Understanding Human Relationships (Blog)

[Megan]

By Scientist, Today 06:52 AM

Thank you for replying.

So, I just need to let go and stop judging people? I need to stop thinking about other people and just focus on how I want myself to be?

My thinking about what other people should or shouldn't do is interfering with what they are doing and not doing? How is it that my thoughts are able to affect other people?

Scientist, I'm in the process of working this out in my own life, so my answers are, of course, provisional, at best, for myself, included--'working hypotheses,' you might say.

I think this understanding of nonjudgment is a kind of cultural groundswell, though, and that a lot of people are coming to this consciousness, sort of all at once, even though this understanding can be found at least in Buddhism and Christianity, that I know of.

I think it has very much to do with feeling, and not just thinking and analyzing.

Buddhism teaches compassion, "feeling with," and I think this is key to this process. When we judge a person, we withdraw compassion from them, and make them "other." Perhaps a moment's reflection will suggest the impact that withdrawing compassion from our fellows has had on human history.

Compassion is about recognizing the suffering of others and wishing for that suffering to be alleviated.

Basics of Buddhism - Compassion and Loving Kindness

In the Christian tradition, Jesus was asked, "Who is my neighbor?" He responded by telling the story of the man who fell prey to thieves and was beaten and left for dead, and subsequently passed by by two religious travelers on the road. Then a good Samaritan (a hated sect) man came and gave him aid. Jesus then asked, "Of these three, who was a neighbor to this man?"

The Samaritan could have judged the unfortunate man worthless, as did the other travelers, but he is described as having compassion, literally, "to have the bowels yearn for," in other words, he was deeply moved by the man's plight.

So it is not that we just mechanically "stop thinking about other people and focus on how we need to be." It's having a growing sense of compassion for other people, as the Buddha and the Christ taught, and seeing ourselves in those "others," identifying with the human condition altogether and ceasing to see even the most wretched people as "other."

Our thoughts affect other people profoundly. Think about people you have known who have seemed to have an 'attitude' towards you, maybe a teacher when you were a kid, for example, but it remains unspoken. Think how draining it is to be around people like that.

There definitely is that energy imbalance between people, and I don't deny that, but I say we can learn to transcend it.

We can learn from our ancient spiritual traditions, or we can learn from each other and our own hearts. How we learn is not important. But that we learn is literally a life and death matter. That's why I said that this may be Steve's most important blog ever. The implications of our learning to relate to each other in an impeccable way are immense.

If we want George Bush to be an effective leader, the best thing we can do is take responsibility for our own judgments about him, work on the things in ourselves that we are judging in him, and send him all good wishes.

That's not to say the political process is unimportant, but it is not adequate if we are destroying ourselves from within by negative judgment.

Americans currently seem to be suffering from a collective psychic autoimmune disease.

We'll not have more compassion on others than we have for ourselves, and so nonjudgement is dependent on a certain gentleness to ourselves to build upon.

It helps to laugh.

Nonjudgment Day Is At Hand! When a majority of human beings would rather laugh than condemn, we will have an uncritical mass, and this will usher in Nonjudgment Day.

On Nonjudgment Day, we will all win beauty contests. Lawyers will disappear, and all our trials will be over. On this glorious day when enlightning strikes, our clown chakras will open, we will become fooly-realized, and we will finally get the joke. The world will stop and everyone will get off.
--Swami Beyondananda

[Tsuyu]

Originally Posted by Megan

If we want George Bush to be an effective leader, the best thing we can do is take responsibility for our own judgments about him, work on the things in ourselves that we are judging in him, and send him all good wishes.

That would probably only encourage him, and frankly, that's the last thing the world needs.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Megan

So it is not that we just mechanically "stop thinking about other people and focus on how we need to be." It's having a growing sense of compassion for other people, as the Buddha and the Christ taught, and seeing ourselves in those "others," identifying with the human condition altogether and ceasing to see even the most wretched people as "other."

