far from being perfect. The heart can understand these sorts of things. We could be working with each other on it. Helping each other to see how the effect we have on each other leads to very apparent consequences. Separative thinking and viewing the other as attacker and enemy is colliding head-on with disharmony and upset. It's a malfunction. You need to feel that it's necessary, though, because of the circumstances, and how you perceive them.....it's understandable. When I attribute to people here that they may be attacking me, I get very specific about it. I say when you said this, was that an attack or what was it something else? I have gotten third party responses to my question that were very helpful. It's never what I quite expect to hear. I see how I do need to keep my mind much more open than I do. I'm way too judgmental with my rushes to judgment about what someone said, what they meant, their intent, and my resulting negative image of them. I look at them, focus on them, and I forget how attack-oriented my accusations could sound to them when I accuse them of attacking me. I think, "Whoa, I sure didn't reflect very much on how to say that when I put those words together and let them have it, did I?" So how can I word things differently, to be more constructive and win/win, and caring, considerate? Here's a possible way for you to talk it out: "Wer and Ray (of course he's gone now, but anyway), could we have a conversation about something that's really been on my mind? Yes? Great! This won't be easy for me to say to you, but, I'm really being affected by certain things that you say to me from time to time. [you give them some samples of exchanges you had with them, so they can be informed with valid information and therefore less bewildered or flabbergasted] When you said [a sentence Wer said] and [a sentence Ray said] they really stung....I felt insulted and attacked because I felt you were berating me. I know it's important for your understanding to know how I could feel that to be berating, so let me explain it to you a little [you briefly explain it to them]. Thanks for being so kind as to listen me out on this. Can we have a conversation about it? I am quite interested in what your reactions will be. I respect them. Do you feel affected by me and the way I word things when I do my responses here at Spring? I've had some great interactions with you since I've been here, so I know you guys are two people I can really like. But we really have to begin to see eye-to-eye on how we can relate better. I have an idea on how we can actually learn from each other about how to do just that. Like this---let's take these sample responses I collected here, of stuff all three of us have said, and craft new wordings of them that contain our own recommended ways of saying them that we are all satisfied with. What do you say? That way we can get a little practice at it and who knows, it could turn out to be quite productive." So anyway, Tim, that's what I saw and felt out past the fields and trees where the transitions lie in wait, on our mother-earth-favored walk together. How much of this do you differ with? Almost all of it? Your anger is formed?...you're set in your stance? However you feel, I'm interested. This was just another prototype, suggestion, experiment for you to consider in your own way.....among the many other things you consider in the gates of night as the birds take flight and you're feelin' your appetite.

Jim, I believe actions speak louder than words. I am still looking for something concrete that will show me that I was mistaken. It's not there. when Riette was here, wer and ray were active in several conferences. They made replies to areas where I was talking to Riette, and to other people. a lot of these replies rubbed me the wrong way. I took that as an attack. Right or wrong, that was my perception. Riette was also fielding replies that I considered to be less than civil. I'm glad that you looked where I told you to look. Now consider this: I never made any statement to the effect that I never intended to hurt anybody. That is because I did intend to hurt, on several occasions, people I perceived as attacking me. Ray, however, DID say that he never intended to hurt. Look at the statements in the sample you looked at. Does it look like he did not intend to hurt? I think not. So, here is a perfect example of a lie. During this discussion, he repeatedly and deliberately insulted me, questioning my educational level, my sanity, my political views, inferring that I was some kind of nut. This is the sort of discussion he would not DARE to have with me face to face. I eventually realized that argueing with him was like wrestling a pig in the mud. You get nowhere, and you realize that the pig enjoys it. I hold educated people to a higher standard than those that may not have been to college. I expect some tolerance of conflicting views. I at least expect my VIEWS to merit discussion. That never happened here. Ray Ignored my views and started attacking my education level first, and never even considered that my view had any merit whatsoever. If I had been responding to him to start this discussion, I would have been a little more tolerant. However, I was responding to someone else and ray just charged in, completely derailing the original discussion. It was this pattern that I saw repeated nearly every couple of days. Maybe I am ignorant. I just consider charging into a discussion and changing the subject, to be impolite.

