Faceless posters

Hey pod

Here is an issue I struggle with…

I've gone on record a couple of times saying that I struggle with this medium of interaction (2D forums) - when I interact with people I use my 'felt sense' to such a huge degree, that I'm left wanting sometimes when talking with people I've never met, and am not in a physical space with.

Part of this is that my felt sense helps me to discern where someone is coming from when I'm talking with them - a simple Kosmic address if you like.  I did this before I'd even heard of Ken's work, but its now hugely more refined.  I'm pretty good at being 'unatatched' to those discernemnts - as I get to know someone better I refine my understanding of where someone is coming from.

OK, so on to my wondering - why do some people in the pod withhold information about themselves.  I guess it must be deliberate to not have any actual photos of yourself, or where your from, or how old you are?

I'll go out on a limb and say I'm uncomforatble with it, and that it even makes me slightly suspicious of people sometimes - “why are they hiding themselves?”

I ask this in playful curiosity more than anything, its not really a complaint, I'd love to explore the issue.  Is it inauthentic to hold your identity back form a community like this?


Ewan

Re: Faceless posters

This is a tough one, I agree. Puts a monkey wrench in The Miracle of We, no? I do know of at least one person on here who has had to keep their identity mysterious because of previous harrassment, so I try to assume the best and not the worst, though the mind does try to fill in with the worst, doesn't it?

Liz

Re: Faceless posters

Hi Ewan,

Good point, I’ll relate it to my big issue last year - “what is love”, a question I was hoping to answer during a workshop. After a lot of soul searching and intense physical discomfort I came to experience that love is me, I am love, what ever phrasing you want to use. In other words - it doesn’t matter who I’m with, if anyone - as long as I know I am love and live that. All the relationship issues that come up after that realization just make life more interesting. Don’t get me wrong - I still have my issues that keep coming up, but having that experience allows me to go back there whenever I get caught up in little-me-issues.

Does it make sense to try that dynamic here too, or have I stopped making sense (as Arthur’s favourite band would put it…)?

Frans

Re: Faceless posters

I have had similar thoughts: Why all the non-disclosure? And I've tried to fill in the blanks about why people exist along a spectrum of (dis)comfort around personal disclosures. Still attached to the internal critic that fears an other's gaze? Stuck in “no self” constructs that are partial in that they fail to see that the self is relevant and needed/desired here? I suppose, like Liz mentioned, if someone has a potential stalker/abuser, anonymity would be prudent. I hear you, though, Ewan. I, too, long for interpersonal connection, and nameless and facelessness perhaps show that others are here for different reasons than developing virtual yet authentic interpersonal care and concern (smushy, mushy likes and loves).

Those are my guesses anyways.

Re: Faceless posters

Speaking for myself, I do plan to post a picture sometime. I haven't because 1) I don't have any photos digitalized (I tend to be the last person on the block to get that sort of thing), and 2) I've had a pretty wicked case of cfs the last few years, which I think can be resolved completely, but out of vanity I haven't been in too great a hurry to get and post pictures (some people do manage to snap one of me from time to time, however; I may post one of those if they've kept them). 
 

Colin said: “perhaps show that others are here for different reasons than developing virtual yet authentic interpersonal care and concern (smushy, mushy likes and loves).”

Colin, sorry but you seem to want to set up these us and them situations. “I” or “we” care about the we-space; he or they do not. I see a contradiction here. When you throw this sort of stuff around it's not indicative of a terribly high affect or commitment to evolution.

Re: Faceless posters

David said: Colin, sorry but you seem to want to set up these us and them situations. “I” or “we” care about the we-space; he or they do not. I see a contradiction here. When you throw this sort of stuff around it's not indicative of a terribly high affect or commitment to evolution.

Hmm. That's an interesting take on my statement. I have no intention of setting up us and them situations. I was simply trying to point out that perhaps the interpersonal connections that include personal details that some of us so highly prize are not so highly prized by some. There's no judgment in that statement. “WE” space can mean many different things to different people. I DO see, however, (based on your words alone) that you are inclined to make judgments about my level of affect or commitment to evolution. Perhaps those static little particles that were left by the wave that you are didn't quite capture what you were trying to convey? That's quite common in communication attempts; a snare that I, too, am prone to falling into. Thanks for prompting me to attempt to clarify, though.  8)

Re: Faceless posters

I don't mind the lack of faces or personal information, so much. Not if the individuals appear to be “present” and engaged in the conversations on the forum(s).  I understand the concerns about personal safety (at least for Americans; you ferners have to remember we have more crazed stalkers per capita than the rest of you), and I understand that some people take longer to warm up and feel comfortable than others, so I don't feel offended or upset if some people hold back.  I've been shy and reticent before too.  I've seen a number of people “emerge” after a few months or a year of participation on a forum, finally showing their faces and giving their names.  That's nice.  It shows that trust has been established.  But I don't expect it to be given at the outset, not by everyone.

Re: Faceless posters

Thanks for putting those thoughts here, Balder. I meant to say much of the same and I ran out of time earlier. I used to wonder about it more than I do now, and I certainly offer people the respect of trusting their own intuition about how much to disclose. And some people could care less about disclosing personal details which I'm fine with too. On the other hand, I also resonate with the desire to know more about people, I just hold that loosely.

Re: Faceless posters

Hey Folks,

One recurrent consideration in participation in forums, for me, has been to notice when my responses feel like 'memoir-as-digression', and when 1st person detail may really serve a discussion. On a regular basis, I tend to refrain from posting some anecdotal, auto-bio stuff due, I think, to my sense of its too partial relevence to the topic.

To see and be seen is certainly one of the great gifts of any community.

Recently, I've thought of changing my avatar/icon, simply because it depicts my silhouette, in shadow. However, inasmuchas that first icon choice had meaning for me ( and still does) by depicting inner/outer/upper/lower/left/right, I've kept it the same.

Having said that, I think I'll post this and go change my icon just for the sake of it.

Be well all,

jiki

Re: Faceless posters

I’ve noticed that on a place like tribe.net, another social networking website, the convention seems to be NOT to use faces, especially not recognizable faces, as the icon, and faces are less common in the photos.

So it could just be varying exposure to different social norms in the past.

That, and this is the internet, some caution is called for. It’s certainly possible that zaadz pages and posts will come up on a potential employers google search of a prospects name.

Re: Faceless posters

I have some photos uploaded in my photo album that anyone can look at. For now I’m sticking with the blue symbol as my avatar, but I have been thinking about changing it lately so who knows what will happen…

I appreciate your directness Ewan, hopefully we will see more people “coming out”.

Pelle

Re: Faceless posters

Hey Ewan,

Thanks for bringing this up.  My first response was more in agreement about the desire to know more about the folks here in the POD.  My second reponse was more reserved.  I have been told my personality in PM is different than here in public and a while back at  Liz's suggestion I had my picture as my avatar for a brief period of time.  Although being more open (or giving the appearance of being more open) does create interest or activity,  I can say I wasn't too interested in getting a bunch of emails from random lurkers wanting to say 'hi'.   Underneath the pictues and the postings is a vunerablity that leads to an intimacy I am not always so willing to expose.  By seeing a picture of me there is more connection/intimacy (for you) and is that always a good thing?

If by reading my postings you go in search of more information, what does that accomplish?  Maybe it helps to create a picture that you can then project your ideas about who you think I am.   I have red hair……. oh, that must mean I have a temper……. I am a mother……… yikes……. I don't even want to think about what you might project onto that!  Ha.

Its funny because I was thinking about projections just the other day.  We all make decisions about people based on our own experience and then if we are lucky we walk away from those projections and keep allowing for people to show up as they are instead of who we have decided they might be on what little we might think we know about them.


g

Re: Faceless posters

My oh my, Ewan - very interesting!  Curiosity arises! 

Disclosure and anonymity are such liquid issues.  My tendency here on Zaadz, despite the following anecdote, is to balance my pontifications with as much “self-dishing” (different than self-deprecation) as required to achieve an only slightly annoying overall affect. Today, the continuum of group work, the real thing, which would include this we-space writing tango peripherally at least, is like ritual, emotional, seppuku.  Altered states are achieved when people dig deep and tell the truth or “appear” to do so.  Any person who is telling deep truths about themselves and appearing to benefit from it can become attractive (toxically, fatally) to someone whose three-hinge door may lack one or more pins.  However much we may benefit from a rigorous and thorough committment to honesty and transparency, there is nothing like being stalked for a while to convert one to reticence.

I was stalked for by a woman I “met” in a 12 step program.  The instant her “interest” became evident, I sat down with her and said unequivocably that “nothing romantic would ever happen between us.”  Well, that part turned out to be true unless you could call 1000 unsolicited phone calls, dozens of accostings-in-public, and a few break-in-and-enterings to be romantic.  Five years later, after exhausting every murder, torture, suicide fantasy that I could think of, I had to take her to court to get a restraining order.  The day after the restraining order ran out, she broke into my house again leaving one of her long, blond hairs in my brush.  She denied the break-in in a preliminary court procedure until I produced the hair (I kid you not) and threatened to have it analyzed for its DNA.

Apparently, she has backed off, (praise temporary Jaysus!) but my imagination still roams around dark-candeled altars strewn with worn out voodoo dolls and blood-penned odes to my demise.

Five years (and counting) is a long time to have obsessive energy aimed in your direction.  How did this happen?  Another little notch on my victim belt perhaps?  Methinks not (after riding to no avail with the victim thing) and that it might just have been me that (horrors!!) called this creature unto myself with my too-smart-for-my-own-good spiritual cocksuredness.   Well, ahem, this much I know for sure:  having a stalker on your list of acquaintences is a surefire antidote to such, um, pretention.

I “met” her in a “confidential” setting where Anonymity is like religion - no protection there.  In fact, it became a disadvantage as I “nobly” struggled with trying to maintain her anonymity (Fuck!) while she was stalking me!  How green-ass is that?

What I mean to say is that this, also, is the kind of experience I bring to my comfort level with disclosure here in Zaadz.  Today, I suspect that back when this friggin' valkyrie came into my life, I still had not unpacked all of my spiritual “pomposity” and was just  “cruisin' for a bruisin'” shall we say.  Recent escapades on Zaadz suggest that I might not be rid of all this damnable pomposity, but the consequences seem more bearable the quicker I ‘fess up to my part of any raggedness and get on with the self-dishin' deal.

Ewan asks:  ”Is it inauthentic to hold your identity back form a community like this?”