Thank you again for your reply.

I do have a tendency to over-think and over-analyze things. I'm constantly in my mind, analyzing things. I believe it will take some practice for me to get used to feeling rather than thinking.

I've had a lot of practice blocking out my feelings. So, I suspect it will take practice to stop ignoring them.

[Megan]

Scientist, it's the tendency of many people in the West to over-think and over-analyze things, so you are far from alone, it seems to me. It's sort of our signature cognitive style.

Also, the parenting style of many parents is to supress kids emotionally and it takes a lot of healing to overcome that. I'm still working on that one.

It's hard to value your feelings when your parents didn't value them, and it's hard to have compassion for others when your parents had little compassion for you. I don't know if that is your situation, but it is the situation for many of us.

However, it's not a matter of either thinking or feeling.

Really fascinating research has been done by neuroscientist, Antonio Damasio and others about the key role feeling plays in rational thinking. In fact, people who have brain damage to areas affecting feelings do not make good rational decisions.

From Publishers Weekly

In an important, gracefully written exploration of the neurochemical basis of mind, neurologist Damasio rejects the Cartesian notion of the human mind as a thinking organ more or less separate from bodily processes.

Emotions and feelings, he argues, are essential to reasoning and decision-making.

Amazon.com: Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain: Books: Antonio Damasio

[Megan]

By Tsuyu, Today, 09:49 PM

That would probably only encourage him, and frankly, that's the last thing the world needs.

I understand and share your concern, Tsuyu.

If we do not want to encourage the President to continue what many see as an ill-considered course, how might we avoid that?

Since he is at the helm of our Ship of State for the next two years, it behooves all of us to consider how we can best prevent our Ship from running aground. We're all in this together.

While we do not want to encourage reckless decisions, we do want to encourage measured, wise decisions. In that sense, we all have a stake in encouraging President Bush.

If George Bush is failing, how might we help him to succeed?

It makes little sense to just surrender to an auto-immune attacking of our own body politic when so much is at stake. That makes as much sense as shooting oneself in the foot.

If we don't learn to transmute our anger into positive momentum, we all lose ground. None of us think well when we're angry.

This situation is exerting pressure on all of us to mature into who we can truly be. To waste that sterling opportunity in vituperative blame would be obscene, and a great dishonor to our children and posterity.

We need to be thinking in terms of the seventh generation from now, as the Native American sages taught us:

Before the traditional Iroquois convened their consul meetings, they invoked this declaration:

In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.

Thereafter, any vote included an equal vote cast by a representative who spoke specifically for the needs, the survival, and the dignity of those who would live a hundred and fifty years in the future.

Seventh Generation

In that context, I think Steve's current blog is surely one of his most important.

[Megan]

From Erin's blog:

Change in the world begins with change in oneself. The world will reflect back to us who we are. So it’s more important than ever to wake up and pick a side.

In the meantime, what is Fate doing about Bush? Unfortunately, the best it can do is teach us a lesson. The best we can do is to learn it quickly and move on. Wake up, people. It’s going to take us years to recover from this lesson, and time is running out.

Erin Pavlina’s Blog » Blog Archive » George Bush and the Fate of our World

[The Animus]

The impression I got from my connection with the Universe, or Source, was that George Bush was not supposed to win that election...
In time, with the 9-11 attacks, the subsequent War on Terrorism, and the Iraq war, I saw that intuition come to fruition. This wasn’t supposed to happen.
-Erin Pavlina

How is this possible? From the highest level, everything in the universe is in place and in perfect timing. Whatever forces aligned at the time to put him in office were exactly as they were supposed to be.

From a global perspective, the political and economic downfall of the U.S. is in perfect timing with national/regional seasons, as power shifts away from North America and goes to Asia, which is on the dawn of it's spring, and will reign for the next few centuries.


From what perspective are things 'not right'?

[Megan]

Animus, I don't know about that part--I guess you'll have to ask Erin.

