|
Post by andrew on Aug 22, 2006 22:49:45 GMT 1
Well I find this "none label" approach to be confusing.
As myopes we have a certain limiting consciousnesss. We are not limited by the label of myopia but by our consciousness. If you understand the principal here, the only thing that limits the myope is themself and their own thoughts and ideas and beliefs and behaviours.
Myopes have an almost opposite consciousness to those of far sighted people
A person deeply understanding the nature of both conditions can therefore move in the opposite direction
The person rejecting the descriptions or the labels will tend to keep on moving just as they always have moved. They limit themselves by lacking the knowledge needed to see things differently.
And by the way myopes tend to want others to change before they themselves change so it is to be expected that your average myope will object to a label that describes their own behaviour
I can of course come up with a different description if the term myope is genuinely offensive.
At the moment i am inclined to call a spade a spade rather than use "manually controlled digging implement"
:-)
|
|
|
Post by eromeo on Aug 22, 2006 23:03:11 GMT 1
You don't get what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting you switch a euphemism for the term "myope". I'm saying that using this type of label for the condition of being near-sighted is not serving anybody, yourself included.
|
|
|
Post by 59U6IGL on Aug 22, 2006 23:08:36 GMT 1
And you wrote, "A person deeply understanding the nature of both conditions can therefore move in the opposite direction". Have you been able to do this, personally, or is your eyesight still myopic?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 22, 2006 23:11:41 GMT 1
I have been able to make progress in improving my eyesight in particularly my left spirit eye. I am now a much more joyful spirited person. I am though a bit stuck in terms of "wanting to do" or my right eye side.
For example i suppose i want to be a vision teacher but i am finding that many people think this kind of idea is silly :-) I am therefore maybe wasting energy in wanting to do it. But maybe my approach could be changed? I know it can.
I get the impression you are resisting the principal that a near sighted person has a near sighted personality
This person is not limited by the term near sighted person but rather by the way they think and feel.
However it appears you dont believe this to be true. I think you need to raise this with Martin rather than with me.
He can give you his authoritative view on the matter
|
|
|
Post by eromeo on Aug 22, 2006 23:16:40 GMT 1
You didn't answer my question: As you wrote, "A person deeply understanding the nature of both conditions can therefore move in the opposite direction". Have you been able to do this, personally, or is your eyesight still myopic?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 22, 2006 23:21:08 GMT 1
Hey come on! you are posting so quick i had not even read what you say i did not answer. :-)
I then added it to the previous message before i saw your latest reply . maybe i need to stop editing my posts i guess.
I said "I have been able to make progress in improving my eyesight in particularly my left spirit eye. I am now a much more joyful spirited person. I am though a bit stuck in terms of "wanting to do" or my right eye side.
For example i suppose i want to be a vision teacher but i am finding that many people think this kind of idea is silly I am therefore maybe wasting energy in wanting to do it. But maybe my approach could be changed? I know it can."
|
|
|
Post by eromeo on Aug 22, 2006 23:25:04 GMT 1
If you are becoming less myopic yourself, then you might be able to see the point of what Dancing Flame and myself are saying here. People do not respond to being called "myopes", I don't believe. If you want students to follow your teachings, you have to teach in a way that makes people want to learn from you. And as you said, your approach can be changed.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 22, 2006 23:32:45 GMT 1
Sure. I am all for any method that will help in my goal of wanting to help people while also doing something that interests me
However i can see a kind of problem about obscuring exactly what i am doing.
Some people are at least initially genuinely fascinated by the idea that their own consciousness is maintaining their vision problem. And others are more or less against this idea from the beginning.
Rather than working with resistance i would prefer to work with an energy that wants to move with me.
I think part of the issue with me with my own vision ideas is that i have not publically nailed my colours to a mast and then invited others to come to me.........instead i tend to go to others and then in an almost impossible task attempt to get around their resistance.
However there is very much a point to what you are saying. And it is this:
No person wants to see more clearly. If they did, then they would not have the vision problem.