“Identity” is a big word.  Some parts are better kept witheld - no doubt, yes.  I live in the boonies and can announce the town I live in with some ease as I seriously doubt that piece of information could be used against me any more than it already has.  My personal, as in financial, family detail, and other such mundane but potentially vexacious matters, I keep to myself, but the inside “psychic” and experiential stuff? … my emotions, opinions, attitudes and yearnings? … the STORY?, well, I see no reason to not be entirely candid about that.  This I say for me only as my crimes have all been technically petty and long over their statutes of limitation. 

Jiki says:  “One recurrent consideration in participation in forums, for me, has been to notice when my responses feel like 'memoir-as-digression', and when 1st person detail may really serve a discussion. On a regular basis, I tend to refrain from posting some anecdotal, auto-bio stuff due, I think, to my sense of its too partial relevence to the topic.”

Jiki, I agree with you that ‘memoir-as-digression' (emphasis mine) is inherently off-topic though I do think that ‘anecdotal, auto-bio stuff' is of value despite its vulnerability to partiality in relevance.  After all, one person's partiality may be another's coherence.  Without Story reference and lacking that grounding in the poster's experience, we readers are left with writer's opinions and conclusions that are at best rooted in what others have to say. 

My sense of what Ewan is “uncomfortable” about is the sometimes fugitive “human touch” component.  Such warmth, or truth can only come when a writer shares some of their personal story or “Kosmic Address.”  We are not just writing essays back and forth at each other, and I don't think that is what you are suggesting, yet we do strive for a modicum of intimacy, at least I do, and that, where I come from calls for a little letting down of the hair.  Spilling our guts is rarely indicated.  I do strive though, to give what I am looking for - a mix of opinion, curiosity, and experience.

Bill says:  “That, and this is the internet, some caution is called for. It's certainly possible that zaadz pages and posts will come up on a potential employers google search of a prospects name.”

I believe that restraint and discrimination along with a healthy set of priorities will provide one all the security they need.  If I work to learn to trust myself with my own story, then I don't have to trust you or anyone else with it.  Weirdness may still come my way, but it won't be because I, or anyone else has betrayed me.

Yer pal,

Michael

Re: Faceless posters

Hi pod

Wow, had never considered the stalker problem!  Jeez you guys have some weird people in your country!

Michael - Bloody awesome to have you back here pal.  I didn't realise quite how much I value your contribution to our discussions till they wern't here anymore…Joni is a very wise woman.

That must have been a really unpleasant situation.  What did your stalker actually want from you?  Was it a sexual fascination or a worship thing or what?  I'm guessing a good old empathic green chin wag didn't work with her if she stuck around for 5 years? ;)

Jiki - Amazing.  I must admit I often skim read this pod, and don't pay as much attention to people I don't really know - partly because I seem to be less interested in people I see as 'anonymous', but also because if I read every post carefully I wouldn't have a life outside Zaadz!  I saw your post…and new picture and instantly thought, wow, he looks like a interesting guy, I wonder what he has to say.  Only after reading your post did I realise you've been around here for ages, and I simply hadn't paid much attention to your posts.  This says a great deal about me, haha!  But also about the visual impact of our physical bodies.  Theres just something amazing and important about connecting a face and a voice.  It just gives it solidity somehow.

Gina -

By seeing a picture of me there is more connection/intimacy (for you) and is that always a good thing?

Yes, thats the central question isn't it.  In my own opinion, in this circumstance, yes.  This pod is such a wonderful forum because it really embraces the personal.  People spend a great deal of time and energy getting to know each other, carefully writing posts and genuinely sharing.

If by reading my postings you go in search of more information, what does that accomplish?  Maybe it helps to create a picture that you can then project your ideas about who you think I am.   I have red hair……. oh, that must mean I have a temper……. I am a mother……… yikes……. I don't even want to think about what you might project onto that!  Ha.

I feel quite strongly that holding aspects of your identity back for fear of projection onto you is not a good excuse.  We have no control over other peoples projections, none at all.  People make judgements about us ALL the time, Thats what the relative world is about is it not?  But judgements arn't bad…bad judgements are bad! (to quote Ken).  Good judgements help us empathise with eachother, understand where each other are coming from; make skillfull means possible.


Ewan

Re: Faceless posters

Ewan: “Wow, had never considered the stalker problem!  Jeez you guys have some weird people in your country!”

You're joking, right? I can't tell. Stalkers are everywhere, dude.

It's less common for a woman to do this, but it only takes one to ruin your life, literally.

I took down almost all personal information about myself and my avatar photo after tiring of the endless stream of pick-up emails from random men. You might think that on zaadz, the creepiness factor would subside, but you'd be wrong. Don't walk around thinking that women are somehow “safe” anywhere. There is always, always the threat of unwanted male intrusion into our lives. Someday that may be different, but I don't think it will be in my lifetime.

I've actually seen lots of people do what I've done. There are pics of me in my photo album, but you have to go looking after you're already interested in who I am as a person, presumably after contact on a shared pod. It's also clear I have a boyfriend. I don't get any more bullshit “gosh, your profile is so interesting. Be my friend?” inquiries. There are a whole slew of men on here who just go around asking women to be friends, and have virtually no male friends. Harem seekers.

Liz

Re: Faceless posters

Liz,

You know you actually had me looking at my friends here, to see if there’s a bias towards women? (there is…).

I do believe it happens much more here in North America than it does in Europe - I know from my time in Holland it never came up, really (which doesn’t meant it didn’t happen - you’re right).

Something in this topic makes me a little uncomfortable: Ever since coming to Canada, I have way more female friends than male friends - i would say it’s a 5-1 ratio. I’ve always believed that this is because I feel I have little in coming with the average guy here in Alberta. I’ve tried a few times to go out with the guys, but got very tired of the subjects and lack of depth. When trying to talk more about life in it’s various aspects I was greeted by silence usually. With those who are more in touch with their feminine aspects - and here that’s mostly women - I have much more interesting discussions.

Does that mean that I am “suspect”? Does it mean I have to pay more attention and diversify my group of friends more, based on gender?

Frans

Re: Faceless posters

Interesting, Frans. I wasn't thinking of anyone on this pod like that. Congrats on your own self-inquiry, though. The key to your problem is tht you're in Alberta, man! You might have a worse time of it in, say, Texas, but you're smack-dab in the middle of cowboy country, no? I'm pretty damn good at detecting the smarmy vibe, and you don't seem to have it, so I'd relax if I were you. The only thing it could interfere with is your relationship with your wife, if one or more of those friendships became so intimate that you were telling your friend things you should be telling your wife. But that's not anything we can tackle here!

Just wanted to say that this typo is priceless, emphasis added is mine: ” I’ve always believed that this is because I feel I have little in coming with the average guy here in Alberta.” Didja see Brokeback Mountain…?

Liz

Re: Faceless posters

Liz:

’ ” I’ve always believed that this is because I feel I have little in coming with the average guy here in Alberta.” Didja see Brokeback Mountain…?’

Whaddaya mean “typo”? I might have put that in on purpose if I’d thought of it, but you’re right, it’s a typo…and it’s funny!

I’d be very interested in a thread dealing with relationship matters, but that may be too much, seeing that anyone could access the posts. Is this something that participants could set up via pm - that is if anyone is interested?

Frans

Re: Faceless posters

I am much more comfortable with being “me” here than I would ahve been a few years ago. Some of that was down to the environment being unfamiliar. It's hard to be personal when you don't really know to whom you are speaking. I think also I did an awful lot of learning on the IN forum, a certain amount of anonymity helped me express myself more clearly and it felt like it gave me space to rethink things, work things out, change my stance, because the thoughts and ideas were just that…by keeping some distance they didn't seem so personally attached to “me”.

The difficulty with intimate personal information here is that anyone can read it. I am not entirely convinced that what I am happy to share with this group I wiould want my boss.mother.next door neighbour to read. Though I suspect I have reached a place where I'm not really that bothered if they do, it has taken a while to get there.

I am also a local government employee and work to a code of cinduct which has funny things in it like “bringing the organisation into disrepute”. Who knows how such allegations and judgements are made, but the perceptions of others are not always reliable.I know others have cited professional registration boards etc as reasons for maintaining some level of anonymity.

Then there's the kids. I know many of us share a reluctance to put pics which would identify our families here. I e-mail family stuff to people, but never post it. For some it's a safety issue, for me now with kids at 20 and 22, it's about respecting their space. If they want to post pics on the net, they can choose which ones, how and where, all by themselves.

I do love to get the pictures, speaking to people on the phone and adding voice is a treat and meeting people face to face that you have already got to know and like is just one of the best things I've done in the past few years. That said, I am pretty comfortable with leaving people the space they feel they need, sharing is great but not compulsory.

Oh, I don't get all those creepy e-mails Liz………….maybe my pic does serve a purpose! :-)

Liz

Re: Faceless posters

Liz: when I posted my age, they mostly stopped…

Liz

Re: Faceless posters

Dear Ones,

Friend count:  57 - 29 women, 28 men.  My profile is a bit more candid than most.  I am also older than the average Zaadster.  I did not join this site for its meat-market feature, and, though I am way not immune to the attractions of certain women and their profiles, I have resolved to stay in my own little hoop here not because I think anything is inherently wrong with relationship “shopping”, but, and perhaps its a fine point, I am really interested in the more ephemeral aspects of this “we” space opportunity.  I know that I definitely have stayed here in part because of the relationship-oriented rewards I have gained by participating in this pod.  It matters deeply to me what I say here both spontaneously and in response to others.  Though I have never physically met but two of the regulars here, I would say that my fondness “factor” for many of you is as high as that of “best friends” I have known intimately for 30 years or more.  How has this happened?  Well, many of us have been through some pretty dicey times together.  We have differed, strongly at times, misunderstood each other, taken sides, made fools out of ourselves, reconsidered, apologized and otherwise behaved like an emergent intentional community of people who care deeply about our personal sense of spirituality and, consequently, the mysterious wonder of other's.  We talk about the very things that are most capable of starting fights:  religion, spirituality, politics and kulture.  This place would not seem half so interesting and compelling if Liz and Arthur had not shared some of the juice of their relationship with us, or Jane had not let us all know what life was really like on the Labradorian frontier, and Mary not showed us the rich earth of her spirit, or Mascha had left her penetrating wit and candor behind and she and others had not started and sustained the Smilie thread, or if Balder wasn't so resolutely decent, and Kessels and Ma Rig Pa weren't so damn observant and funny, and Lauren, oh God!, well, what can you say about that girl? And Pelle, the stick-to-his-guns arbi-moderator who is consistent as the heavens, and Gitanjali whose searching and poetic musings I miss, and the young lions Melv and Ewan with their big questions and unfettered perspectives and huge risk-takers like Colin and Stacy, and the thoughtful, come-back-for-more David and the steady smart guys like e. and Holden, and all the other neck-sticker-outers, and the well-read, insightful and cautionary occasionals like Hokai and Teacup who make us all gnash our rational teeth at times and even the wily and mysterious Julian, the effortless provocateur, who, style-notwithstanding, can sure fling the pixie dust - where would we be without all this soul-stirring selfishness?  I am kidding myself if I say that I am not self-ish - after all, who else am I going through all these contortions for?  Sure, I “care” about you, love you in fact, but you are just a character, another “performer” in my story.  Today, I strive to let you just be who you are in my story, to not mess with your sense of the drama, to bring what you have to me as freely as I strive to share my emergent self-love with you.  This all requires risk-taking, but I know today that my capacity to be injured or insulted is not in your hands, it is in mine.  It is up to me to control the degree to which I expose myself here - ever the tightrope between secrecy and attention-getting self-reference - ever the Libran quest for balance.  At least today, I know that I have the choice to seek it, balance I mean, as well as the help to sustain it.  That's where you all come in, and I for you as I trust you know.