The part of her blog that I quoted went along with the ideas in Steve's blog, I thought, and that's why I posted them here.

I actually had similar thoughts as you did about the part you quoted.

Interesting ideas about Asia being in the Spring, and the West in decline--I always thought the Kali Yuga covered all of us. But that's another thread.

[The Wise Turtle]

Another way to look at this strategy is to realize that you have the more control over your own life than anything else, so that if you want more of something in the world, it is far simpler to add it yourself than to try and get someone else to do it.

So, if you want more organization in the world, do more organizing yourself. If you want more peace in the world, be more peaceful yourself. If you want more intelligence in the world, become more intelligent yourself.*

And while you're adding all this good stuff to the world you'll be acting as a role model for others, who may just be inspired by what you're doing and want to help you out, especially when they see how happy it makes you feel.

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turtle

* and when you aren't as successful as you might have liked, you will be able to me more sympathetic to the similar struggles and failures of everyone else who is also doing their best to add more good to the world :-)

[The Animus]

That is a question directly for Erin


And it is related here, as we see that any negatives or undesirables are not always forces to be pushed against by our own efforts. Either in interpersonal relationships, or those with society on the grand scale. Many of them are part of the natural ebb and flow of the world.

[Megan]

Oh--of course it was a question for Erin. Just because I posted it, doesn't mean I have to answer for her.

Hmmm...then are there any "negatives and undesirables forces to be pushed against by our own efforts?"

I'm thinking yes: I'm thinking of the 65 year old woman who just barely managed to save her husband from the jaws of a cougar in California last week with a stick and a ball point pen.

What part does "thinking peaceful thoughts" play in solving this dilemma?

Can we I-M the cougars away from our back yards and hiking trails?

Cougar Consciousness: The Predators Are Back!

[Megan]

Turtle, I loved your post. I'm wondering...how far can we take peace, love and bicycles?

[tracyrtwyman]

Your theory wouldn't work in that example, because you would need to have some kind of relationship with George Bush in order for it to work. If you were, say, just a regular US citizen who thinks Bush's leadership skills are sub par, and you decided to work on your own leadership skills, I don't see how that would affect him.

Actually, you do have a relationship with George Bush. If you are a citizen, he is your President.

I think Steve's observation here is 100% applicable to reality, and in fact I think we're seeing the results of it now. How many people who complain constantly about "what a bad job" George Bush is supposedly doing are completely incompetent at their own, relatively unimportant jobs? Perhaps if people would concentrate on improving their own work, and uphold their own responsibilities more, they would see everyone else, including the President, start doing the same.

But more importantly, what if people just took some time to think about how important the Presidency is, and the fact that it's literally about the most stressful position you could be in? The entire world is literally riding on his shoulders. His spiritual welfare should be of the utmost importance to all of the citizens over which he presides. He does have a relationship with all of us. Some of us voted for him, and all of us are paying the taxes that run his government. He is our Commander-in-Chief, and our representative to the rest of the world. We have to live in this country under his administration. But since the very beginning, almost half of the American citizens have been wasting their emotional energy hating him, criticizing his every word and deed, wishing failure, misfortune, even death upon him, and sending him nothing but negative vibes. And this started even before he has committed a single act as President. It started before he was even inaugurated. Don't you think that this have affected him, not only on a conscious level, but on a subconscious and spiritual level as well? So if you've been doing this, don't you think you have some responsibility for manifesting the conditions which supposedly cause you such displeasure?

I have heard Bush say in numerous interviews that he is aware that many people in America and throughout the world (mainly Christians) are praying for him, and that he can "feel" the positive effect of this in his life. Critics have attacked him for this, saying its evidence that he's crazy. I absolutely believe him on this. If you believe in the power of prayer, or using spiritual power to manifest reality, then you have to believe that the emotions we project towards the President affect him. So what would it be like if everyone was praying for George Bush, not just the people who already like and/or voted for him? Because we all have to live here, whether we like him or not, and we should all want our country to be as strong and prosperous as possible. But apparently some people would be willing to see the country fail as a whole just for the pleasure of watching Bush fail, to verify that they were "right all along."