I value this response of yours very much, Tim. It's nice to see your views on inappropriateness. We've looked at some hard evidence, and we've both commented on what our interpretations of it was. That's so crucial in enabling another person to understand what we really mean by words like "attack" "impolite" "hurt". That's quite a step up from saying there are 3 males who know who they are and have been attacking me excessively. It looks like we both value valid information once it's made available. I also appreciate your being forthcoming on this other important point you made: ______________________________________________________________ "Now consider this: I never made any statement to the effect that I never intended to hurt anybody. That is because I did intend to hurt, on several occasions, people I perceived as attacking me. Ray, however, DID say that he never intended to hurt. Look at the statements in the sample you looked at. Does it look like he did not intend to hurt? I think not. So, here is a perfect example of a lie." __________________________________________________________________ To me, what you say there seems accurate, except for the inference that Ray was lying. He may have been lying. But he may have not had that example (in the Environment topic) in mind at all when he said that he didn't intend to hurt. Upon re-examining his responses, he may feel that they aimed to hurt you, at certain points, even though at the same time he may also say to you something like, "Tim, I see quite clearly, from your helpful responses here about your reaction to what I said there, that I did hurt you. It wasn't my intention to do that, and all I can say is I definitely feel I made a mistake, I got too wrapped up in the heat of the debate and, yes, I could have worded things much much better. Your pointing this out to me is going to be significant for me. I'm sincere in saying this to you, I think I can do better and I will try because I want to and because I can see better now just how my choice of words would have the effect on you they did. I had apologized to you about the Kazinsky (sp.?) thing, and now I want to say to you that I'm sorry about my other wordings in there that were not courteous. I said them not to hurt you, but to show you that the things you said confused me and didn't make sense to me---that's just how I talk when I want a person to try harder to make sense to me---I apply verbal pressure like that--- but I'm getting something of a grasp on it, with this feedback, and yes maybe probably really subconsciously I may have been trying to hurt you." Tolerance does have something to do with allowing another person to talk on their terms and then proposing to them, cordially, another perspective and seeing how they respond to it. I thought Ray was doing rather well with that approach at the beginning of the topic, his earlier responses. Then he didn't do as well with tolerance after that. His first entry was to get clarification on 2 terms you were using with Terry ("scientific double-talk" and "irrefutable evidence" or something like that). Don't you regard that as a helpful thing to do? Did you mean "charging in" to mean after that point sometime? I should go back and look (I'm a little lazy, sorry), but was it you who brought up smoking as an example to explain something, so would Ray have been following your lead by replying to that? So was he really changing the subject? It's true that Ray could've said what he said, and then said something about the topic, too, or said something like "hey I know we're off-topic, everybody, so reply with something that is back on topic whenever you want, just come on in here if you have something to say." But wouldn't it be true that everything you guys were talking about throughout that topic in all your responses actually did have to do with global warming, in the sense that the question of what science is and does, and what refutable evidence really is, plays in quite heavily on how we can talk about climate changes (if there are any changes)? And is it possible that, if you liked Ray, that the getting-off-topic would have been not looked at as because of Ray, but would've been looked at as "well that happens all the time, and anyone at any time can bring it back on topic---in fact, we often respond to more than one thing in a single response, like the off-topic thing in one paragraph, and the on-topic thing in another paragraph". I thought the points you were making were cool. And so were Ray's. I've often been wondering what people mean when they go on about global warming---I've wondered if they are using it as an outlet to vent how irresponsible they feel the powers-that-be are, and maybe they do that to have a scapegoat, a target to aim their frustrations at, to just feel better. I liked seeing the back-and-forth give-and-take on science and hard evidence It was a good one, or could've been.....the potential was being partially realized. As you know, I prefer dialogue over debate. I really would like to talk with you about tolerance, though, Tim. I feel that Ray is quite amenable to meriting the other person's input he's having a conversation with. Seen him be rather kind and resourceful in that situation a number of times. What helps that to happen with Ray, I think, is to resist the urge to move the conversation into debate/arguing formats. If he feels befriended, and there's more sharing and supportive giving going on on the feeling level, he has a big heart and can be disagreed with very cleanly, very nicely. How do you feel about this: that combining advocacy with inquiry enables tolerance to be a more likely occurrence? If we advocate something, and then include some inquiry, then that is more effective in facilitating good healthy conversations than just advocacy alone. The inquiry part of it does something vital to help things between people. By inquiry I mean where I encourage the other person and myself to question what I'm saying, and what they're saying. I could say "how do you feel about this, Ray?" -or- "did I leave something out, Tim?" -or- "do you see some holes in my logic, WER?" It's a way of acknowledging that, like Newton, like anybody, all I perceive is just the equivalent of a grain of sand on the beach. I know, Newton said knowledge, not perception. But our perceptions are especially open to fallibility. Another aspect of tolerance that I like is: to say to someone that what they just said, has hurt me and here is my reason for why what they just said, has hurt me. To say that to someone in a nonjudgmental use of words makes it more possible for them to relate back to me in kind. It's constructive, it's productive. That way they know specifically what I'm referring to when I say to them how they are affecting me. Being specific and having an example really clues a person in. And to do that with friendly understanding, with all attack modes turned off, makes it easier by far for the other person to be receptive and to go forward with me in engaging in some problem-solving around the matter at hand. How does that sound to you? It's similar to what you're doing with me. I kinda liked how you said "maybe I'm ignorant", in your last line, above, because it meant to me that you were giving yourself some window out of your current views. Maybe you had a different meaning for it. And it didn't mean to me that you are ignorant (naturally, you certainly aren't) I like to be able to step out of my view, through those kind of windows, and see what other evidence there is to come upon, besides the stuff I'm currently basing my view on. Open-mindedness, the learning attitude. I'm trying to think how I can best word something I wish I could probe together with you. It strikes me as crucial. And it has to do with: "....a lot of these replies rubbed me the wrong way. I took that as an attack. Right or wrong, that was my perception.....I did intend to hurt, on several occasions, people I perceived as attacking me." Like I said, it's good to know your thinking on this. Is it good to attack in this situation that we have here in Spring? Wouldn't attacking someone make it more difficult for them to be receptive to your reality? It would enable them to experience your anger in a form that wants to fight. Right? And that is your reality, right? But would they then be very likely to be receptive to understanding? Does attacking someone effectively encourage learning and relating? Would it help Spring? Would it help or hinder bringing about a change from how things are now to how things could be if they were better? Wer is still here. Is he the only one you are having a problem with? If there is another person besides Wer, here, who has been rubbing you the wrong way, wouldn't a conversation with them, like we're having right now, be of value to you and them, and Spring? Especially when emotions are agitated or upset or strained, it's important for people to engage in conversation that is tolerant, insightful, emotionally reassuring. Do you think that Wer can genuinely respect you and possibly understand your reasoning, thereby be able to relate to you in a way that could be all right with you? That is, after you've had some good conversations about your biggest concerns? And where he receives from you in these conversations a certain kind of receptivity where you merit hearing and wanting to see better how his reasoning and feeling work together in his perceptions and responses? "I am still looking for something concrete that will show me that I was mistaken." When I read that, I was thinking that the mistake might be more the kinda thing where you might have mistaken their mistakes as being more severe than they were, but that you wouldn't find that out until you had some satisfying conversations with them about how their perceptions work with how they write stuff out. It could even turn out that the nature of their mistakes was much more indirect, much more inadvertant, than how they came across to you..... depending, in degree, on the particular response being considered. For example, what if it turned out that what Wer said to you (about how Riette could get her wish if the confession could happen in a church that had a priest) was totally innocent. How would you find that out, that it was innocent? It seems to me that Wer is brilliant at figuring out alternatives or other ways that things can be done or looked at. I've seen him do it a zillion times. If he had been reading your responses in there, yours and Riette's about the wish and confession, and he just wanted to sound out to you guys a way it could be done, it could've been that that was all there really was to it: he just wanted to break it to you, his solution to the puzzle. Then, at that point in time, after he read your next reactions, your reactions might have scared him or something. He may have been shaken by your response, as it might have felt like an attack on him, a misunderstanding of large proportions, too big for him to really deal with very well. He might have had that kinda personal dilemma in mind when he responded to Riette one time when he said to her that the things in his responses have been sounding altogether different in his head than they have been taken by you and her, as they come out. By calling that only an excuse, Riette may not have been using tolerance. Wer may feel it threatening to talk under non-tolerant conditions. So might you, or anyone. Wer has apologized to both of you---though apologies, of course, are never enough, but they are a start, definitely in the right direction, no? He and you and anyone might feel it okay to talk about this kinda very difficult stuff to talk about, if it was felt that the exchange would be under tolerant listening-sharing conditions. Only mutual tolerance can work, eh? Can I ask you something about that conference, "Screwed"? Is it that you're cool with razzing people, teasing, poking fun, laughing at yourself, etc. etc.? And you do that alot with, for example, someone like Riette, right? I don't see how she could live unless it was okay to do that, heh-heh. But is it that, under the current conditions, you're not in the mood? And is it that, under the current conditions, any mention of you in "Screwed" is totally regarded by you as an attack on you, if it is done by the "three males"? I'll stop for a moment. What is your reaction? Am I making sense?

Yes, Jim you make a lot of sense. Riette and I could poke fun at each other, without anger, because we always made sure that our statements weren't taken seriously. This happened only rarely with other people. Also we responded to each other more than 50 times a day, and only a small portion of that time were we poking fun at each other. In the case of the responses that were attacking me 80 percent or better of each person's responses were poking fun. You can see where the situation is different. Yes Jim, any response that pokes fun at me right now, is an attack. specially if it occurs in screwed. After four months have passed, I will consider myself fair game again. Maybe before that. Right now, however, it is an attack. It makes no difference how it is intended. I am too raw, and too angry to respond any other way. There is only one person that could poke fun at me, without it being taken the wrong way, and she is no longer with us.