Yer pal,

Michael

Re: Faceless posters

Aahhh… a long exhale. Thank you Michael and Liz and Liz and Gina and David and all. Among the many unexpected things I'm learning here (with gnashing teeth and gnarled brain), a surprising one is more patience. If I can just wait long enough before I hit send, somebody will have said what I wanted to bring up, and often better than I could - humbling, I tell ya, and really great: I'm not needed here - what a feeling, it's all taken care of, and better than I ever could - ah, freedom, a breath of Big Air.

One addition. Close friends, colleagues, and what's left of my family agree that no one will disclose information publicly that might give any one of us trouble down the line. There is a big difference between an honest disclosure of our naked souls and foolish candor, the kind of openness that can seriously damage someone's right to relative peace of mind in this crazy place, where everyone wants a piece of you, and once they've got that, they feel entitled to demand more, more…  We all know what it's like to be possessed by entities who can't seem to get enough, I trust? Hmm, maybe not.

M

Re: Faceless posters

I have around 100 Zaadz friends, two thirds of them are women. If you take away the persons I actually know, it’s probably 80% women - most of whom have contacted me (I never browse Zaadz to randomly find new friends). I think it’s simply a natural pattern on a social networking site, straight people go looking for the opposite sex, whether consciously or not.

Pelle

Re: Faceless posters

Hi Ewan,

I don't normally post pictures of myself, or present much of an identity. I have a number of reasons for this:

In my experience, our culture provides us with a limited number of identities from which to choose from, kind of like a deck of cards, the stock characters of Greek theatre, or astrological signs. Sometimes we are forced by parents/society to adopt a particular one and we call this inauthentic. But what we call authentic identity is nothing more than picking one that we feel we can convincingly portray to others. But because we have very limited choices, we have to leave out certain parts of our personality that don't fit the mold. I think there's a certain level of anxiety over that, and I see that in the fascination that people have for their own personality profile. I don't think people are looking for authenticity so much as they are trying to convince themselves that they do fit the mold, because the cost of not fitting in is social isolation. We call this “finding yourself” but what have you found? It seems to me that finding yourself means abandoning the parts of yourself that you can't fit into the social scheme of personality, so really it should be called losing yourself. This anxiety is also expressed when such a person interacts with others. Because they have repressed aspects of themselves that don't fit, they don't tolerate people who are open about the fact that they don't fit because it reminds them that they don't fit either, so they enforce rigid adherence to the stock character scheme, through shame, guilt, threats of social isolation, etc.

Like everyone, I adopt a persona to portray in ordinary life. It makes it easier, and it's almost impossible to get along without one. But that doesn't mean that when people interact with my persona, I feel like we are connecting. Often they feel they are connecting with me, and then they are disappointed when I don't respond in the same way. Similarly, sometimes I can get past the persona and speak to the person behind it, but that also doesn't form a connection because they are so committed to perfecting their persona, they often don't value human connection that transcends it.

The US is a very optimistic culture. We don't like it when people aren't happy, we'd prefer for them to go away and come back when they can smile for the cameras again. Similarly, if you are not openly happy, the assumption is that you want to be left alone, because if you didn't, you'd at least fake happiness. But the result of this is that people repress their sadness, and indeed, their sadness and loneliness that comes from not being a whole person. So it's kind of a catch-22 situation – you can't connect to people in a whole way, because that activates their sadness and loneliness, which is itself strongly associated with social disconnection. Since I try to be a whole person, I am sometimes sad and serious, which leads people to believe that I want to be left alone, which is true in the sense that they understand it – I'm not very interested in rehearsing my persona. Being isolated because you are sad is, to me, one of the worst aspects of our culture – you are most alone when you are most vulnerable. And in allowing myself to be publically isolated, people will privately talk to me about their sadness because they know that I won't reject them. More generally, allowing myself to be isolated subtley alters group dynamics such that the fear of isolation is not so acute.


Speaking again from my experience, it's very common for people who emphasize love, relationship, the miracle of we, etc., to be motivated out of this very deep fear. And when people are motivated out of fear, they become extremely self-centered, even while externally they appear to be very interested in others. In fact, they are interested in others insofar as it helps them, fixes them, heals them, takes away their fear. Basically, using someone for your own needs. And this works when two people enter into a relationship with the arrangement of mutually using, but I believe that this solution is no solution at all, it just perpetuates a codependent relationship. As is so often the case, in trying to make your life better, you make your life worse.

My faceless identity-less identity is like a sheer cliff where a set of stairs or even an elevator is expected. In my experience, it mainly puts off people who wish to use me for their own purposes. Maybe this seems unsympathetic? In fact, it is because I'm sympathetic that I do this, because if I made it easy for them, it would reinforce in their minds the belief that healing can come from outside of themselves, a painkiller instead of freedom from pain. By helping you, I am hurting you. In reality, there is no cliff to climb because there is no barrier to entry.

Re: Faceless posters

Mr. Teacup,

Very perceptive posting - but is it for this group? Isn’t it the intent of this Integral pod to overcome those very factors you describe? It may very well be that most of us, if not all of us, have this limited projected persona “out there”, but maybe this group of people intends to overcome these limitations?

You say:

“sometimes I can get past the persona and speak to the person behind it, but that also doesn’t form a connection because they are so committed to perfecting their persona, they often don’t value human connection that transcends it.”

But what if we do value this connection?

You say:

“…takes away their fear. Basically, using someone for your own needs. And this works when two people enter into a relationship with the arrangement of mutually using, but I believe that this solution is no solution at all, it just perpetuates a codependent relationship. As is so often the case, in trying to make your life better, you make your life worse.”

So true - so why not work on that in this group? Not by making it easy for people, but by being vulnerable. As Michael put it in his latest posting here: in the end you’d be doing it for self-ish reasons as ultimately you will be the beneficiary…

Frans

Re: Faceless posters

Mr. Teacup,

With all due respect to you, your autonymy, your quick and determined mind, your high-end skepticism, and your willingness to hang in there when the going gets rough, I am going to call a little demi-bullshit on this last post of yours, especially the first paragraph.

It is my experience that we have about as much “choice” over which personality we “pick” as we do over the weather.  As to “choice,” or ”free will” in the “identity game?”  Well, let's say you are going to a party tonight and, joy of joys, you and your “free will chooser” get to go to your closet and pick out a costume for the evening - a perfect example of free will in action, right?  You stand there confronting the nuances of agenda and opportunity, scanning the options while kidding yourself that you get to choose.  I contend that what we are all doing in these such moments, is looking for the costume that best suits the agenda/opportunity complex.  We are really not choosing anything at all - rather, we are hoping that our discrimination and cleverness will recognize the right combination that will give us an edge for the evening suitable to the motivations of our agenda.  What we do get to choose is to routinely surrender (or not) to the discrimination that arises from ongoing contemplation regarding our ethics, morals, values, motivations and priorities.  Do we live up to this self-generated standard or not?  Do we let this messy, muddy complex in all its fecund glory rise to the surface? Imo, that is our only real choice.  All else is lllusory.  If part of your standard is to reveal little about your self personally, then  by default, you project (like it or not) the attributes of the Stranger, the mysterious, the One who is silent about self, but full of opinion about others as in, “It seems to me that finding yourself means abandoning the parts of yourself that you can't fit into the social scheme of personality, so really it should be called losing yourself. This anxiety is also expressed when such a person interacts with others. Because they have repressed aspects of themselves that don't fit, they don't tolerate people who are open about the fact that they don't fit because it reminds them that they don't fit either, so they enforce rigid adherence to the stock character scheme, through shame, guilt, threats of social isolation, etc.”

Though most of us “know” that acceptance, affection, and belonging are best self-generated, we are still bound in the ageless inertia of the illusion that calls us to seek them without.  Despite the spareness of your self-identifying “presentation”, you can be remarkably candid in a way that I genuinely appreciate.  I like what you have to say about the dangers (my word) of superficial intimacy and the way that it can accentuate the feelings of loneliness and displacement.  Yet, such an experience, even if sponsored from ill-conceived attempts at intimacy does draw one closer to the underlying truth of ourselves - namely that we ARE lonely and our experience IS one of displacement.  This knowledge, though it may be gained as a result of a sophmoric exchange, is nonetheless valuable if it can be accepted for what it is independent of the way we became aware of it.

It is my experience that most of the truth of who we “are” on the psychic/emotional/behavioral/motivational level is pretty messy.  For me to stand back from that and play the Stranger, with my Big Mind, Big Vision, Big Insight costume on is the epitome of inauthenticity for me.  Today, I would much rather have people think, “How can that guy admit to so much turmoil and still keep a sense of humor about it?” than think of me as the friggin' Pale Ridin' Lone Ranger bringing some Integral commandments down from Zion.

It took me a long time to come to this Mike and I'm still not familiar with the territory, but I can tell you for sure, that I am not as sad, frightened, lonely and unrequited as I used to be.

Yer pal,

Michael

Re: Faceless posters

Michael,

What we do get to choose is to routinely surrender (or not) to the discrimination that arises from ongoing contemplation regarding our ethics, morals, values, motivations and priorities.

And we choose our ethics, morals, values, motivations and priorities, or we choose to let someone else decide for us. Do we surrender to our discrimination? We can always choose to ignore it. An agenda is also freely chosen – you must commit to it. Even if someone says, “Your money or your life,” you still make a choice. An obvious one, but still, a choice that reveals an agenda.

There is something about personality that is not chosen, and much that is.