I have observed that people still tend to look upon their leaders with the same sort of magical worldview that ancient, primitive man once had. In many ancient cultures, they believed that the king had a magical affect upon the crops and the weather. If the crops failed, the king would be ritually sacrificed to appease the gods. It is similar to the way in which modern people believe that the economy is controlled by the Presidency, even though it has much more to do with the Federal Reserve and the banking system, as well as other market forces not under the direct control of any politician. Office-holders can affect the economy in various ways here and there, but it's nothing like the power that the Federal Reserve chairman has on monetary policy. The real "magical" affect that the President can have on the economy is that if people feel good about the President, they often feel good about the economy too. As I've discussed before, public confidence in money, and the government that issues it, is what's really responsible for the wealth of nations.

I saw this happen with Clinton. People loved Clinton because the economy grew while he was in office, and people believed that he was somehow responsible - just like th ancients believed the fertility of the land was the responsibility of the king. But in the case of George Bush, many people seem to have decided beforehand to blame him for every negative thing that would occur during his administration. The economy was already beginning to dip before he was inaugurated, but I believe the public's prejudicial hatred of Bush contributed largely to the worsening of it. Certainly the public is responsible for the irrational financial panic after 9/11 that caused such a severe reduction in spending and hiring in the months that followed. And we are still recovering from that now.

I wish that people would put their own self-preservation, and that of our nation, ahead of their prejudice against Republicans, or New England preps, or whatever their stupid hang-up is, and send more good will towards the office of Presidency, not only now, but with whatever Presidents we may have in the future. If Hillary Clinton gets elected, I would encourage us all to do the same for her as well. The world is a dangerous place, and we need our President to be strong in the face of all of these growing threats to our peace and prosperity. There are millions of people who belong to a death cult that wants to topple our government and convert us all to their religion at the point of a sword, or cut our heads off if we don't. And yet so many people are using all of their energy trying to empower the enemy by weakening their own country.

[Megan]

tracyrtwyman, I totally agree!

Just to pass the time....

First, the atheist:

Bertrand Russell: The Science to Save Us from Science

But all who are not lunatics are agreed about certain things: That it is better to be alive than dead, better to be adequately fed than starved, better to be free than a slave.

Many people desire these things only for themselves and their friends; they are quite content that their enemies should suffer.

These people can be refuted by science: Mankind has become so much one family that we cannot insure our own prosperity except by insuring that of everyone else.

If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign to seeing others also happy.

Throw in a coupla gurus:

You are all the time only relating to yourself.
--Sri Bhagavan

Krishnamurti's Big Secret:

I don't mind what happens.

A smidgeon of Bible:

Jesus, in the Book of Matthew:

Why, then, do you look at the speck in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the log in your own eye?

How dare you say to your brother, 'Please, let me take that speck out of your eye,' when you have a log in your own eye?

You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

A pinch of prominent Buddhist:

Each of us is like a bubble of awareness.

When we transform ourselves, free ourselves from inner knots and blemishes and blossom out our inner beauties, our new openness and blissful pleasure resonates instantaneously and reinforces liberation and satisfaction in the other bubbles. Changing ourselves for the better changes the world for the better.

--Robert Thurman, Infinite Life, p. 50

And some Buddhist-Trekky wisdom (who knew?):

Anger Has No Arms or Legs
By Justine Willis Toms

Early this morning I was contemplating the Buddhist saying, "Anger has no arms or legs," when an old episode of Star Trek came to mind.

There is an invisible entity that has entered the Enterprise. The crew can't see it, but the audience can. It appears as a swirling energy pattern near the ceiling, and moves about the ship at will.