Tim, take care with this response---it's going to go in a bit of a different and maybe strange direction. In this topic, and not just here, I am seeing sides of you I like. But I am also seeing other sides of you I don't like. Do you see sides of me you don't like? I see sides of Wolf I don't like. Sides of Terry, Wer, Ray, Autumn, Mike, Stacey, Charlotte, George, Tommy, Nick, Riette that I don't like. Sides of them I do like. The ways I like and don't like people's sides affect my behavior with those people. And I'm lousy alotta the time at reciprocating. Somebody will respond to, say, some poem I might write, and then there's no response from me to their response. Non-reciprocating from me happens in lotsa other ways too. There are some people I just haven't related to: Wer, Nick, George, Mike, Wolf, Tommy, Terry. There are some I have: Riette, Autumn, Stacey, Charlotte, Tim. The ones I've related to, they have sides to them that I don't like. And sides I do like. The likes and dislikes affect my behavior toward them. I've had problems with Wolf that bother me as far as how I don't know what's the matter with me that I keep getting in the way of myself regarding her. When I say I haven't related to the ones I haven't, I mean there wasn't a rapport that caught on with me and them. But I do like them. Why is that, that I haven't related to the ones I haven't? Because of their ways of talking or ways of thinking or ways of being. Something about those ways didn't appeal to me somehow. What I'm really talking about here now are my prejudices, my discriminations. My prejudices affect my behavior: I can be bitchy or guarded or interrogative or doctrinaire or overexacting or playful in a way that just isn't that cool, etc., when I'm responding from within my negative prejudices. I've said things to people here that I've regretted. They were mistakes. They occurred when I reacted to some side of them that I was prejudiced against. There are sides to Riette that I'm prejudiced against. We have had lotsa interactions, and my prejudices affected some of my responses toward her that I've regretted. Same with Charlotte and Wolf. Just off the top of my head those three came to mind. There have been others. The people who I haven't related to, I haven't been very welcoming to, for the same reasons. If they had been new people, I would've been deplorable as a welcomer towards them. Now when I look at you, Tim, I see sides that I don't like. Sides I do. Same with me---sides of me I like and don't like. The sides of you I don't like, are a result of my judgmental assumptions that are negative and prejudiced. They affect my verbal behavior toward you. If I had been more involved in Spring and interacted with you more, those prejudices I have about the sides of you that I don't like, um, those prejudices could have entered into behavior I could have used on you, behavior that would have been read by you as attacking you, and, of course, as not welcoming you. Those are the 2 biggies that you and Riette brought to our attention as the reason things went so bad that Riette had to leave: not welcoming you and attacking you and Riette. Was it that Riette felt attacked or just that she felt horrible that you were feeling attacked and that everyone seemed to be acting bitchy? What are the sides of you that my prejudices dislike and that could've eventually had me lapsing into behaviors you would've read as attacking? These aren't some of your sides, they are "sides" of you created by my subjective prejudices: 1) you swept Riette off her feet 2) you have done so many things and you know so much and you kept talking about it 3) I was afraid you were going to get political on me with any reponse I might try with you 4) your views seem so often to be so strong and extreme 5) your way of responding seemed kinda tough-guy-ish, and oversure itself 6) your way of being direct didn't seem to be aware of how it would feel to be on the receiving end of that directness 7) you oversaturated Spring with your responses 8) you were having an affair with Riette over a large canvass of responses/topics 9) I felt out of the mood to enter into the 'Food Fight' topic to get something going because what was going on in there were all these nice charming playful replies you were having with Riette 10) you seem to take good care of your ego so that it was very much there but also trying to merge with its surroundings (the people and things at Spring) 11) you said Riette's name in almost every one of your replies Those 11 things were getting on my nerves about you. They were my prejudices, errors, like #7 was one of my subjective mistakes affecting my perception of you. I couldn't see you because of my prejudices--meaning I couldn't take you in or see you objectively for who you are as a person. They formed an image about you that kept me away. This is how far I've fallen as a person. This is how judgmental I am. It affects my behavior, my responses, and how they would be read as attacking, by you, if I'd had the opportunity or been in position where I'd have lapsed into saying too inappropriate stuff to you. Things I like about you: 1) your amiability 2) that you drive a truck 3) that you've been around 4) that you're 42 5) that you really hang in there 6) your mind for detail and evidence 7) your wide interests 8) your energy level 9) little need for little more than 4 hours of sleep per day 10) you seem to have a real openness to life 11) you gave Riette that sunshine called Tim So what is the point of this response? It's that thing on top of my head. It's that negative subjective prejudices do exist, they are there, they do happen. They inevitably determine behavior. There will be lapses, is what I mean. It doesn't mean that Riette is a not-good person just because she lapses on occasion. It doesn't mean I am or you are or anyone else is. We are not our behavior. Our behavior is part of who we are. But these lapses occur in our perception of other's behaviors, as much as how these lapses occur in their behaviors per se. While it's difficult to present hard evidence that a person is not really attacking you when they say such and such, it's difficult to present hard evidence that they are attacking. The evidence is key. It's a starting place we shouldn't pass over. It can provide much learning, as much about how the "attacked" person's perceptions work as about the behaviors themselves and the wide variety of possible intentions behind those behaviors. Two things are definitely hard evidence. One is that people actually did say what is there in their responses in print. And the other one is that people did feel certain feelings when they read each other's responses. I know, it's debatable that a feeling can be considered hard evidence. So what I mean is that I trust that you felt anger and felt attacked when you say you felt those feelings. Likewise, I trust that each one of us has feelings that we can be honest about in our sharing of them with each other. And the hard evidence, if it can be called that, of what their true feelings (and reasoning) actually were, that can only really emerge in a joint effort where those involved come together and share what they feel actually took place inside them and outside them. You can provide your hard evidence, but I can't provide theirs. Only they can, which takes having a conversation with who among them is available. If someone tries to kill me, it could be a case of mistaken identity, which can only be found out after me and the other get together and talk it out, at which point I learn they weren't really trying to hurt me, they were trying to hurt someone else (but yes, they were trying to hurt my body, but not me). Similarly, all sorts of contingencies may come out in a conversation about whether someone was trying to be hurtful, and these contingencies, some of which may bear a degree of responsibility that is yours, can only have a chance of satisfactorily emerging in a conversation that is productive and friendly and learning-oriented between the parties actually involved in the problem. I think it's possible for people who are having problems to share their feelings with each other. I think it can happen in a way where some difficult questions come up, like, for instance: "Yeah, but if I felt attacked when you said that, how could you have been just feeling what you said you were feeling?" They can say why that would be so. And then they might say that in this other response, they were feeling these other feelings, though, that led to them saying something to you where it was a true lapse on their part. However, clearly, they may engage you with this little caveat: that your behavior may have been a contributing factor in their lapse, while also agreeing, depending on the particular instance, that your behavior was not the only factor, and may have been a relatively smaller factor than their lapse itself. Tim, can I ask you this, it's something I started wondering about: If the people at, or who were at, Spring, who were causing problems for you, if they were to be okay with you again, what would that entail on their part? What sort of behavior on their part would make you feel that you are feeling okay toward them? Is it just that as you engage in responses with them, you will simply see whether they act friendly and respectful toward you without any kind of hurtful or attacking or impolite or inappropriate responses? And if they lapse? And if you lapse into perceptions that they are lapsing, when you can't be sure they are, yet you feel sure they are? I ask that, because you know what still hasn't happened yet? There hasn't yet been a civil and thorough conversation between you and those you attribute having attacked you. True, Ray is not here. But what about Wer? Do you feel not ready to have a talk like that with him, about the difficulties you have had and that he has had as a result of your difficulties? Do you feel a talk like that is undesirable or not necessary? Do you feel it'd be okay if it were somehow mediated or if it could include others here at Spring? I do wish people could somehow talk these kinds of things out when they happen, and without becoming emotionally embroiled in each other's responses, while listening with interest and with objective perception to the other's emotions and reasoning. I take to the prospect of people being able to go into the heart of the matter and coming out better people for it, learning from each other and gathering within themselves a newfound respect and appreciation for the other person's nature and temperament. To be able to discuss the undiscussable, the hard to talk about, the really vulnerable points in one's difficulties with another, and to attribute to the other person(s) a high capacity for self-reflection and self-examination without their becoming so upset that they lose their effectiveness and their sense of self-responsibility and choice, and to keep testing this attribution, is a better alternative than to defer to the wait-and-see approach that doesn't genially, generously and constructively confront the other's reasoning and actions. Those 11 things that my negative prejudices came up with, uh, Tim, uh, if you would like, look, I've got this idea......you know the Texas pretty good, right?, well, I could ride with you in your truck out to a place of your choosing, some place that's really outta the way, desolate, and with pick and shovel I'd be glad to dig a nice deep long hole, then get down in it and let you drive a stake through my heart, and then just go ahead and cover the dumb body all up. I'll be outta the way, really for good. But those 11 things weren't meant to arouse hard feelings. Give me your 11 things about me (it'd be feedback I'd take in stride as interesting perceptions, or prejudices, about me that are true, from reality, your reality). Riette once said something.......what was it?, something like: "if you're angry at me, say so, at least I'll know that way that it's there (the anger)." You once said that your real friends tell you what they think is wrong when they think you're doin' somethin' wrong. My 11 things weren't angers or wrongs, they were my own regrettable prejudices. I just thought my prejudices related to their perception of your wrongs and to the angers Riette signalled for, in a way that might be meaningful to you. They related, but are completely different things. Oh well, I'm off.....sorry for bein' so Jim. Write! Gimme yer impressions. Don't hold nuttin' back. Let me have it.