If part of your standard is to reveal little about your self personally, then  by default, you project (like it or not) the attributes of the Stranger, the mysterious, the One who is silent about self

Yes, and this is my point. No persona necessarily reveals more or less than any other persona, because they all could be used to conceal. My mysterious silent persona communicates just like every other persona, and knowing this, I sometimes amuse myself by inserting hidden meanings and playing a game within the game, to signal a more real personality. The reader puts the pieces together, and then tells me something about myself that only I know. Everyone does this to some extent – no-one really likes their persona, they wish they could tell the truth, so they leave clues about who is really behind the mask.

The intersubjective is like a dark stage where we can only see each others' masks. Sometimes truth tells the truth, but sometimes we can express the truth more fully by telling a lie, and that might take the form of “no persona”. The original question was why people purposely refuse to share their persona; my answer is that a fluid persona, an “inauthentic” persona or a persona of no persona are the first step to finding out what is prior to a constructed personality. So the conscious engagement with our personas reveals our agendas, and hopefully some real truth.

Yet, such an experience, even if sponsored from ill-conceived attempts at intimacy does draw one closer to the underlying truth of ourselves - namely that we ARE lonely and our experience IS one of displacement.

Yes, by being repeatedly disappointed at finding a cure outside of ourselves, until we realize that this strategy is fundamentally misguided. My suggestion is that it is the disappointment, not the intimacy, that helps people grow past this, and that protecting people from disappointments actually makes their situation worse. You can never really love until you've had your heart broken.

Perhaps this is painful to hear. Much of what I say is. But I'm saying that people engage in codependent behavior is because they are have an aversion to pain, so I can't shield people from it.


—


Frans,

I can't know if what I'm saying applies to any particular person, though I would be surprised if it didn't apply at all. If it really bothers someone that others are relatively “closed”, then I think that's a good sign that maybe it does apply, but they might be bothered by that for other reasons too.

Giving people permission to be vulnerable and to be themselves is helpful, and that's a conventional way of going about it – nothing wrong with that. And beyond that, there's a level where we give ourselves permission, and to do that, you have to cut the safety net. I don't think it's something that you can ease into slowly without any discomfort.

Re: Faceless posters

Mr. Teacup,

I’m not sure if you understood my reply - and that’s probably my fault; English isn’t my first language which is why I get some of the nuances wrong…

My intention was that yes - the points you make are valid, and more than likely are valid for most of us here on this pod too. However, your approach to others here, in my eyes is flawed. Here’s why:

You say:

“It seems to me that finding yourself means abandoning the parts of yourself that you can’t fit into the social scheme of personality, so really it should be called losing yourself.”

The integral approach (our approach here, I hope) is of course to incorporate al parts of yourself, honouring them for what they are and realizing that they make up a larger entity…

You say:

“Since I try to be a whole person, I am sometimes sad and serious, which leads people to believe that I want to be left alone, which is true in the sense that they understand it – I’m not very interested in rehearsing my persona.”

I say most of us here are trying to be whole persons, integrating various personas in our identity…

You say:

“And when people are motivated out of fear, they become extremely self-centered, even while externally they appear to be very interested in others. In fact, they are interested in others insofar as it helps them, fixes them, heals them, takes away their fear. Basically, using someone for your own needs.”

I believe we get this - it’s pretty basic - and are consciously trying (sorry if I sound repetitive) to integrate that part of us into a more comprehensive I/we.

All in all, I choose to believe we are all here to develop, and to help others develop, which greatly enhances our own development - so taking the stance you do is on this forum counter-productive.

I hope that makes sense - Frans

Re: Faceless posters

Frans,

On the contrary, I think my approach is extremely productive. Some people might misinterpret me as saying that no real truth is possible, but I don't mean that. My approach is simply the observation that the first step to truthfulness is admitting to the falseness of persona. That's what my non-persona persona is about. We are all telling lies – let that be the first truth. Maybe it sounds like an accusation, but it's not, it's just the way things are. Should I be held responsible because someone failed their own standards of honesty? If it helps, I think the ideal is noble, but absurdly underestimates the difficulty of living up to it. Let's be realistic, let's be truthful about our inability to be completely truthful.

But you seem to be saying that, in fact, everyone is already completely honest, open and transparent and that personas don't get in the way, so my point is perfectly obvious. I know that people hold that as an aspiration, but since this is the second time that you've told me that what I am posting is of no value to the group, I am happy to stop.

~MrTeacup

Re: Faceless posters

Mr TC, I think what you're saying is of great value, so no need to stop at all.

I think what Frans means is that you might be even more effective at getting your message across if you assume that most people in the pod are having or have had similar thoughts to your own. Part of embodying an integral consciousness is becoming aware of both the persona and the Shadow, and then consciously working on developing an ego that is healthier and more complete than before. A second insight is then of course that no matter how much we transform and translate the Ego, it will still always be limited and contracted - hence the practices that eventually can help one transcend ego.

What you're saying might not be revolutionary, but it is a different way of describing the issue, so please feel free to continue sharing your thoughts on this.

peace
Pelle

Re: Faceless posters

Wow, cool comments, Mr T. Yes, deep communion is founded upon everyone standing alone.

Re: Faceless posters

Well, all questions of sheer cliffs vs. staircases aside, this thread has me reconsidering the safety of posting too much personal info. I decided to change my revealed location from local to regional, but the zaadz software seems bugged and after doing it three times it still insists on locating me in “New England, ND” rather than just “New England”. So I seem to have relocated to New England, North Dakota which ought to lend me a right nice measure of anonymity.

I err on the side of too much self-disclosure. Sometimes when I look at it from a certain perspective I can't believe what I've chosen to share. Just yesterday it occured to me that my son would now be “googlable” on account of our thread for him here, and so I punched his name in and indeed, google found him at zaadz with no trouble at all. I feel wierd about this, but I'm so grateful for the experience of you all knowing about his death and birth (such strange chronology) that I can't say I regret the disclosure.

I am here for the personal contact, so to speak. And I treasure the personal particularities, or as Colin put it, ” those static little particles that were left by the wave that you are…”
and I do find that everyone who has posted here in this thread, whether you are a sheer cliff or a twisty-turny-mile-high-staircase, presents whatever they have to share with plenty of personal flavor… enough to delight, entertain, provoke, occasionally irritate, and endear themselves to me.
And I bow.

Bless you, you cretins.

Love,
Lauren

And a big wocadoo to what Mascha said here:
“If I can just wait long enough before I hit send, somebody will have said what I wanted to bring up, and often better than I could - humbling, I tell ya, and really great: I'm not needed here - what a feeling, it's all taken care of, and better than I ever could - ah, freedom, a breath of Big Air.”

Because the wave that you are is Us.

Re: Faceless posters

Ewan:   feel quite strongly that holding aspects of your identity back for fear of projection onto you is not a good excuse.  We have no control over other peoples projections, none at all.  People make judgements about us ALL the time, Thats what the relative world is about is it not?  But judgements arn't bad…bad judgements are bad! (to quote Ken).  Good judgements help us empathise with eachother, understand where each other are coming from; make skillfull means possible.

I agree with this in part, holding back for fear of projection is not a good excuse, right.  In this format of communication especially though, which I am guessing is part of your frustration of not being able to 'feel' the other person, projections run rampant.  How can you make any real assesement of who I am based on what I type here?  All of what I say can be written in character and by this I mean on purpose as opposed to the personality type we wear most often.   For those who play games and never post who they truly are … we would never really know and although we might get fooled here, in person it is a much more challenging game to play.

Wanting to understand others and get a sense of who they are is only possible to the degree they let you (Mr. Teacup being a great example, thank you)  Even then I think there are so many more factors to how people can be heard, represented, perceived and projected upon in this format.   Micheal mention Mr. Teacup was playing the mysterious stranger yet, I find Mr. Teacup's nihilistic personality quite obtuse   :P  (just kidding teacup)

Re: Faceless posters

Teacup,

You say:  “And we choose our ethics, morals, values, motivations and priorities, or we choose to let someone else decide for us.”

Again, I don't think I did in real “choosing” here in the area of ethics et al.  I adopted, or mimiced at first, the standard values of my class, gender, race, resident political and religious persuasions.  As a pre-teen/teenager/young adult, some of these primarily adopted or assigned “positions” came to conflict with my various desires and ambitions and on I rolled, somewhat wantonly, regardless of conflicting mores.  It was not until I was in my mid-to-late twenties that I began to hold my behavior (both overt and covert) up to any ethical/moral judiciary.  I have no idea why it happened except that Saturn, the ass-kicking disciplinarian, was transiting its natal position at this time and this sort of inventory taking and adjustment is what is supposed to happen - this review of where I stood in the realm of conscious responsibility taking.  Mostly it was an exercise in recognition:  “oh yeah, that one, and those three, not that, or that, but yeah, all the beatitudes and virtues, of course.” 

I did not choose them, these virtues and values, I chose to gather my awareness and focus my attention on the issues of personal morality and ethics.  Interestingly, I could not come up with anything original but I did have the experience (it seems) of the positive character traits as emergent, as self-identifying explications from the core of me whether I wanted them or not.  This is the “discriminating” moment I referred to, where choice is applicable - acceptance of this essentially intuitive and reasonable psychic recipe of mores implies choice to concede or rebel, to surrender or fight our own inherent wisdom.  Responsibly accepted, we ensure that our agendas reflect how high the bar has been set by such acceptance.

You say:  ”No persona necessarily reveals more or less than any other persona, because they all could be used to conceal. ”

“could” is a powerful operator in that sentence.  I would agree with you that one persona is not necessarily more revealing than another, but it is also true that certain personae are more capable and/or willing to reveal their foundations than others.  As a prior mysteriant(sic) dropping crypticisms (sic) from my cliffside ivory tower, I know that what I was about was attracting attention to the aloof brilliance of my outsides while I hid the dark consternation of my insides from view.

“My mysterious silent persona communicates just like every other persona, and knowing this, I sometimes amuse myself by inserting hidden meanings and playing a game within the game, to signal a more real personality.”
 
OK …how do you know that the mysteriant communicates just like every other persona?  And why insert game play within what you have judged only for yourself to be game play as a signal towards the real truth?  Why not just come from that truth in the first place, from that surrendered-to discrimination, from that rule of self-wisdom, from the anarchic freedom that comes from utter surrender to the law of higher conscience?

“The reader puts the pieces together, and then tells me something about myself that only I know. Everyone does this to some extent - no-one really likes their persona, they wish they could tell the truth, so they leave clues about who is really behind the mask.”

Um, er, ah … ok, here goes:  I'll bet you wonder on a regular basis if you will ever be free of the mind/brain tattoos of duplicitous agendas that were “forced” upon you as you grew up.  If so, I would suggest that such a consternation (if you will) is not a part of any “persona” per se, but simply a consideration before it.  By wholeheartedly accepting the intuitive and reasonable product of our own deep self-review, we affectively “un-choose” the agendas of others.  Yet the action is not ours.  We do choose to surrender or rebel.  Surrender leads to the freedom of authentic autonymy while rebellion binds us to war with the agendas of our foreign occupants.