Klingons are on the ship fighting one-on-one with members of the Federation crew. Every time there is a fight, the swirling energy pattern gets bigger. We, the audience, can see that this entity gets its energy from anger, fighting, and negativity in general.

At some point Captain Kirk and his crew figure this out, and negotiate with the Klingons to be friendly. An extraordinary scene unfolds: These mortal enemies begin to walk about the ship with their arms around one another in joyous camaraderie. They laugh and joke and poke fun at one another with good humor.

As they do, the malevolent presence begins to dwindle until it is just a wisp, and it finally leaves the ship for lack of the energy on which it depends for its survival.

http://www.ndbroadcasting.org/read.php?id=JT20070201

Can't leave out the Native Americans:

All My Relations:

Instead of modern medicine’s view of separation that focuses on fixing unique body parts in distinct individuals separate from each other and the environment, Native Americans believe we are all synergistically part of a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts; healing must be considered within this context. Specifically, we are all connected at some level to each other, Mother Earth (i.e., nature), Father Sky, and all of life through the Creator (Iroquois), Great Spirit (Lakota), Great Mystery (Ojibway), or Maker of All Things Above (Crow).

This sense of wholeness and connection is implied by the concluding phrase of healing prayers and chants “All my Relations,” which dedicates these invocations to all physical and spiritual relations that are a part of the Great Spirit.

To metaphorically describe our universal connection, the Lakota use the phrase mitakuye oyasin – “We are all related,” while Southwest pueblo tribes, who consider corn as a life symbol, state “We are all kernels on the same corncob.”

NATIVE-AMERICAN MEDICINE

Or the Aborigines:

Aboriginal Wisdom:

These people believe everything exists on the planet for a reason. Everything has a purpose. There are no freaks, misfits, or accidents. There are only misunderstandings and mysteries not yet revealed to mortal man.

from MUTANT MESSAGE DOWN UNDER by Marlo Morgan

Some Sufi sages:

The sun never says to the earth,
"You owe me."

Look what happens with a love like that.
It lights up the whole sky.
--Hafiz

Beyond our ideas of right-doing and wrong-doing,
there is a field. I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass,
the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase 'each other'
doesn't make sense any more.
--Rumi

And Z is for Zen:

Judgment

My Zen teachers were fond of pointing out that making judgments is one of the subtlest ways of no longer being in the present.

The logic is simple. All judging is based on comparison, and comparison requires that we leave the present for past or future.

No one can decide for us when judgment works for us and when it doesn’t. When life requires judgment, it works. When we’re making ourselves miserable with judgment, it’s time to be present.

jack/zen » Blog Archive » Judgment

"Weeds only grow when we dislike them."

[Andrew Brunelle]

I remember reading a story or listening to a story where someone was treated badly by another, but he did not take offense, as this person saw the suffering in the other person that caused this action upon himself. He knew that anyone who criticized him for something, they were, in essence, criticizing themselves. As within, so without. If you are mad about someone being late, perhaps you are late in some part of your life. The only reason you take offense to something someone else does is because you see a part of yourself that has this same sort of problem. So I can definitely see how working on yourself to improve in this area would help.

It is all in how you define the problem. In one of Steve's earlier articles or podcasts, he gives an example that someone's roommate is stressing this person out. Instead of working on stopping the roommate from stressing you out, the approach he took was working on your own stress, and the roommate will improve dramatically. It was something along these lines and it rings true, at least in my experience.

[eastcoastgirl]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

The only reason you take offense to something someone else does is because you see a part of yourself that has this same sort of problem.

I agree. Since I read Steve's article, I've been doing a lot of searching within myself (i.e., what part of myself do I see in this other person who is irritating me?) and by reading articles on this topic, on unconditional love, and on self forgiveness. In addition, these topics have come up a number of times over the last week without my having looked for them. People just start talking about them. It's like, "How about this cold weather we're having, and oh by the way, the relationships we have with other people are reflections of the relationships we have within ourselves."