Jim let me start with this. I am not responsible for the manners or lack thereof posessed by any adult, unless I taught that individual while they were in my charge. One other thing before I get into the depth of my discussion here: I'm 43 not 42. That being said, let's go on. Jim, you have a lot more tolerance than I do. If someone tries to kill me, I'll never know if it was a case of mistaken identity, because they will either succeed, or I will kill them. Nobody gets a second try at my life. There is no reason for dialog. I live in a world that is good or bad. If it is not good, it is bad. no reasons are needed here, no talk it is or it isn't. Clear cut, simple. On your 11 negative things, I agree with all but three. #7, that I oversaturated Spring with responses. I responded to less than 25% of the topics in Spring. #9, Why aren't you in food fight now? I'm not. #11, that I put Riette's name in almost every response. That was because I was responding to Riette. I was having a problem at that point with people picking my responses apart before Riette got back to them. Putting her name on a reply flagged it ,so that it was easier for her to see.

I'm having a problem, Tim, understanding something now. You're saying you're not responsible for someone else's manners. That makes sense. Yet your manners can have an effect on a person. Let's say that manners includes choice of words and includes being receptive to another person's confusion or frustration in understanding you. You may not want to say that you should feel responsible for being attuned to how another person is taking what you're saying. But what if it's somebody who you care about a lot? What if you notice their mistaking what you're saying for something you're not saying, wouldn't you want to say, "I'm sorry I gave you that impression, that was not my intention. Here's what I meant." Don't you do that with people? I have seen that response from you. And it felt like you were feeling responsible for doing well at understanding how the other person was taking what you were saying. You may not agree with how I'm saying it? or putting it? I'm assuming that when you wrote: "There is no reason for dialog. I live in a world that is good or bad. If it is not good, it is bad. no reasons are needed here, no talk it is or it isn't. Clear cut, simple." .....I'm assuming that you were not referring to just a killer who's after you, that you were referring to anyone? If dialogue means to talk something out, wouldn't you be willing to do that with your son, or an adult you respect and trust? If you did mean that you would not dialogue, did you mean you would not dialogue with someone whose manners you feel are hurtful toward you and attacking? Is it that that's the situation when you would not dialogue, or all situations? Or are you saying it's a matter of your choice, as in you'll dialogue if you choose to? Since you're dialoguing with me, I can assume you will dialogue if you choose to. So what you're saying is that you will not dialogue under certain conditions, right? Can I assume that your meaning is that you will not dialogue with anyone whose manners you feel are inappropriate toward you? What I'm driving at is that your manners (including choice of words and being aware of the effect you're having on someone) could be affecting the other person's manners. For example, I wrote a response or two earlier in this topic that Riette reacted to where she said something like "Why are we getting so PERSONAL and bitchy?" I could listen to her and consider my manners (as in my choice of words, my intent, and whether I cared about the effect I was having on Riette). If I felt like I was getting to her in ways that were counterproductive, and I felt I could also maybe do something about it that I wouldn't mind doing and would be something that might feel to me to be for the better, then I could make the adjustments in my manner to more productively accommodate her manner, her temperament or state of mind, her needs. If I see someone being what I feel is bitchy, do I give up on them? Did it seem like Riette gave up when she did that response? Or was she not giving up and instead attempting to continue dialoguing while mentioning something that was bothering her about the manners she was running into? How are you understanding this stuff I've been saying here, Tim? Am I communicating? Does it sound like I'm misunderstanding you?

Manners are the result of upbringing. I have dialog only with people I can trust to tell the truth. Attacks merit defense. The best defense is a counterattack. I will trust someone to tell the truth until they prove me wrong. these are how I deal with acquaintances,for friends it's different. I am done discussing this with you, Jim.

as of today, i am back on the spring. this decision is the result of much discussion with terry, riette, wer, and others. i am gratified that everyone wanted me back. you too, jim. as for you, tim, well, you have a lot to learn about on-line conferencing and a lot of other things as well. if you do not want to learn, then don't, but don't expect your time here on the spring to be pleasant. as for me, i am more than willing to forget all of the negative and stupid things you have said here and to let bygones be bygones. as for that little crack you made above in response 116, that i have said things here that i would not dare say to you face to face, well, don't flatter yourself. the exchanges we have had here were nothing compared to exchanges i have had with others, online and face to face. i have walked into rooms full of antivivisectionists or fundamentalist Christians to debate things like animal rights and evolution, and have been physically attacked in spite of my size. i've had yelling matches with other scien ists at conferences, then had beers with them afterwards. i was a boxer and have walked into rings with other guys who hated my guts, and i theirs. i've had my ass kicked intellectually and physically more times than i care to admit, and i've kicked ass a couple of times. so there.