Surrender, rebellion, apathy:  pretty much our basic choices.  All else is recognition or denial.

Yer pal,
Michael

Re: Faceless posters

I would agree with you that one persona is not necessarily more revealing than another, but it is also true that certain personae are more capable and/or willing to reveal their foundations than others.

Well yes, that's what they say they are doing, but appearances can be deceiving.


OK …how do you know that the mysteriant communicates just like every other persona?

Because whatever your persona is, it's communicating something.


And why insert game play within what you have judged only for yourself to be game play as a signal towards the real truth?

As an exercise in self-reflection and as a way to get to know people.There is text and subtext, I read my own subtext and sometimes write it. A persona is often in the text, and the real person is often in the subtext. For example, sometimes people imitate my writing style when they write to me. Why? It can be a way of developing rapport, but are they just trying to win me over? Sometimes people think that I'm intellectually smart, so I must be kind of emotionally dumb. This suggests something about how they view the world, and I keep that in mind when I interact with them. Maybe they are intimidated by me, maybe some shadow has been activated, or maybe they just like the way I write. There's a lot of interesting possible reasons, maybe more than one, and it's an ongoing process to determine what the answer is. If you do this over a range of variables, you can rule out certain combinations as being unlikely, and sometimes I insert certain things into my text or subtext to test a hypothesis and see if I get the expected result back. You might learn unflattering things about a person that way, but so what? We all have issues, it's not news that even good people do bad stuff sometimes.

So what is my subtext? Probably a lot of people are going to read what I just wrote and recoil in horror at how analytical it is, and look for something wrong with me. No doubt they will find what they seek. But I post a lot of semi-controversial things here. Why do I do that? Because they seem true to me, and they go against commonly accepted wisdom, and I'd love to find out what the flaw in my reasoning is. My theory is, in this case, that if we can really commit to unselfishness in relationship, that would be a very good thing.

More generally, I make a point to answer all questions that people ask, try to disagree respectfully and spend a great deal of time considering others' points of view and crafting responses. My posts are among the most verbose on the forum. Yet, because you may need a dictionary to read my words – which is of no reflection on your intelligence or you as a person – I am deemed “closed”, arrogant, an ivory tower intellectual. I understand why, but I don't agree that it's accurate, and I certainly don't know how to change the mind of a person would make that judgment on such thin evidence.


Why not just come from that truth in the first place, from that surrendered-to discrimination, from that rule of self-wisdom, from the anarchic freedom that comes from utter surrender to the law of higher conscience?

Because truth is interpreted. It would be nice if I could simply say what I believe is true and have it understood, but that's not the world we live in. In the intersubjective context, we have to present, portray, illustrate, contextualize and narrate what we think is true, and since much of what I am trying to communicate is about the intersubjective process of contextualization itself, it's even harder to be accurately understood.

Re: Faceless posters

Hi Ewan,

Funny you posted this, I read it not long after changing my picture from my WOMAD pic to a view of a mountain from below.  I did it for a reason I imagine many people would put such pictures as symbols, mandalas and sublime views for, to share something deeper than just my face when I was in a good mood one time.  I was trying to symbolise the mountain I feel I'll have to climb over the next few years, academically and emotionally.
       Like Teacup says, it's about the subtext =).  Although I've been swayed to another crazy pic of me when I was in a good mood, reminds me to stay happy!

I was wandering yesterday about how we apparently all have masks, so I've been told… how true is it?  I imagined that someone could be displaying their real self all the time but only in most usual interactions they would only be showing a limited, less deep version, it doesn't have to be fake…  I must say that when I started realising this year how much of a strange persona I had I took control of it, and so I made it more humorous and self mocking instead, it doesn't feel entirely real: but then again the real me, to me, is quite franky a tad boring in most social situations, LOL.

regards to all,
Dan

Re: Faceless posters

Hey everyone

Pelle said: Part of embodying an integral consciousness is becoming aware of both the persona and the Shadow, and then consciously working on developing an ego that is healthier and more complete than before. A second insight is then of course that no matter how much we transform and translate the Ego, it will still always be limited and contracted - hence the practices that eventually can help one transcend ego.

I'm having a Mascha moment…wait until someone else says what you've been feeling, and says it better than you had formulated it in your head.

Mr Teacup - I'd also like to add another response to you though.  Although, like Pelle said, I'm aware of most of the stuff you were saying, the way you framed it seemed to make me feel rather uncomfortable, maybe saddened is a better word.  I dont want to engage this on a theoretical level, firstly because I think we're probably generally in agreement with much of it, but mainly, because I'm not totally sure what it is that I feel resistant to in what you say.  So I'll just try and fuddle around with my felt sense, see what comes up.

I guess I feel like the slant your giving to the whole issue of persona/self is somewhat cynical.  It sounds like you have a pretty uninspiring time with many fellow americans in regard to more authentic interaction, but be aware that that is a certain perspective.  I have an (admitedly select) circle of peers and friends in whom I share very intimate and close relationship with, where we are not only able to speak from the most authenitic self we are able, but that the we space actually demands it.  The vulnerability/intimacy when we meet is quite extraordinary, inspiring and humbling.  That group more than anything has shaped the ease with which I am able to share my vulnerability with others.

That kind of 'we' space demands that all partys are 'developed' enough to maintain and stabalise that kind of openess in a safe way.  I guess my initial feelings that motivaed this thread in the first place, was that I felt this pod was a place that could be aspiring to a higher level of openess.

Does that resonate at all?

I hadn't considered the 'stalker element', though it feels like a shame to sacrifice potential intimacy becuase of the irritation of the odd person PM'ing weird hello messsages.  It aint that hard to just ignore them!  Real life stalkers are a different thing though, totally appreciate that I hadn't considered it.

Liz said:  You're joking, right? I can't tell. Stalkers are everywhere, dude.

Actually I wasn't joking.  I have *never* known *anyone* here in the UK who has had a serious stalker problem.  The odd TV celeb, sure, but everyday people?  Not that I've ever seen.  I'll say it again - you guys have a lot of real weirdos in your country!


Ewan

Re: Faceless posters

Ewan,

That group more than anything has shaped the ease with which I am able to share my vulnerability with others.

This is a wonderful thing, and I'm very glad that you have found that in your life. I don't know the details of how your group works, but I'm going to try to point out why I think this kind of thing is inadequate – how or whether it applies is up to you.

We all have the capacity to be honest, transparent and open with others, and most healthy people try to do this. But a number of things interfere with it, primarily fear. The solution is to seek out social environments that lowers your anxiety, and free you up to self-disclose. This is all well and good as far as it goes. The problem is that now, you have effectively said, “I can't open up until someone else makes me feel comfortable and takes away my fear.” Is that true? The truth is that you could open up, but like all of us, you are afraid. That is not a condition of the world outside, that's a condition of your mind, and a community which helps you avoid that condition is not dealing honestly with the nature of existence. I should add that there's nothing wrong with it, it's perfectly OK as long as we understand the limitations and potential pathologies.

Since everyone here is presumably committed to dealing with their fears, this strategy is very far away from that. It says that the best way of dealing with fear is to put ourselves in situations where we don't have to deal with it, and encourages us to engage in various avoidance strategies. And the better we get at those strategies, the worse off we are, even while life seems increasingly free of fear. Helping you improve your strategy may be hurting you.

The other issue is around the idea of reciprocal, quid pro quo relationship, such as a relationship where you hold someone else responsible for your emotional state and you do the same for them. My expectation for an integral community is that we uphold the standard of selfless compassion and unconditional giving with no expectations, no strings attached, no demands that our needs be met in return. Saying something like, “I long to be in deep communion with others, but they aren't letting me, so they aren't meeting my needs, and there's probably something wrong with them,” is a deeply conditional way of looking at relationships. Again, completely normal, nothing wrong with that, it's just not the highest standard that we can uphold.

Re: Faceless posters

Hi Mr T

The problem is that now, you have effectively said, “I can't open up until someone else makes me feel comfortable and takes away my fear.” Is that true? The truth is that you could open up, but like all of us, you are afraid.

It's not a fear of opening up that motivated this thread for me at all.  I'm about as open here as I think I can be on an internet forum.  And I've never had any issues about opening up to people.  If anything, its probably a tendency to lean the other way, and trust people too quickly sometimes.

I have other fears, big ones, but fear of intimacy and opening up is definitely not one of them, never has been.  Is it one of yours?


Ewan

Re: Faceless posters

Ewan,

It's not a fear of opening up that motivated this thread for me at all.

I'm not saying that it is.

You've said that people withholding information from you makes you feel uncomfortable, makes you suspicious, and you feel it is inauthentic, in contrast to your intimate group of friends where it is safe to be open, vulnerable. That group has been instrumental in helping you become more intimate and more open. Other people have agreed, saying that when other people fail to self-disclose, it puts a monkey-wrench in the miracle of we.

So the overall impression I'm getting is the unsatisfactoriness of other people failing to self-disclose. The unsatisfactory part could be that it makes the space less safe for you, or that it makes you feel less connected to others. There could be many reasons, but they all boil down to the environment being somehow less than what you would like it to be, and the normal response is to try to change the environment.

So I'm not saying that you are afraid of intimacy – actually I'm not really saying anything about you specifically, because I don't know enough about you to do that. But I do notice a general tendency for people to make their internal condition dependent on external factors. When I don't get intimacy, I'm unhappy, so I need intimacy. When other people don't self-disclose, I don't get intimacy, so they should self-disclose. Other people need to meet my needs. These ideas are based in a reciprocal understanding of human relationships. A non-reciprocal, unconditional view of relationship would be: I avoid making demands on others. I allow them to be or not be as they choose. I enjoy being intimate with others, but the absence of intimacy doesn't arose feelings of lack. I am whole and complete just as I am, both in and out of relationship with others.

The problem of being too trusting is an interesting one to unpack. I assume that it means you trusted people, and they hurt or disappointed you somehow. They failed to live up to your expectations of how a person should respond to you trusting them. Again, the standard disclaimer applies that this is how almost everyone behaves, and there's nothing really wrong with it. I have an omega symbol on my desk at work that I use to remind me of my expectations that things should be other than the way they are, that people should behave in ways other than the way they do are the cause of a great deal of my suffering. It's not that I'm wrong about how things should be – I could be totally right, and it wouldn't matter.