I'm really starting to see the truth in what Steve said. I'm also starting to think that some of the things I see in other people may reflect the way I used to be. So maybe my fear is that I will revert to my old behaviors--being chronically late, for example. I suppose that as I let go of the past, those fears will diminish, but I am still in the beginning stages of letting go, so the fears may still be close to the surface.

I have to say that putting these ideas into practice has helped me already, even though it's only been a week.

[Lychee]

Originally Posted by Gary

I don't think what you are describing as your understanding is at all what I said.

What was off about it?

[Searching]

Really interesting subject. This is an area of inquiry that's dealt with in great depth by Byron Katie at thework.com -- highly recommend this site for those who find this idea appealing.

Originally Posted by eastcoastgirl

Yeah, I'm a little lost, too. Great idea, though. I can see where it might apply some of the time. I can see where things I find annoying in other people are sometimes things I don’t like in myself. But I just don't see how it works in other situations. I have a friend who is habitually late; I’m habitually on time. How is she a reflection of me? And my being on time has not influenced her to be on time. She's still just as late as ever.

As another poster mentioned, Katie's tool for examining projections is something she calls the "turnaround." A turnaround is simply a parsing of the bothersome thought in various ways to test them for truth.

Sometimes, a very simple turnaround is enough. For example, when I'm irritated by someone cutting in front of me in traffic, if I'm present enough to do a turnaround, a very simple one suffices:

They shouldn't drive like that becomes
I shouldn't drive like that.

Invariably, I smile at this, because I almost always have done the same traffic move that bugged me in the recent past -- often minutes before.

With your late friend, you really have to stretch to make such a simple turnaround "work." But there are other turnarounds that might explain your disquiet, because there are usually what Katie would call underlying beliefs under your basic thought of "my friend shouldn't be late." Katie would further suggest challenging each underlying belief you can find with the simple question, "Is it true?"

Hence, some possible turnarounds and underlying beliefs might be:

My friend shouldn't be late.
Real friends aren't late
She's not a real friend.
When she's late it means she doesn't care about me.
If I were more popular, I'd have better friends.
I don't stand up for myself enough.
I hang out with people who make me crazy.
I'm scared to try to make new friends who might be punctual.
I shouldn't associate with unpunctual people because it bugs me too much.
It's not enough to love her from afar; I should hang out with her even though I believe she'll be late again.
If I can't forgive her for a behavior she always exhibits, am I really a friend to her?

There are infinite turnarounds, just as there are infinite worldviews. (There may be 8 billion people on earth, but there are hundreds of billions of projections of those people -- and none of them are right!

[Shamar]

I definitely agree with the theory that all our relationships are internal, and that any relationship difficulties are a reflection of our own disastisfaction with ourself. Disatisfaction, frustration and anger all come from the perception that we are not in control. Most people react to this by trying to control the outside influences, which will not only fail but increase our frustration as our attempts to take control are resisted.

The problem is not a person, it is your frustration/anger/disatisfaction. You want a solution and the solution is to find the cause of your frustration/anger/disatisfaction. The truth is the cause is internal, so trying to change something external will not work.

If this is not working for you, you are thinking about it the wrong way.
If your partner is messy, but improving your own tidiness isn't providing you with a solution, perhaps your problem is you want to messier. Maybe you are frustrated at the pressure you put on yourself to be tidy. Maybe you want to be able to see a book sticking out of the bookshelf on not feel the irresistable urge to push it in so they all line up? If your friend is unloading all her problems on you, maybe you actually want to work on your own communication skills.

The George Bush example didn't work for me either and when I thought about it I realised why. 'Leadership skills' are to general. My frustrations are more specific than that. So I thought about why in more detail.

I think his War on Iraq is more about money than people. I think that George Bush needs to take more actions that directly benefit people in need rather than someones pocket. It's then that I realised I think that 'I' am focusing too much on money when I would rather be helping people. I would like to believe that I am a considerate, generous person but I realised that my current actions don't really reflect this, or at least not to the extent that I would like them to.