But how do we learn about online conferencing, Ray? If I want to learn about it with you and others, then how would I go about it? I was thinking that one of the first things to do is to help create an environment that is conducive to learning: a psychological environment that is encouraging of feedback and questioning, and that shows genuine respect for the other person or people. I wanted to ask you whether you felt you demonstrated that kind of creating in your response just now? This is my feedback, as I was noticing how I was feeling when I read your words: "as for you" and "stupid" and "so there" They seemed to me to lend themselves to an air or tone of taunting or "take that, Tim". They seemed to lend that tone to the other words in your response, to create an overall feeling that just wouldn't sound so encouraging to Tim. Having read your response above, Tim might feel something like this: if you were in a situation at a later time where you were agitated by something in one of his responses in the course of a discussion with him, he might feel that you may react in a way that's rather quick to not let bygones be bygones. I'm thinking it's important to get our points across to the other person, but to see how we can say it nonjudgmentally, in a way that doesn't sound like we want them to change because we said so. Having that unilateral sound in our wordings can be counterintuitive. We could be replicating the very thing about the other person that we want them to change in themselves. If we can inquire into our own meanings (to learn), one way to do that could be to ask the other person how they feel about what we just said, and be genuinely interested in their response. That creates an air, a tone, an atmosphere that is collaborative and very respectful......it feels inclusive to the other person. If we would truly like to see change for the better in all of us, I'm suggesting these things may be of some help to have in mind, especially when we sense there's tension building between us and someone else. Let me take a crack at it, and this time you can feed me back your impressions, like I did for you----starting with the second paragraph: _______________________________________________ "Online learning is not easy for any of us here at Spring, in my humble opinion. When we are out of the mood to learn, then we don't have to, but sometimes when that happens, it can make things pretty hard on those who feel the consequences. We have said some things to each other that are regretable and, I think, showed how much we are still oriented toward anti-learning behaviors. But that's just it, we can learn from those extremely rough experiences we had together. In Response 116 you said, approximately, that I wouldn't dare say to your face what I said elsewhere here at Spring. Tim, when I read that, I felt [nonjudgmental words describing the feeling] because [give your reason by wording it in a way that will not produce a defensive reaction in Tim]. The exchanges we have had here remind me of exchanges I have had with others, online and face to face, some of which were much worse than ours. I have walked into rooms full of antivivisectionists or fundamentalist Christians to debate things like animal rights and evolution, and have been physically attacked in spite of my size. I've had yelling matches with other scientists at conferences, then had beers with them afterwards. I was a boxer and have walked into rings with other guys who hated my guts, and I theirs. I've had my ass kicked intellectually and physically more times than I care to admit, and I've kicked ass a couple of times. I'm moving away more and more, hopefully, from the debate format and yelling and ass-kicking. I'm focusing on learning, and with a truly esteemed regard for the other person's sense of self, and I'm leaving behind tendencies and circumstances that head in the direction of altercations. One of the most important ways I'm learning to do that is to craft what I say so that I word it to have as minimal a defensive reaction in the other person as I can. Another way is to test any attribution I make of the other person, and to do that by wording the test or question in a way that is specific, objective and designed to reduce counterproductive consequences. All that helps learning, and I hope it helps me with you and everyone that hangs out here. I really do look forward to joining you again in this kind of effort for some exciting exchanges and conversations." __________________________________________________ In the spirit of learning, Ray, I ask you, what do you think of what I've said in this response? I really had a surge of good feeling come over me when I saw that you were back. Way to go!! It was so cool.

jim, my response above was not at all conducive to any sort of community building. it was a beginning sample in what TIM could have expected from me had he still been around and continued on his course of action. i think learning about living the on-line life is just like learning how to live in real life. you try something, assess its impact on others, and adjust fire from there. for example, i told terry and others over the last few days that i wanted tim to stay on the spring. i felt that he deserved a chance to change his ways and maybe learn some more constructive methods for having exchanges on line. just as in real life, there are prescribed ways for interacting on-line. the only way to learn those rules is to get out there and do it and learn from trial and error. those who fail to learn the rules or refuse to learn the rules will experience life differently from those who do. ettiquette and rules are what binds a community. when those rules don't work, the community breaks apart. we witnessed a good example of that here recently. now, in my own defense: taking the time to help someone learn the rules is not easy. it is kind of like raising a kid, or even a puppy. it takes work. i am not the guy for that, really. not only is my time very constrained, but i am also not that patient of a guy, though i am working on that. i am hoping to experience fatherhood here within the next couple of years so maybe all of that will change!

Hi Ray. Got a lot outta yer response. My suggestion, and it may be in error, is that if Tim were to continue along his course of action, I would like first of all to get clear with him on what that actually is. Once I'm clear there, I would ask him how that plays out in certain situations. Then I'd be more clear. Then I would talk over with him how I feel about his course of action and ask him how he feels about that. Once I was clear with him on that, I would begin asking him to investigate our meanings and reasonings, if certain discrepancies exist for me or him. For example, he and I may agree that he feels his course of action is to counterattack someone if he feels he's being attacked. He may feel that that may be the case because it may be that he feels someone is not acting toward him in an appropriate manner, again and again---and he then may feel that constitutes a person who, through their cumulative behavior, is attacking him when they say something to him that is perceived by him as inappropriate. Once that course of action is tested for understanding and gotten clear on by both of us (and hopefully by others in the community), then Tim can be communicated to about how that course of action sounds to anyone who wants to respond. At that point, I would present to Tim a question about a discrepancy I feel exists in the logic behind his course of action. So I would ask him this: "If you say that you determine that someone is attacking you without talking to them about it to check with them to see if it's true that they are attacking you, in a particular incident and cumulatively, and to check and see why they feel they are acting that way toward you, wouldn't that mean that you are being unfair and acting inappropriately? Isn't that unfair because it means that you are acting unilaterally according to your subjective perceptions only, and deciding for both of you? And, this is very important here, isn't it true that if you do talk to the other person about whether they attacked you, and you talk to them in a way that other people (in the listening community) would confirm is likely to cause a defensive reaction, rather than in a way that is appropriate, objective, and learning-oriented, that it will very likely induce in the other person a response that will resist or sound bewildered and therefore will be a counterproductive response? Isn't that being unfair?" I would bring that discrepancy up as me and Tim and hopefully others talk this out together. I have some reasons for not regarding this process as being patient with someone while "they learn" the "prescribed rules" of "etiquette". It's that I'm learning. I'm learning how to talk to someone in a win/win manner under difficult circumstances. A second reason is that, somewhere along the line, I may also be misunderstanding Tim's real intent or reasoning, and that by using care in my talking it out with him, I may be able to detect and correct my own error there. Another reason is that I also may discover something else that may be going on in me: I may find out that I had acted towards him in ways that I feel were breaking the "rules" of constructive interaction that I want to learn how to do in a community building way. Even if I reach a point where I'm clear about his course of action and I disagree with that course of action, I regard it as counterproductive to aggravate Tim with my way of talking to him about it at that point. I know that it's possible to be friendly while saying to someone that I believe their course of action to be disastrous. It would be then that I would simply present my perspective to the community and probably say what it implies as far as how I would react. I would talk it over with the community. I may feel it to be not useful for me to be in that community, if I had a choice, and if disaster simply seemed inevitable. What I'm also wanting to say is that, if your reasoning, Ray, is that you've made up your mind about Tim's course of action and what it implies to you, and therefore it feels okay to you to adjust fire by saying something to him in a way that will likely make him feel the inappropriateness/mistreatment continues, then aren't you using a form of counterattack in the defense of yourself against some possible attack that hasn't happened yet? Aren't you using the same reasoning that is contained in what you feel is his course of action, a course of action you're saying you regard as also so damaging to the community? Wouldn't saying what you said to Tim the way you did--- instead saying it in a community building way---wouldn't it contribute to the likelihood that he could read it and react defensively and thereby more likely get off on the wrong foot in any attempt that he might genuinely want to make to be a part of a Spring community-building effort? What I think is the case with people is that it's hard to have the patience it takes to learn. I don't think that it's a case of having the patience to teach someone else to learn what I want them to learn, but can't get them to learn, or haven't been able to, up to now. . I think Tim and you and I and all of us here at Spring, along with most everyone alive, have this tendency to make assumptions about someone who we might have a very difficult time with, and we decide it's them that's the problem. Meanwhile, they are reacting the way they are because, to a large extent, those most involved, and really everyone to some extent, could have responded much more constructively all along the way (in the weeks and days leading up to the state of siege, so to speak), if we only knew how to. We didn't. We can all learn from this. It's not just one person who needs to be shown the way. Am I wrong there? I also think emotions are being overlooked. Those things are so powerful. Some emotions make us feel insecure, so insecure that they (emotions) powerfully reach for and grab at self-protective reasonings that enable us to project onto the other person what is really stuff that we're doing, can't acknowledge it, and therefore don't take any responsibility for it, and instead place all that responsibility onto the perfect scapegoat (the other person). Emotions somehow seem to often prevent us from seeing just how fair it would be to own up to part of the responsibility for contributing to the problem. I hear you when you say you're pressed for time and that it affects your ability to be patient with giving guidance and direction to another person's development. And I'm hoping you don't feel that I am deliberately or inadvertantly testing your patience by saying all that I have here in this response, and saying it the way I did. I send you this because I'm interested in what you might notice that I'm missing the boat on in what you're saying. It's not inconceivable that you might feel that my response is a contribution to making the problem what it is. I don't disconfirm that, I would just like to see how. What I mean is, it just occurred to myself that I may very well be doing stuff right now, in other people's eyes, that seems like fanning the flames, y'know? I mean I also mean I may not be very good at this, not very constructive, and I may be rendering people insensible with my talk, or my talk may be unintentionally acting as a deterence to real learning. Do you feel I'm undermining you? Am I agitating you, annoying you? Am I challenging you?