~MrTC

Re: Faceless posters

Mr. Teacup: ” A non-reciprocal, unconditional view of relationship would be: I avoid making demands on others. I allow them to be or not be as they choose. I enjoy being intimate with others, but the absence of intimacy doesn't arose feelings of lack. I am whole and complete just as I am, both in and out of relationship with others.”

This is where it gets really interesting, doesn't it? Here's a perspective on what could happen at this stage of development, a scenario I would like to explore just a little bit here because I've seen it mentioned so rarely. And no wonder - there is a price to pay if you do.

As I understand it, what you describe above and what filters through for me in your posts, is coming from a station where the air is getting thin and the buses stop coming in. Where you (anyone who's there) may want to trudge back to the herd and huddle for warmth and comfort, for its safety and ego-strokes. But you keep finding that you can't stay for long anymore. Something else is calling, an urge deep within compels you to get up, leave the theater where they're playing the same drama for the umpteen-thousandth time again… leave your friends, they want to see it once more…. leave your family,  leave everyone you know,  and go outside for a breath of Big Air. So there you are, outside the Psychodramadome, alone, standing small in a kosmic wind. And you see: Oh, yeah, that's the Abyss right there – in front, above, below, and on all sides. Not frightening, though. No, that's you yourSelf, so it's cool. And you're vast. Nothing greater. Awesome - and not even that. No words… not many thoughts… an indescribable feeling of fullness finally.

Addictive. You've got to get more of that whatchallmercallit?, and there's no turning back for long, not for you, you're a goner, it's got you by the – everywhere.

It's difficult to live with someone who is breaking free. People don't like it, it's as if the young tiger challenges the very foundations of everyone's carefully cultivated identity by nothing more than just being there, talking the way he does, shining perhaps a little too brightly – too charismatic a figure to ignore, even if such ignore-ance is feigned as a tool to drive him back into the fold. This is where every bit of conditioning attacks you from within And without in the form of your kin.

That's when some old tigers who've crossed this threshold step in on occasion with a bit of miraculous help, totally out of the blue. They draw near and keep you company briefly, maybe soothe you for a moment in the middle of yet another dark night of the soul. But most of all they appear to encourage you to be bold: to go further than they ever have and Be as you Are, unique beyond compare. Roar!

Re: Faceless posters

Liz said:  You're joking, right? I can't tell. Stalkers are everywhere, dude.

Actually I wasn't joking.  I have *never* known *anyone* here in the UK who has had a serious stalker problem.  The odd TV celeb, sure, but everyday people?  Not that I've ever seen.  I'll say it again - you guys have a lot of real weirdos in your country!

Re: Faceless posters

Liz.

Grandma.

Sure, totally appreciate that personal experience is not solid evidence of whether stalking in the UK is a big issue, although thats accross the board, regardless of whether I'm 25 or 65 (I'm 25 by the way…the 5 is imporant…I've worked hard in those 5 years ;)

What I can vouch for, is the fact that the 'percieed threat' of stalkers is not strong on our cultural radar here in the UK.  Frans seemed to be suggesting something similar for Holland too.

Is stalking more common in the States than Europe/UK?  Dunno.  Is the 'percieved threat' of stalkers more common in the States…?  Maybe thats the more interestind dynamic.

Just an example to chew over: I heard a piece on a big current affairs radio show here, about 6 months ago.  It was on child abduction, and how dangerous it is for kids in todays society.  They had *loads* of people ringing i saying the threat of children being abducted in this country and killed, was really worrying, and that they don't let their children outside on their own.  They had some child protection expert on expressing all her fears too, condemning the state of our society, and how much worse it is now than it used to be. 

Then they got one of the Law Lords on, and he asked this woman “how many children do you think have been abducted and killed in this country in the last 30 years?”  She said, “oh, hundreds and hundreds”.  He replied, “actually, it 27, and the annual average hasn't increased for 30 years.”  (or some similar figues anyhow).


Ewan

Re: Faceless posters

For the record Ewan,

When i changed my pic to one of the top of my head  – as opposed to the full, oh what a blonde day in the sunshine face shot i usually use, i actually got pm's begging me to change it back.
Of course i didnt succumb to request.. i pleased myself, but its funny to know how - dispite ones profile, the general jist of who you are gets wrongly filtered through your dying looks!!

Lisa

Re: Faceless posters

Mr. Teacup - either my lack of proper English is much greater than i thought it was, or something is preventing you from interpreting me correctly.

I am not disputing your points - I am also not disputing that those points are valid for this group too ( so, yes, the personas, shadows, hang up etc get in the way). I am disputing that therefore you can’t engage with the group in open, honest, vulnerable discussion. Why? Simply because we are all aware of the points your making - we know they apply to us, we know we need to work on them which is one of the main reasons for being here in the first place. That’s not unrealistically noble - i think you greatly underestimate the level of commitment and participation of the people here. Haven’t you read some of the posts in any of the threads - this is hardly your average group of Americans…By engaging with the group you too can work on your hang ups etc.

I’ll quote Pelle, who had no problem getting my point:

“I think what Frans means is that you might be even more effective at getting your message across if you assume that most people in the pod are having or have had similar thoughts to your own.”

That’s simple and correct.

Ewan:

“I have an (admitedly select) circle of peers and friends in whom I share very intimate and close relationship with, where we are not only able to speak from the most authenitic self we are able, but that the we space actually demands it. The vulnerability/intimacy when we meet is quite extraordinary, inspiring and humbling. That group more than anything has shaped the ease with which I am able to share my vulnerability with others.

That kind of ‘we’ space demands that all partys are ‘developed’ enough to maintain and stabalise that kind of openess in a safe way. I guess my initial feelings that motivaed this thread in the first place, was that I felt this pod was a place that could be aspiring to a higher level of openess.”

That is exactly what I want this pod to be - don’t you?

Please don’t stop posting - you have great insights - but maybe try to be open to a more whole environment here…

Frans

Re: Faceless posters

Pelle said: Part of embodying an integral consciousness is becoming aware of both the persona and the Shadow, and then consciously working on developing an ego that is healthier and more complete than before. A second insight is then of course that no matter how much we transform and translate the Ego, it will still always be limited and contracted - hence the practices that eventually can help one transcend ego.

Yes, I think Pelle stated this very nicely as well, but we have to also remember: Ken has said that AQAL is the ultimate defense for the ego. Not the ultimate aid, necessarily, for spiritual growth, though it can be that as well, but the ultimate defense of ego, the ultimate defense of the personal self that doesn't want to die so that greater things can emerge. This is because AQAL and ILP give it all the time in the world–there's so much healing to do, so much work to be done on all our different bodies. The personal self, the ego says, “I'll live a truly spiritual life once all that is done.” But guess what? There's always going to be more healing to do. There comes a time when a person has to say he is going to live according to higher ideals, dedicate himself towards higher goals, no matter what the situation is, no matter how unready the ego thinks it is (and it will always feel unready for the next authentic step).

Frans said: The integral approach (our approach here, I hope) is of course to incorporate al parts of yourself, honouring them for what they are and realizing that they make up a larger entity…

Ken WILBER: It's true. We are very close in terms of embracing both including and excluding. And as I mentioned in our last dialogue, there's a wonderful phrase from Hegel that everybody quotes: “To supersede”-and for us that might mean to transform-“to supersede is to negate and to preserve.” And that's what I call “transcend and include.” But transcend can mean negate. In other words, when you transcend something, you're leaving something behind; you're excluding something in a certain sense. And you're also including, and so the question is, What are you including and what are you excluding?

From this article.

And this is why some people are balking at what Mr. Teacup said. “Hey, Mr. Teacup, you want to exclude parts of myself that I really, really like!” But Mr. T is right about pointing out the futility of personal self to personal self relations–it's one character in a play talking to another character in a play, within the play, while the impersonal, faceless, universal soul (the best part of ourselves) sits there and watches (not as the witness but as a soul that isn't allowed to participate). There's so much more depth availabe, such a deeper communion possible, but it requires our setting the personal aspects of ourselves aside, not celebrating them. My favorite diagram once again:



A deeply integral spiritual life involves moving our identity from the first line, the Frontal, which carries our name and face, to the Deeper Psychic and the Witness, retaining only what's good and necessary about the Frontal, the capacities, and ideally never acting from it. And that's very much in the interest of everyone's happiness, personally and collectively. But the Frontal will fight it every step of the way. It will continue to want to celebrate itself. It doesn't want to give up control. Some celebration of the narcisistic, personal self is okay–but we shouldn't mistake that for deep spirituality or communion.

Honestly, when I read Mr. Teacup's post my heart filled with joy–what a cool demonstration of the deeper psychic! That's the direction we should all be heading in, as cold as it may feel to the frontal self, at first, and I hope Mr. Teacup continues to lead us in that direction. Again, it's very much in the interest of everyone's happiness to do so–how do we do it? Dedicate our lives to the Divine, to selfless service, to our own spiritual evolution and the evolution of the universe. Aurobindo:  “Of course the ego and the vital [animalistic self] with its claims and desires is always the main obstacle to the emergence of the psychic. For they make one live, act, do sadhana even for one's own sake, and psychicisation (moving to the deeper psychic) means to live, act and do sadhana for the sake of the Divine.” Has everyone on the pod completed this transition? No! This is a radical, radical shift, and we are just beginning.

Re: Faceless posters

David,

Don’t forget that KW also said that the witness is the last stand of the ego…which is just as true.

In the end, ego is involved at all levels we’re talking about here - after all, who does the negating, who does the including? It’s more the nature of the ego that we’re talking about here, and in that respect I don’t believe the approach Mr. TC takes is productive:

This is me paraphrasing: because our relationship will probably be codependant i want no relationship at all, and when you’re finally enlightened you’ll see that i never put up a barrier against relationship, because ultimately there is no such thing as a barrier and we are relationship at all times…

That approach comes from a strong ego, and more than likely one that’s been hurt in the past and doesn’t want that to happen again - please correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. TC. Like you David, I applaud Mr . Teacup’s insights and I would hate not to see him post here anymore - but if you dish it out, you’ll have some stuff come back. None of us are dummies here and some of us might be a lot further along than you or Mr. Teacup seems to think…

Frans

Re: Faceless posters

This is turning into one kick-ass thread. People are jumping between perspectives and levels in a very fluid way.

For now I'm just gonna enjoy it all.

Re: Faceless posters

Frans,

I don't mean that I'm leaving the forum because of this thread! I just don't want to belabor the point. I don't know how you interpreted it, but for clarification, that's what I meant.