Hope this helps some people understand the concept. Good luck with applying it to your own conflicts.

[nvictor]

Steve I would like to thank you for all the enlightment you always bring into my life. There is no coincidence. There is always an article on your website that solves one of my problem.

I have just written a long email to my girlfriend, telling her she's paranoid. Since the day I've come to America, she's persuaded I'll cheat on her. I think she wanted me to reassure her in every message. What happened is that I don't have a computer yet. I use the one of my roommate. I have installed yahoo and he removed it. She complained about me not wanting to talk to her even with the little messages I send when in our labs classroom.

Steve, you're right. It's perhaps me who need to be reassured. She's so cute, that even in my presence daring guys would approach her. Maybe in my absence one can succeed...

How can I tell her that? How can I persuade myself that I'm the one even when others will approach with so long distance separating us?

[Megan]

Turn on audio and click on player at this link (Leonard Cohen):

Introduction to the 10 Sacred Principles | Yoism



Democracy is Coming to the U.S.A.

It's comin' from the sorrow in the street
The holy places where the races meet
From the homicidal bitchin'
That goes down in every kitchen
To determine who will serve and who will eat
From the wells of disappointment
Where the women kneel to pray
For the grace of God in the desert here
And the desert far away
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's comin' to America first
The cradle of the best and of the worst
It's here they got the range
And the machinery for change
And it's here they got the spiritual thirst
It's here the family's broken
And it's here the lonely say
That the heart has got to open
In a fundamental way
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's comin' from the women and the men
O baby, we'll be makin' love again
We'll be goin' down so deep
The river's gonna weep
And the mountain's gonna shout, "Amen!"
It's comin' like the tidal flood
Beneath the lunar sway
Imperial, mysterious
In amorous array
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on...

[Gary]

Why I thought you didn't understand what I said. For starters this format loses so much in the translation. You don't get the tone, inflection, emotion, or attitude and so I might be putting the emphasis in completely the wrong place. A re-read of what we both wrote from a different point of view and perhaps we aren't completely off. But for starters here are some points of interpretation.

Hm, so we should carry expectations ourselves but never for others? If that were the case, how would an employer make sure that the work was getting done by the employees?

1) I don't think I said we should carry expectations of our self and not of others. I point out where our expectations of others can be a set up for our own emotional reaction. This is a consequence. When you are aware of the emotional suffering from misplaced expectations, you make your own choices about having them or not. I am not telling people what they "should" do.

2) About a managers expectations of an employee. This is a different scenario than what I was addressing and unfair to apply it. I was addressing how the emotion gets generated and who is responsible for what half. It doesn't mean don't communicate necessary expectations and have agreements about effort. It just means that you don't have to get emotionally upset if work or workers don't meet expectations. There are still consequences, but if you are mindful of expectations you can master the emotions.

I think what you're saying that you have to have expectations set by yourself of how people can treat you. Either you settle for it or don't and if someone violates the boundary that you've set, you let them know. Anger can be the good way to enforce that boundary but caution should be used before doing something that may damage the relationship even further.

3) You don't have to have expectations of how people will treat you. I don't know how people will treat me from one person to the next. I don't need to know. As I have interactions with them, I learn how they treat people and decide if I want to continue to interact.

If people do not treat me with respect I will put boundaries with them (Perhaps this is what you meant.) Often I don't let them know. I just make myself unavailable for their company and I don't have to bring it up with them at all.

4) I didn't say that anger was a "good" way to enforce a boundary. It's a way that most people learn, and use with limited awareness that is generally damaging emotionally to both parties.

But getting upset and keeping that anger doesn't make sense. Recognize your emotion and move on. The purpose of anger isn't for the sake of getting angry, but to recognize an expectation which wasn't met. Am I right? Let it go and focus on being friends with people who do respect you?