no, not at all jim! i hear what you are saying and i like being challenged. i guess that one of the issues you raised above was quite salient, that of emotions. it is difficult to apply your otherwise sound reasonings to a situation where someone is just really pissed off. in the case of the interactions between me and tim, he was genuinely pissed off at scientists as a group, and had a very visceral response to anything smacking of scientism. on the other side, i had quite a strong response to what i perceived as a repulsive form of anti-intellectualism and prejudice. i do not know of many instances when putting together two visceral responses ever ended up in something constructive. my take on him was that he was absolutely not willing to learn anything new or discuss anything at all. i may be wrong on that (i hope so) but that is an assumption i was working under. also, to be honest, i really and truly do not believe that my responses to him in the environment conference were that bad. i have been involved with much worse interactions, and i thought i was being pretty tame. given how disgusted i was with his attitude, maybe i wasn't. i can tell you the next time someone shows up with an attitude like that, i will handle it differently, assessing first the other person's willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue.

I think that under those conditions, Tim was unwilling to talk as constructively as he could have. He has responded constructively to some pretty hard questions being asked of him under conditions that seemed less tense. Ray, would you agree with that? I was hoping for myself that the next time a person shows up with an attitude that is difficult for me to deal with, that I will be able to handle it constructively by assessing first both my and the other person's willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and then by following through wholeheartedly on some creative and generative tools for bipartisan growth. If I can actually do that, and I don't have my hopes up, because it's extraordinarily difficult to do, but if I can do that, then what I'd be doing is I would be putting two people together with viscerally opposed viewpoints, who are still able to see how the emotions can be defused through understanding, how the viewpoints can be seen to make sense, and how the differences can come to be seen by both people as valid. One thing that helps me in a situation like that, is to check with the other person to see if they feel like it's a very visceral experience for them, like it is for me. I also like to try to sound out to them what I feel their point of view is and asking them if I've got the gist of what they're saying. Just hearing me do that, is often a big help for them emotionally. What I like to do then, is say something like: since you feel that scientists are responsible for their theories or discoveries, in terms of the byproducts that result from their work, and since you are inconvenienced by those byproducts, it makes sense that you would reason that scientists are being irresponsible. I like to give reason to the other person's reasoning. It helps. They feel validated. Tension is released. What's being validated is that someone else is really seeing, calmly, what it is that they're feeling and thinking. I can remember and realize and reflect on how many times I've been confused or emotionally upset by what someone has said to me, and then was eventually able to come around to allowing their view to be a part of the reality I felt a need to get along with. A democracy and a learning community thrive on people being able to grant diversity and variety to their living environment, while each individual is still being able to be true to what their own perspective is. It can look demonic, what the other person is saying. It's amusing how we ourselves used to think, some years ago, and how it might now seem deplorable to us today. We invest our selves in our perspectives. When I'm hearing two people arguing, it's not that big a deal to me, emotionally, like it is to them, because I haven't got my self invested in their perspectives like they do. When we are so much a part of our perspective, then we start to notice things about that other perspective (the other person's perspective) that would want to challenge our perspective. Our emotions start to feel attitudes in the other person. Our emotions portray the other's attitudes. Their attitudes get portrayed by our emotions as something very base and vile, and deserving our contempt. The assumptions are pure certainty, going totally unchecked, untested. We don't need to test them---we know. We know what's right and what's true. So we keep it private, even when we say it out loud. Because when we make it public, we do it in an antagonising rather than genuinely inquiring way. That way it remains in it's self-sealing, private state of certainty. We can see this whole process going on inside us as it's happening. We can learn about how our minds work as it's going on. We can say to ourselves that something like this is going on in their mind, as well. We can identify with their powerful need to attitudinize, and see it as us too......us doing that, too. Then we can begin the real work. We can sense a need within to be constructive about this. We can give 'em a break, the benefit of the doubt. We can see what's goin' on, that we both have powerful needs surging through us, which will need equally powerful skills at seeing how to be objective at a time like this. We might notice something funny going on inside us. We feel they are tremendously prejudiced, but then we start to feel how that feeling we have about their prejudice is also a prejudice that's extremely prejudiced. Then we have one of those "omigod, am I lookin' in a mirror?" I suppose what I think is, that it comes down to this: if a person is arguing with me and they're showing lotsa attitude, I can have a tremendous affect on that attitude by taking away what it thrives on (and also what my attitude thrives on with other people). I can take away from them any antagonizing force coming at them from me. I can see how vitally important that one action is, on my part, if I can do it, if I've got the discerning wherewithal to pull it off. Through understanding my own attitudes and how they work when they get pumped, I can see how they (the attitudes) respond to experiments I might attempt in defusing them by simply wondering about them.....I can ask myself: Why am I getting so wrapped up in this? Isn't it inordinate? Aren't all these emotions relatively very unimportant? What were we really talking about? With some quieting down on the inside, I can ask the other person: gee, we sure are getting wrapped up in this, aren't we? ---[that's quite a different direction from debate/arguing] do you feel my attitude is reprehensible? ---[that gives the other person a chance to go, in their minds, "where did that come from?....hey I thought we were arguing....ya mean we're not?"] In other words, knowing how friction is escalating, there are a number of antidotes either person can try out that act effectively as defusers, allowing both people to reorient toward a sort of alleviated and composed focus on productive reasoning. Here's an example: "Would it be accurate to say that you have a strong dislike for scientists in general? All of them? Are there any you like? I just wanted to ask you about this because I regard myself as a scientist, and it hurt me alot when I read the part of your response that seemed to give scientists a tainted description. I was thinking it was like how it might be for you if someone were to be super-critical-sounding about something that means a lot to you and that you're quite sensitive about. I just wanted to help you also understand that I see that you have certain dislikes that are pretty strong, and that is true of us all, and I don't mean to deny you that at all. But I wonder, considering how we've been talking to each other, what would you say would be a way we could touch on something we haven't mentioned yet about this subject matter and that would be vital to some new congruent and cogent understandings? I feel that we have great potential to come across some pretty worthwhile notions and reflections and considerations together, and I want to get good at this with you. Do you feel something like that too?" That kinda thing is a possible direction to go in, to attempt to resurrect some good that can happen there, that moves strongly away from the currents of hyped attitudes and willful contempt for each other's arguments. But it's also important somewhere along the way to make an attribution about the other person's attitude. This must be done if the attitude is getting to us. But it has to be done completely constructively, objectively. It has to be presented in terms that we could call valid information. We need to refer to their words, the words that best exemplify the attitude that's getting to us. We need to speak in words that are intelligently constructed to reduce defensiveness in the other person's immediate reaction. In other words, we wouldn't want to use negatively judgmental labels or descriptives. If the other person is, it doesn't we mean we want to. Golden rule time. It's a challenge for our values, our current level of human understanding. Sometimes we are out of control with our attitudes, other times it's us who are on the receiving end, other times it's both people with neither one being capable of seeing how much dissonant discordant attitude they are expressing. We need to find a way of neutrally saying how the other person's attitude is affecting us, while asking if our own attitude is something they're picking up on. That's being charitable and honest. It's honest and charitable to acknowledge that it just may be that we are contributing to the flak and the problem with attitudes of our own. Then explore this attitude concern with the other person while showing the other person a fertile new attitude of mutual creative inquiry that is as innocent and willing and voluntary as it is genuine. It does take personal initiative to extend the olive branch in this way. It's a leadership quality, for sure. Impossible? Ray, are ya still there? Ray? Where didja go? Oh. Yeah. Yeah, sure, I'd like a beer too. For a second there, I thought maybe my voice had either put you to sleep or sent you away into the next room. You know how much I like your responses, don't ya? Alot!! No one else seems to be around here, huh? Now ain't that just what one would expect..... Now don't ya go feelin' no pressure to respond. And if ya do feel like responding, well, jez run the eye over a spare penetrating insight or two and scan it back to roost in these here parts. Criticize, examine, evaluate. Do it to me.