Therefore people who are fascinated by the principals i am talking about are only really using that fascination to further remove themselves from actually directly experiencing their lives
So......for sure I can learn to improve the way i am approaching people so that my method becomes more of a universal method rather than only a method for "the ready".
I have already learn that the most ready can be the most resistant in the final analysis and sometimes the most resistant are the most ready!
Tis a strange phenomena is this vision thing!
|
|
|
Post by eromeo on Aug 22, 2006 23:39:30 GMT 1
Your words: "No person wants to see more clearly. If they did, then they would not have the vision problem."
It seems that your lack of effectiveness lies in this statement. A lot of people want to get rid of their problems. That doesn't mean they're going to respond to you, personally, Andrew. It seems to me you're laying the blame on them, for not doing what you want them to do because you say they should do it. And when they don't respond the way you want, you say they're not ready. This is not the attitude of a successful teacher. I recommend you start using these people who "resist" you as mirrors, and learn from them.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 22, 2006 23:53:36 GMT 1
I think you are being a bit hasty with me but i can see you have a good point.
Please dont forget that i also said that i have already learnt that the most apparently ready can sometimes be the most resistant in the final analysis and the most apparently resistant can be the most ready in the final analysis
Just recently i had yet another quite awful experience of a resistant "client". I found the whole experience to be profoundly depressing. She went to the other side of the world and i was left alone to think about it.
I got an excellent book on the issues involved with working with resistance.
And for sure this whole area is something i do need to learn a great deal more about.
Tony Robins quotes that "there are no resistance people, only inflexible communicators".
I kind of resist that line of thought and yet fundamentally it has at least some truth.
Nearsighted people are resisting themselves rather than resisting me. But most assuredly i am doomed if they also resist me.
As for my resistant "client" we may yet end up getting married. My eyes are moistening just thinking about how joyful i feel that she is in my life. And yet she resisted me and i found it difficult to deal with. It seemed at the time like clashing belief systems. My more outwardsly expressed energy versus her silent withdrawal and unexpressed resentment.
Was she a mirror for me? I will think about it.
|
|
|
Post by eromeo on Aug 22, 2006 23:58:35 GMT 1
When a person uses a word to describe other peoples' responses to them, over and over again, it's usually the person him or herself who is projecting this behavior onto others. In your case, the word is "resisting." You are the one doing the resisting, I believe, and you are projecting that response onto others, seeing them as the ones who are resisting you.
I wish you good fortune in all your endeavors. Just keep trying to see the light.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 23, 2006 0:12:35 GMT 1
I think to be fair to the many teachers involved in teaching vision improvement, or indeed the many parents involved in trying to educate their children, the resistance involved in a person refusing to see is relatively massive.
That said though you are right that my own reaction to the resistance is something for me alone to be able to deal with instead of taking the blaming way of projecting my reaction outwards onto the client.
Dont forget you entered this discussion somewhat indignant and wanting me to listen to your reaction that labeling myopes was something i needed to stop doing. I think you have been a bit hasty now and then in your responses to me because in some manner you are being driven by your reaction? However in the final analysis you are quite clear seeing and there is definately much to be learnt from the way you are reacting to me
If there was no truth to what you were saying then you would experience more of my resistance. Another less clearly seeing person than me though might easily have resisted your reaction to me.
I guess we are all mirrors for each other
|
|
|
Post by eromeo on Aug 23, 2006 0:17:44 GMT 1
Just for the record: I was not indignant (or even somewhat indignant) when I initially wrote that I was in agreement with Dancing Flame. I was wanting to let you know she wasn't the only one reading these posts who felt that way.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 23, 2006 0:27:40 GMT 1
Somehow like Chris James i have the impression you see yourself as a teacher and that my role here is only to learn
|
|
|
Post by eromeo on Aug 23, 2006 0:34:30 GMT 1
You say that like it's a bad thing. We are all here to learn. There IS no other role, really. Teachers learn from their students, probably more than the students learn from them. Parents, if they are not ego-driven and/or label-driven --- ie.: coming from the limited "I'm the parent and you're the child" stance --- learn just as much, if not more, from their children as their children learn from them.
|
|