I think your summary of my point is not correct though. Here's why: First, I don't want no relationship, I want a relationship that makes the problems of conversation part of the conversation – things like the shadow and false personas. To some degree, everyone portrays their character to attract a certain kind of person, a person like you – that's what I do too. I just try to attract the kind of person who is acutely aware of characters and their limitations. It happens that it also repels people who want to rehearse their personas with me, but I am not rejecting them any more than putting the words “liberal” in your profile is rejecting republicans. To be honest, I have never met a person who was truly comfortable in their own skin who demanded that I engage in intersubjectivity with them and was offended if I didn't.

In my experience, people who have the awareness of persona that you say that everyone here has are very accepting of others hiding themselves, whatever their reasons are. Why is that threatening? To underscore the point, I'm not referring to anyone on this pod. I'm not here to psycho-analyze people, if you say that doesn't apply to you, then I'll take your word for it. Again, this is based on my impressions of people in the real world, and for anyone who wants to find a reason to ignore it, there's no shortage of suggestions of what my problem is – nihilistic, obtuse, ivory-tower intellectual, egotistical, etc.

That approach comes from a strong ego, more than likely one that’s been hurt in the past and doesn’t want that to happen again - please correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. TC.

I hesitate to evaluate my own ego, but in the other respects, you aren't wrong. I have indeed been hurt, and greatly saddened by our culture's inability to support real communion and real intersubjectivity, the shallowness of daily interactions and the prison of superficiality and persona. I feel sad for myself for being hurt, I feel sad for those who have hurt me and those who I have hurt, and I recognize that much of this comes from grasping love. So I distinguish between grasping love and real compassion that doesn't require exchange and reciprocity, between metta and it's near enemy, greed and attachment.

~MrTC

Re: Faceless posters

MrTC said: I have indeed been hurt, and greatly saddened by our culture's inability to support real communion and real intersubjectivity, the shallowness of daily interactions and the prison of superficiality and persona. I feel sad for myself for being hurt, I feel sad for those who have hurt me and those who I have hurt, and I recognize that much of this comes from grasping love. So I distinguish between grasping love and real compassion that doesn't require exchange and reciprocity, between metta and it's near enemy, greed and attachment.

Awesome. This eloquent yet concise statement sums up the cause of much of my pain these days; I couldn't have put it better. This reality out in the world, whether at work or at the grocery store, is part of what sent me diving into Integral via KW and keeps me coming back here for more, even though the attempts at communion and authenticity even here are only sporadically successful.

I'm short on time, but I balked a bit, too, at your earlier statements, TC (can I forego the 'Mr', integral pal o' mine?) in which you argued that (my short-timed blip here…) all of us are coming from a false persona. As others have, I beg to differ…unless you add in that it's a matter of degrees (or an authenticity spectrum) with the idea that none of us ever brings all aspects of our identities into consciousness, so therefore we are false on some level to ourselves and therefore the world. In terms of conscious awareness, I think many people here are being authentic. I certainly am.

Looking forward to reading all the posts on this thread later. I value what each of you has to say. Truly. Otherwise I simply wouldn't be here. I love this place.

Deep Bow to all,
Colin

Re: Faceless posters

Colin,

I did add all those qualifiers. I balk at saying “I'm authentic” because it makes authenticity into a kind of a performance. Look how authentic I can be! Better to say, “I try to be authentic.”

Here's a quote, about bands, that is somehow relevant:

“Sometimes, even the bands that are dressed down – that's a look unto itself. Like how grunge was – nobody gave a fuck about what they wore in grunge. But that was actually a 'look' – and that was them actually giving a fuck about the way they look, in a weird way.”

Re: Faceless posters

MrTC wrote:  I did add all those qualifiers. I balk at saying “I'm authentic” because it makes authenticity into a kind of a performance. Look how authentic I can be! Better to say, “I try to be authentic.”

Now we seem to be getting into semantics. I am personally not trying to say (and I'm very serious here) “look at me! look at me! I'm authentic!” I simply come here with as much authenticity as possible. Given my experience in this world, the level of authenticity I've achieved is astounding and I've worked very, very hard to get here, busting my ass as I contemplate, inquire, dispute, celebrate and stand wary of all of my internal dialog and my ways of interfacing with myself, other selves (whereever they may lie on the authenticity spectrum) and the various systems we've developed. I have been looking at my mental and emotional bodies for a long time, mostly because I have so often suffered great psychic pain due to not fitting into hegemonic culture. (On that note, what I find quite compelling is the concept that (nearly?) everyone who has developed some level of authenticity feels they don't fit into the hegemonic standards in some way; I used to think that just queer people or other marginalized populations felt this insane incongruence. Now that I see things from more integral and spiritual perspectives, I see more of the nature of the ego and shadow and how that affects all humans.)

I choose to engage with people with as much authenticity as I can; however, sometimes that means that I consciously choose to limit disclosure (mostly in 3D contact with people, not as much here) when the circumstances are appropriate for that. A significant percentage of the time, tho, I am able to very consciously manuever in this way, holding cards close when others are holding theirs close (whether or not they are doing it consciously), often simply so that I am matching the wave(s) that I can discern (or clashing with the wave, which itself is a kind of resonance).

I appreciate what you're saying in this thread, though. It feels to me like a very important conversation to have.

Re: Faceless posters

The first thing we have to make sure everyone is clear on is that there are two ways to transcend ego: We can transcend ego state-wise, and we can transcend ego stage-wise. In other words, we can transcend ego on the meditation cushion, and we can transcend ego in action. An example of transcending ego in action: There is a church in Washington State for ex-bikers, ex-members of motorcycle gangs. These were pretty egocentric folks, involved in all sorts of wild activities, some of which were probably criminal and some of which were probably very criminal. But at some point they gave that motorcycle-gang life up for Jesus, and now they ride their Harley's from as far as a couple of hundred miles away for the Sunday service. Instead of hitting people with chains, they are praying to Jesus. They've transcended ego stage-wise in a significant way. When they're sitting in that church, still wearing some brand of motorcycle gear, they may also go beyond the world altogether and rest as pure being without personality–in that case they've transcended the ego, momentarily, state-wise.

 

Frans said: “Don't forget that KW also said that the witness is the last stand of the ego…which is just as true.

In the end, ego is involved at all levels we're talking about here - after all, who does the negating, who does the including?”

So in the first sentence Frans is talking about transcending the ego state-wise (though ultimately we can put the two together). In the second sentence–who is doing the negating and including?–it is not necessarily the ego. It is the ego that wants to get rid of the ego, not the ego that wants to evolve into something greater, transcend that which is old, negate that which is obsolete, emerge as that which is higher and deeper and better–that's the job of the Deeper Psychic. It's very true that the superego can take up the banner of evolution as well, and often does–it's very hard to differentiate between superego and Deeper Psychic (the superego acts out of a lack, in a desperate needy way; the Deeper Psychic acts out of fullness and completeness and joy)–but it would be the Deeper Psychic–authentic self (Cohen), Psychic Being (Aurobindo)–not the Frontal, or ego, that does the authentic including and negating.

Frans said: “I don't believe the approach Mr. TC takes is productive.”

It might be counterproductive for a person who is in need of ego building, but that does not seem to be the case with you, Frans, or the others who responded to him. He was just transcending a little bit and asking others to join him.

Re: Faceless posters

Mr. TC,

Thanks for the clarification - thanks for opening up.

I wanted to share a little wisdom I read today - seemed very appropriate to all of us on this thread.

“Why is it that we seem to be losing the highly vulnerable quality of sensitivity - sensitivity to all the things about us, not only to our own problems and turmoils? To be actually sensitive, not about something but just to be sensitive, to be vulnerable, like that new leaf, which was born a few days ago to face storms, rain, darkness and light. When we are vulnerable we seem to get hurt; being hurt we withdraw into ouselves, build a wall around us, become hard, cruel. But when we are vulnerable without any ugly, brutal reactions, vulnerable to all the movements of one’s own being, vulnerable to the world, so sensitive that there is no regret, no wounds, no self-imposed discipline, then there is the quality of measureless existence.”

Krishnamurti to Himself - page 89/90

Frans

Re: Faceless posters

David:

“But at some point they gave that motorcycle-gang life up for Jesus, and now they ride their Harley’s from as far as a couple of hundred miles away for the Sunday service. Instead of hitting people with chains, they are praying to Jesus. They’ve transcended ego stage-wise in a significant way.”

That’s not transcending ego; that’s just replacing one ego for another. Altogether more pleasant - of course, but no different in essence.

David:

“–it is not necessarily the ego. It is the ego that wants to get rid of the ego, not the ego that wants to evolve into something greater”

That’s still the ego - again, maybe a more pleasant form, but ego’s the name of the game. When Ken mentioned the witness being the last stand of the ego, he was referring to the final light bulb coming on - the total transcendence of the ego, nothing negated, nothing integrated. (at least, that’s my interpretation).

Frans

Re: Faceless posters

David said: “But at some point they gave that motorcycle-gang life up for Jesus, and now they ride their Harley's from as far as a couple of hundred miles away for the Sunday service. Instead of hitting people with chains, they are praying to Jesus. They've transcended ego stage-wise in a significant way.”

Frans said: “That's not transcending ego; that's just replacing one ego for another. Altogether more pleasant - of course, but no different in essence.”

I agree with you to a point. The motorcycle guys, and women, just went from one point on the frontal line to a higher point on the frontal line. They didn't transcend ego; they just refined it. You're right that it's no different in essence. But it's still significant. What I was trying to do was just show the difference between stage and state development and hope people would put that together with what I said about a shift of identity to the Deeper Psychic, which is a transcendence of ego, as the diagram I pasted earlier illustrates.
 

David said: “-it is not necessarily the ego. It is the ego that wants to get rid of the ego, not the ego that wants to evolve into something greater”

Frans said: “That's still the ego - again, maybe a more pleasant form, but ego's the name of the game. When Ken mentioned the witness being the last stand of the ego, he was referring to the final light bulb coming on - the total transcendence of the ego, nothing negated, nothing integrated. (at least, that's my interpretation).”

I might have said evolve into something less but higher and more complex, more integral, selfless etc. to be more clear. “Evolve into something greater” does sound a little like ego, at least I understand how it could be taken that way. It sounds like we're getting into another discussion of traditional state enlightenment versus evolutionary enlightenment, which is a combination of state and stage development, or horizontal and verticial development. When you say “the final light bulb coming on,” it sounds like you're talking about nondual realization, yes? Okay, but that's only half of the picture. The other half is how the enlightened person behaves. People can behave in all sorts of ways with a nondual realization. One way they can act is to go with the evolutionary impulse (the deeper psychic) instead of the fears and desires of the ego. When a person with nondual realization acts on the fears and desires of the ego, some people call it “Divine Egoism.”

From Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi (p. 41):

Q: They say that the jnani [one who has realized the Self] conducts himself with absolute equality towards all?