I don't know what is meant by "purpose of anger." The purpose of anger isn't to recognize an expectation. But you can use anger as a helpful clue to identify your misplaced expectations. Perhaps this is what you mean. In this case you have a purpose to clean up your mind and emotions, and identifying your expectations--->anger reactions is helpful.

Perhaps that clarifies some of the details. Much is lost in translation between writer and reader's minds. I know my writing isn't the clearest of tools for communication in these forums as I don't want to put 1500 words in these posts.

We do our best.

Gary

[Andrew Brunelle]

There was a great saying some Buddhist or something like that said, and it went something like this, "Make no appointments and you'll have no disappointments." I'm sure it doesn't work in the employer world, but in the rest of your life, if you expect nothing, then anything else is a bonus. You are better off focusing on experiences, rather than expectations. That is just the way I feel. Experiencing life, rather than placing a label or a judgment on it, just let it be. It is what it is.

[Belleethereuse]

Well, quite interesting discussion, tyde. not tyde... I hope you al can understand me because I´m brazilian and my english isn´t really good, but iI will try my best,
Steve if I understand what you did say,every person im my reality is consequence of my own thougths, and my thougts also determinate how this people interact with my in my experience. But if I determine how this people interact with me what about the free will of this persons? Or it doesn´t exists?
For example, I will tell a bit about a situation I´m living at the moment, I love someone, but for many reasons we have no contact anymore, and my thougths created this...ok, then I could chance this situation changing my thougths but if this guy has no interested to try again I can´t to change that, or ist that only more a limitant thought of me??
What do you think?COLOR="DarkOrchid"][/COLOR]

[theknightwhosaysni-NI]

I completely agree with Steve's explanation that our relashionships are only inside our own counsciousness.

However, after reading a book about "shadows", I slightly disagree with the solution shown in this article by Steve.

He gives the example of Erin being not so neat and tidy. This seems to annoy him a little and he criticise Erin for that.
-His solution is : "I have to become more tidy myself and Erin wil be neater".
-Another solution could be : Letting the untidy part of his personality express itself instead of letting it in the shadow of the self-disciplined, organised personnality he has built. Change the opposition clean/not neat into a paradox : the "mess" parts of one's personality are important too.

Steve's example is maybe not the best for what I want to say, I just take it because it was in the article. However, let's take another example :

Many people hate gays. Especially men.
This shows that they hide the feminine part of them. They don't want to accept it because it makes them afraid. Instead of striving to become more heterosexual, they should accept the feminine part there is naturally inside them. (or their masculine part if they are women). Then they would not hate gays because they wouldn't be afraid of them anymore, knowing that this kind of relations can happen and is not unatural.

[AnthonyM83]

Good point. I think his method helps identify the problem within your consciousness, then you can choose from the different solutions:

-Improve/Control that trait in yourself
-Release/Express that trait in yourself (can be counter productive to your overall goals, though)
-Attempt to change/control that trait in the other person
-Learn to put up with the trat in the other person

Obviously, the first two will usually be the best choices. They'll allow you to check in with yourself and decide whether it's a trait that suits your or not. Embracing your shadows is important, but I don't know if ALWAYS the best choice.

[theknightwhosaysni-NI]

I agree with you.

I prefer method number 2 but that's my personal preference. For this method not to be counter productive for my goals, I try to find the positive aspect in the trait I want to express.

Example :

I hate when people give me orders. I hate when someone tells me what I have to do.

I have a personality of someone who lets people decide for themselves and giving orders is obviously part of my "shadow".

So, instead of expressing that trait into literally "giving orders", I try to find what is positive in this trait.
Here the positive thing for me is that someone who gives orders have responsibilities. And that is the thing I actually have to express : I want to take responsibilities, to act more and to get involved in projects where I will have responsibilities.

I love this method, everything that annoys me or scares me is now a pointer of where I have to work.