hey jim. i never really saw any evidence that tim was really able to engage in any sort of constructive debate, but i also did not read everything he posted, either. in fact i never read much of his postings til he went to the environment conf. i think that your points with regard to constructive methods for communicating with someone like that are well taken. to me, it sounds like dale carnegie! you have obviously put a lot of thought into this issue, and i am curious as to what sort of bottom line insights you have come up with. i'll bet it's "do unto others as you would have others do unto you!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That sounds like a good policy.

I thought Tim's entries in 'Selfishness' went a long way to explain what was really going on in his mind. Direct questions were asked of him, and those questions were answered. He showed his reasoning processes. Extremely candid about it, too. So often people don't say why they think the way they do, they just tell you what they think. That seemed constructive. He didn't give me a hard time or turn on me with choice of words. So we were able to talk alotta stuff out, I thought. That seemed constructive. My last response did sound more positive-positive than usual. Dale Carnegie-ish.......yeah, I can see how one would feel that. Or it could be seen as constructive ways to deal with emotions and attitudes, our own and others, with a healthy sense of fairness as to how there may be an equal amount of those two things (emotions and attitudes) going on in both people who are having a difficult time with each other. The desire to treat another as one would like to be treated, is only a beginning, a foundation piece. As far as attitudes to exude or show another person, that golden rule attitude is mighty constructive. It opens up channels of receptivity within oneself and lends a sense of fairness and equality to the give-and-take. But I don't think Carnegie had much to do with confronting a person. That was just the sort of thing that positive thinking tries to avoid. But in a dialogue, if it's going to be real life, it's gotta involve questioning and confronting and challenging and mutual exploratory investigations. Here's how I look at it: .....if trouble brews between two people (or more than 2), that trouble is what then becomes the focus of the conversation for me---it no longer is what the conversation was about up to then. And what I focus on at that point is whatever seems to be at the center of the conflict. It's always reasoning. Reaoning controls emotion. It's the emotions that are pouncing and roaming for a rumble. And the reasoning behind them tells them why what they're doing is the right thing to do, and so, gives them plenty of justification, and rationalized reasons. That way of looking at the problem---to get at the reasoning that is leveraging the conflict---is far away from Carnegie-type stuff. So the key is to create conditions that are conducive to learning, otherwise anti-learning attitudinal indulgence will stampede the grounds, and no one will get near the reasoning that is controlling the emotions and controlling the conflict that's going on. A learning organization or learning community is sure not what the Carnegie-types had in mind. But the key to creating an environment for learning is the concept of valid information. Valid information is directly observable data that is confirmable. An example would be what you said in your last response. Your words are in print, we can refer to them and all agree that yes indeed you did say those words. If people validate with each other the information they are using, then they have a base to move on from. The validation process must involve free and informed choice. If people are coerced into accepting a choice, that will prevent learning. Free and informed choice enables people to detect and correct errors. That's learning. A scientist notices there is something missing with this theory or that function. There is an error. The scientist can detect the error if the needed valid information is present and if valid information clarifies for the scientist how the error can be detected. When that principle is used with people, it often shows itself in the form of espoused theories and theories-in-use. Espoused theories are what we say that we do. We might say, for example, that we like to dialogue. But someone notices that when we dialogue, we tend to debate and hold things against people. What we are actually like when we "dialogue" are our theories-in-use. What that means is we have theories that we go by when we talk to people about how we are and how we like to do things (espoused theories), and we have theories we go by when we act and do (theories-in-use). So, with people, the learning that occurs is when valid information is used to detect error in the discrepancies between our espoused theories and our theories-in-use. Finding out what those two theories are that are going on in a person is a matter of using non-coercive and non-trivial inquiry into that person's reasoning. A person could be said to be learning when they detect an error in their reasoning by detecting an inconsistency or contradiction between the reasoning used in their espoused theory and the reasoning used in their theory-in-use. When a person does detect that error or errors that make for contradiction between what they say and what they do, and when they correct that error or errors, then learning has occurred and there was productive change. If I sense that there's something up, but I haven't surfaced my reasoning, then I still haven't detected the error---I can only tell that somehow I've been inconsistent between my values and actions, and I can only say something like that I've been an ass, for example. Or I may apologize or say I've been stupid or say I made a mistake. But when you detect and correct the error that's been going on in your reasoning, then the discrepancies between the espoused theory and the theory-in-use are reduced---you don't just feel like you made a mistake that you apologize for, you actually detect and correct the error in your gaps in reasoning. Some people have espoused values of fairness and equality, but their in-use values may be unilateral and coercive and self-protective and selfish and controlling. That's the norm under conditions that are difficult. Under conditions that aren't difficult many people use theories-in-use that are thoughtful and collaborative and win/win.......it's more common and typical under conditions that aren't difficult than conditions that are. It's when things get difficult, like during heated discussions, that people's actions or behaviors (like choice of words) contradict their espoused values (or espoused theories). It's all in the reasoning. And the reasoning is obtained (or located, identified) through inquiry. By asking a person, "What led you to say that to me when you said 'blah blah blah'", they may, if they're not feeling coerced and if they're feeling free about what they feel like saying, and if they want to be honest (which is often the case), they may say the reason why they said what they said to someone. That is a window into the reasoning they use in their theory-in-use. If they are asked what they're espoused theory is for the same situation, and they say what that is, or if they've already said what it is at another time, and if there's a contradiction between the two reasonings, then error can be detected by the person with the contradiction in their two reasonings or theories, and they can and might willing confirm the error. Reasonings or theories (espoused or in-use) are rules in our heads. Rules that we go by, usually rather deeply ingrained. Examples are----be fair, equality is good to have in a relationship, golden rule, keep a lid on the attitudinizing, use appropriate responses, be civil, love your neighbor as yourself, be non-coercive, have an open-door policy, encourage listening and inquiry, commit to your commitments, be responsible, defend when attacked, counterattack when defending, maximize winning and minimize losing, try to control the purpose of the encounter. Reasonings involve rules in our heads that have to do with values we govern our lives by. Examples are----use valid information, use free and informed choice, commit to accountability around our choices. Reasonings can involve rules in our heads that have to do with