A: Yes… In their daily routine of taking food, moving about and all the rest, they, the jnanis, act only for others. Not a single action is done for themselves.


Mr. Teacup, that's really freeing stuff.

Re: Faceless posters

It's not my impression that Mr.Teacup wasn't opening up in his earlier posts. In his posts on this thread I find thoughtfulness and a lack of defensiveness, and though I'm not certain of my read, I wonder if some folks may be misreading him.

Somethings Teacup has said that I think bear repeating:

“Yes, by being repeatedly disappointed at finding a cure outside of ourselves, until we realize that this strategy is fundamentally misguided. My suggestion is that it is the disappointment, not the intimacy, that helps people grow past this, and that protecting people from disappointments actually makes their situation worse. You can never really love until you've had your heart broken.”

also

“My approach is simply the observation that the first step to truthfulness is admitting to the falseness of persona. That's what my non-persona persona is about. We are all telling lies – let that be the first truth. Maybe it sounds like an accusation, but it's not, it's just the way things are.”

I don't perceive him taking a position against openness, vulnerability, or the value of the sincere attempt to be authentic in one's relations. And I doubt that he's arguing that everyone here should create their own “non-persona persona”. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What I hear is a lucid awareness speaking to the great difficulty of achieving authenticity given our limitations in self- (and noself-) awareness, the shadowyness of shadow, and the slippery mastery of ego in the arts of self-protection and projection.
Though I imagine that there is a deeper quality of commitment to the value of authenticity and transparency in our community here, I'm in agreement with Mr. Teacup that we should expect (yup right here amongst the courageous of this ilk) to fail spectacularly at being authentic.

So maybe I'm incorrect in thinking he's being misunderstood. Perhaps we are in disagreement about how possible authenticity is in human relationships. I include the integral crowd in my sense that true full authenticity in human exchange is very rare.
As Ken said somewhere, sometime (paraphrased perhaps beyond all recognition), “The biggest obstacle is in our lies to ourselves.”

We can only be as aware and integrated as we are.
I've met some people whose quality and depth of of awareness inspires me greatly, but I've yet to meet anyone who is integrated enough to succeed in relating in full honesty and consistent naked vulnerability.

I think our best chances at healthy relationship and we-spaces require that we have a humorous sort of vigilance towards the continual corruption of our own motivations by our self-centered needs and fears. And expect others to be as flummoxed by their own.

Mr. TC said:
“First, I don't want no relationship, I want a relationship that makes the problems of conversation part of the conversation – things like the shadow and false personas.”

I think we can strive for open, honest, vulnerable discussion, and have some success, and I think that is good enough.

Thank you all.
Yours in gratitude and flummoxery,
Lauren

Re: Faceless posters

I don't think I quite got across what I'm aiming to with this statement:
I think our best chances at healthy relationship and we-spaces require that we have a humorous sort of vigilance towards the continual corruption of our own motivations by our self-centered needs and fears. And expect others to be as flummoxed by their own.

What I mean by vigilance is really just consistent awareness of the fact that we do lie to ourselves and others as a matter of course, by virtue of our humanity and the structure of these psyches, and that we need to take the tragicomedy of ourselves both lightly and lovingly.


Also, this comment of Mr. Teacup's that I quoted (in italics below) was in response to Michael's comment (in bold below):
”Yet, such an experience, even if sponsored from ill-conceived attempts at intimacy does draw one closer to the underlying truth of ourselves - namely that we ARE lonely and our experience IS one of displacement.”
“Yes, by being repeatedly disappointed at finding a cure outside of ourselves, until we realize that this strategy is fundamentally misguided. My suggestion is that it is the disappointment, not the intimacy, that helps people grow past this, and that protecting people from disappointments actually makes their situation worse. You can never really love until you've had your heart broken.”


And I just wish to say that I find the promise of the disappointment at finding a cure outside ourselves deeply reassuring, when I'm not resisting it with all my might. Which I suspect I'm doing most of the time(resisting it). I go around thinking that I'm banging my head against the wall of all the ignorance out there, and I'm suffering it quite badly much of the time (self-pity, rage, self-righteousness, loneliness..), but really I'm banging my head against the wall in my own mind.

Re: Faceless posters

That's what I wanted to say, Lauren.

And the silence….. the vast acceptance resounding in your words, is the most intimate we can be. I am with you right now, identical in this infinite power.

Re: Faceless posters

Dear Ones,

Lauren said:  “I think our best chances at healthy relationship and we-spaces require that we have a humorous sort of vigilance towards the continual corruption of our own motivations by our self-centered needs and fears. And expect others to be as flummoxed by their own.”

I agree with Mascha that this sentiment (and others of Lauren's last posts) wraps it up pretty neatly.  I too “expect” others to be flummoxed, as Lauren says, though I would like to advance towards allowing them (and myself) such uncertainties.

When composing the “conversational” correspondence that dominates these threads, a minimum of two “things” must be clear, evident, and available for me to begin ,to  follow through, and actually push “send.”

The first of these “things” is actually having something to say that is pertinent, and true (realistic, defensible, part of my own experience) as I can craft it.  Knowing that I can only get so close to the writer's ideals of brevity, clarity, and wit, I am brought to the second “thing,” that is:  which of my various muse/shadows is going to be flappin' my little wizard fingers on the keyboard?  Too-smart-for-my-own-good guy?  The Wounded Warrior?  The Second Coming?  Bad Boy Predator?  The Misogynist?  The Lover?  The Mage?  Mr. I'm Right, You're Wrong?  Mr. Antagonista?  Or some emergent, Mr. Look-Good Guy, to varying degrees accepting, loving, and compassionate?  For this dude to show, my intentions must come from my most expanded state - without reservation.  It does me (or you) no justice if Mr. Look Good keeps it together except for a little dig at the end, or an ill-conceived “actually” somewhere in the middle.

When the thread warms, the stakes inch upwards.  Urgency becomes a motiving force.  We strive to keep up, and Mr. Look Good is liable to lose ground to the lower denominating intentions.  Sloppy word play is misunderstood as antagonism, some of us start reading between the lines, and attention COG shifts from the “topic” to personal style and the implied, but rarely spoken judgments of Integral errancy, and covert agendas.  Marginally resolved bruisings from months gone by are recalled and a-muse-ment shifts towards re-sent-ment while  the chapel of motivation starts to turn a little sulphurous.

I don't want to over complicate this, but underneath what you see (my product) are my motivations, and beneath them is my intention.  If I begin to write without a clear intention, then my motivations seem to default towards self-aggrandizement and the “practice” or “product” will at best be muddy, or misleading.  If my intention is to gain at the expense of someone or something else, and my motivations are patently self-aggrandizing, then the product is likely provocative, or baldly narcissistic.  This is toward the counterfeit end of the hierarchy of authenticity.

Authenticity, like humility, seems to disappear like mercury if you try to pin it down.  What would be the true test of the “authentic” persona?  I have no idea myself.  The more conditions we put on it, the more laborious the test.  And, as Teacup says, any persona can be fooling you.    Products can be authentic though, like an authentic Picasso, or an authentic first addition of Ulysses, an authentic print or proofed coin.

This outlook of “humorous vigilance” that Lauren identified is just the thing for me to remind myself that I really have no idea what my “authentic” persona is, but somehow, if I remain open, humorous, vigilant and discriminating, I will recognize authenticity or the lack of it in my product.

In the end, I have to read the “final draft” again to see how far along the hierarchy of authenticity my product lies.  This requires me to be honest with myself - a great practice, and true to my own standards.  If satisfied, then I can push “send” and move on relatively de-flommoxed.

yer pal,
Michael

Re: Faceless posters

Michael wrote: I too “expect” others to be flummoxed, as Lauren says, though I would like to advance towards allowing them (and myself) such uncertainties.

Absolutely. I like to believe that I hold comments in this this forum very lightly. I try to extend the benefit of the doubt to people; though I have no problem calling out those statements that I find questionable or objectionable. I try to keep in mind that I may be mis-reading or that someone may have not been so successful in communicating what he/she was really thinking/feeling. I have consciously come up against the limitations and difficulties in language many times, so, unless I'm really triggered, I try to remember to check in to see if what I am perceiving is really what was behind the intention.

Michael wrote: I have to read the “final draft” again to see how far along the hierarchy of authenticity my product lies.  This requires me to be honest with myself - a great practice, and true to my own standards.  If satisfied, then I can push “send” and move on relatively de-flommoxed.

This is tricky for me. Sometimes I spend as much time reading my final draft and editing again as I did contemplating and writing the rough one. In many of these instances I do so in the attempt to make sure I've aligned the words on the page with my conscious intentions, whether shadow is arising and whether I am being authentic; I learn a lot about myself and the difficulties of trying to communicate.

Sometimes I quickly compose a reply and hit Send Post without looking and editing and repeating again; in these instances, sometimes it is a function of a restriction on time resources; other times, I do so to simply communicate whatever arises the first time, with the awareness that shadow is more likely to get left in what I've written. This allows for the possibility that someone might catch that unconscious wave and draw attention to it. Sometimes I've gotten feedback that really resonates on that level, and I pay special attention with the possibility that I may glean some previously inaccessible information. Sometimes people make comments that are more about their assumptions; sometimes I simply run into the difficulty of aligning words with thoughts which may manifest in having to clarify what I've said.

I enjoy playing with both ways of posting.

Re: Faceless posters

Mr Teacup,

Can we liken this to the chakras? One path leads up to complete liberation, the other leads down to manifestation. Where to go from your description is into full-on relationship, without hesitation or holding back - knowing all the time that you need nothing of the kind, but choose to do so anyway - manifesting awareness through relationship, leading by example (that sounds corporate, doesn’t it?).

Frans

Re: Faceless posters

Mascha,

We must have been typing at the same time - i didn’t see your post before I submitted mine - you are very much more eloquent than I could ever dream to be - as they say in Holland: Chapeau!

Frans

Re: Faceless posters

Wow, Dear Ewan, thoughts I'd never had.  I imagine, now that your post has brought these possibilites to my attention, that each has their own personal expression of self herein and I refrain from giving it another thought! 

Maybe this is part of the difference between the naturally “analytical” and naturally “intuitive” thinking styles.  My response to your post, similar to my frequent response to my husband, is “too much thinking”! 

How does anyone live with so many thoughts?  When my mind is full of thoughts I see it as “clutter”, or “obsession”, and work toward clearing the extraineious thoughts out, or working through whatever the issue is to return to clarity, simplicy, and a blessfully empty mind!

Or maybe I am just too trusting.

Re: Faceless posters

Hey Mr T

Ewan

Re: Faceless posters

Who you callin wrinklier?

Jeez.