behavior strategies, such as advocating your position and combine it with inquiry and public testing---another behavioral strategy is minimizing unilateral face-saving. Undiscussibility occurs when people do not feel free to detect and correct errors around a concern or issue that is too sensitive for people deal openly with. When the airing of grievances is suppressed, they are made undiscussable, and the learning there stops. Learning also stops if the process of detecting and correcting errors is hindered when the airing of grievances is not suppressed. So when there is a problem going on between people, and it's happening in a learning community where there is true learning going on, there are a number of things that start to happen: 1) people's nonverbal behavior is benign (golden rule stuff) 2) valid information is sought by testing information for validity 3) that's done by seeing if anyone disconfirms the information 4) when the problem has been confirmed as valid, then 5) reasoning of theories-in-use are inquired into and identified 6) errors in those theories or reasonings are detected 7) they are detected by comparing the theories-in-use with the espoused theories and noting the gaps, inconsistencies 8) the errors are corrected 9) every step along the way is validated through public testing 10) public testing simply means that the people involved check with each other to see if anyone disconfirms any of the information (any of the relatively directly observable data and low level inferences inferred from the data) So how would that work in real life situations? Let's take the problem I was having with Riette this summer. Keep in mind that it's me who's saying all this, which is like the equivalent of you giving a summary of what was going on with you and Tim. My claim was that Riette was not just teasing me. That there was aggression involved in the teasing and that it was hurting me alot. Her claim was that it was just teasing and I was indulging myself in my hurt and my needs. The first learning objective in that situation would be to find relevant information that could be validated by both of us. The next objective would be to surface the reasoning behind the valid information. An example would be found of something Riette said, and then she would be asked, "What was it that I did or said that made you say that?" The example would be validated information (something we both agreed that she said) that had to do with the problem, in other words it would fit my claim, according to the claimer, me. It would be something she said, that I picked out and claimed was not just teasing but also aggressive. So that next step was to see if it could be validated by her as being aggressive as well as teasing. Since what she said (the example) was not validated by her, my next step was to test whether the reasoning behind what she said (the reason she said what she said) was containing a rule in her head that said to be aggressive in her teasing when I did or said whatever it was that I said or did that prompted her to say what she said in the example I picked to test with her for validation. woo-woo-woo But I can't remember what happened at or after that point. The big problem at that point was distrust. The learning process I was using was too foreign to Riette. She did the normal thing to do under those circumstances, she figured I was being paranoid and suspicious, and naturally it was making her pretty uncomfortable, and I felt guilty about that. The learning process being used would have to be well-understood by any of its users, but once it is, it could be practiced with relish by all participants. People could enjoy being inquired into, they could see vulnerability as a strength, and non-defensiveness could reveal much inner reality (our reasoning, our theories-in-use, our contradictions, the governing values we live by, the behavior strategies we use that lead to unintended negative consequences, and unsurfaced biases that could be surfaced). This is my judgmental bias of what was the really going on with me Riette: 1) I think she was and does use aggressive teasing that is designed to hurt and look like it isn't, so that it feels to her (and probably many many others) like it isn't 2) it happens a very small percentage of the time, but it does happen 3) I do the same thing in my own way, just as much as she does 4) my way is to be surreal and do intellectualizing and probably lotsa other stuff and lotsa of the exact same stuff she does 5) the biggest problem of all was wading through all the scattershot assumptions we made to each other, hardly any of which we tested with the other person for validity 6) but my condition at the time was such that I was hearing everything she said by wondering whether it was hurtful (attack) or not 7) I didn't know what was up, and I was extremely raw and unstable about it 8) it reminds me alot of what Tim's condition seemed like to me 9) I was about to say that I didn't counterattack and try to hurt her like Tim said he was doing, but then I think Riette did say that what I was doing, the way I was doing it, the things written in my responses hurt her alot----so there may be more similarities of me to Tim's condition than I'd thought 9) I would assume that very few, including Riette, would agree with this summary of what was really going on there between me and her ----but I do sense there is alotta aggression in people that isn't all that well suppressed even----it's quite often barely suppressed, and it seems to me like it comes out alot----just in ways that people aren't willing to see as aggression----they see it as teasing, or identifying what's wrong with the other person, being competitive, having to have our way by ennobling it to others, grabbing at certainty to qualm our insecurities, etc. etc. How did this whole response mushroom and snowball to this size? What's going on in me? But I'm glad I did it. It clarifies stuff for me. It answers stuff about my "bottomline insights" or approach. When I was talking about how the above approach can work in real life situations---boy, that sure did fizzle out but quick, didn't it? Ah well. Another day, another say, enough for today.

as long as things are clear in your head that is cool. some of the greatest works of philosophy in the history of mankind were nothing more than self-thoughts written down by the author!

PT, are you TIM? if so, then that is cool. i would like to apologize for making you feel badly here and am fully willing to accept my half of the blame. if you choose to ignore my postings here then that is ok. welcome back.

Thank you for putting that into words, Jim. It helps me too. Welcome back, Tim.

The T in T Patrick McCourt, stands for Timothy. The PT are my two middle initials. The last name I have now, and the one that I was born with, is Guenther. During the time I was in College, I changed my last name to McCourt. It was that way for five years. The Army made me change it back. I used it to get in when My legal name would not make it past the filters. So much for that. I really would like to get back to using my legal name again, but it still won't make it past the filters. I am really sorry about what happened. I never should have gotten as carried away as I did. I blame myself more than anyone else. Ray, I can't assign you even half the blame. If I'd exercised a little self-discipline, It never would have gotten as far as it did. I've been an ass. Again, I'm sorry.

It's good to have you back.

Thank you, it is good to be back.

welcome back timothy patrick mccourt guenther! all is forgotten.

wow... nothing like scrolling through a zillion posts after the fact! Glad to see the Spring spirit (for lack of a better phrase) alive and well again. Hey Jim! You kept me rapt with your mediation. I took it to heart all of it (except that part about there being a side of me you don't like cause I know it's a lie! *cackle*) Thank you for investing so much time and energy into a difficult situation. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I sure appreciate your desire to help people better understand others (and themselves).

indeed!

I'd like to second that and welcome Tim back, myself!

I also appreciate Jim, and am glad to be back.

I really appreciated Jim's insights into this whole situation. Your wise words lent some clarity where there was previously none (for me). Glad to see harmony at the Spring.