|
Post by eromeo on Aug 23, 2006 0:38:39 GMT 1
By "here", I mean on the planet, in the human incarnation.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 23, 2006 0:41:52 GMT 1
yes agreed. I am learning from you and i say as much.
On the one hand you have now said that all teachers are learning from their students.
My comment was "i have the impression you see yourself as a teacher and that my role here is only to learn"
To which you say "is that a bad thing"
It seems to be that the two things you have said are not reconcilable.
|
|
|
Post by eromeo on Aug 23, 2006 0:57:47 GMT 1
Just for the record, also: you mentioned Chris James. I should have been like him or her and known when to walk away with this. I will do so now.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 23, 2006 1:14:50 GMT 1
My only conscious desire here was a search for clarity. God knows of course what might be happening in my unconscious mind
Once again i feel that something i have said in honesty has been blown out of all proportion. My "only" simply referred to the fact that human interaction is easier when we dont set ourselves up as *only* teachers and is easier if we see also that we are students.
My feeling was that you were putting yourself in a master role and that did not feel quite right for me in these circumstances where it seemed that your understanding of the BMS and eyesight was not complete.
Unfortunately i do realise that i have this quality that can create difficult situations for other people. And i guess i knew that we were getting closer and closer to that difficulty.
I am sorry for the way things turned out, it does though take two to tango.
The difficult thing for a myope to deal with is this feeling that the other person is attempting to control what they say do or feel.
Myopes after all have issues to do with power and control or solar plexus issues
Yes again i am being provocative by saying the word myope. I am however me. Please accept that.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 23, 2006 6:45:02 GMT 1
"The word incurable, which is so frightening to so many people, means to me that this particular condition cannot be cured by any outer means and that we must go within to find the cure"
Louise L. Hay - You can heal your life
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brofman on Aug 23, 2006 7:59:09 GMT 1
I must step in here to remind everyone in this interesting thread that we function within an atmosphere of mutual respect - so please, no personal attacks, no insults, etc.
We can attack arguments - but not each other. In this way, we are all free to express what we choose.
I am removing the posts I consider argumentative and in violation of the protocol for this forum - nothing personal - just to keep this forum flowing properly.
|
|
|
Post by eromeo on Aug 23, 2006 9:04:51 GMT 1
For Dancing Flame: I did the best I could.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brofman on Aug 23, 2006 10:39:19 GMT 1
I must also say, in reading these posts, that the term "myope" is descriptive of a specific condition the person is experiencing, until they change that.
It describes not only a condition of eyesight, but also of the personality type associated with that condition of eyesight.
It does not, of course, describe who the person is, but simply what they are experiencing in that moment, or at that time in their life.
Resisting the label is tantamount to resisting what is - and that resistance to the fact that this is the symptom being experienced must be released in order for the person to move from that condition. The person has to accept emotionally that this is what is, until it changes. Those who are nearsighted are correctly described as myopic.
|
|
|
Post by eromeo on Aug 23, 2006 21:29:53 GMT 1
For Martin - agreed. But the word "myopic" is not the same as calling someone a "myope."
|
|
|
Post by Joby on Aug 24, 2006 0:34:38 GMT 1
Exactly right. Nouns and adjectives work in entirely different ways. Think of the difference between calling someone 'a cancer sufferer' (or 'a cancer victim') and calling them 'a person with cancer'. The latter is much more dignified and allows the person to still be a person, not someone who is defined and condemned by a disease. It's no longer allowed to call someone 'a leper' or 'a spastic'. I also don't agree that rejecting a label is the same as resistance, commonly referred to as denial. A person with blurred vision is as aware of their condition as someone would be if they had breathing difficulties, for instance. Anyone with a medical condition who uses this site is likely to be expending energy in resisting pressure, pity and negativity from doctors and well-meaning, concerned family and friends, as well as confronting insurance companies, employers, driving license authorities etc. People come to a site like this to get away from all that, and if they didn't accept they had a medical condition they wouldn't be here would they? This is why some of the site users are saying these kinds of medical labels are not helpful or encouraging in this context. Besides didn't I read somewhere that part of the healing process involved visualizing yourself without the disease? When your striving to do that it isn't helpful when someone keeps reinforcing the thing you are trying to give up. I'm certain Louise Hay advises people not to buy into the disease package.
|
|
|
Post by eromeo on Aug 24, 2006 0:57:05 GMT 1
Joby - Very succinctly put. Actually, I had never even heard the word "myope" until Andrew started using it here. I asked 3 different friends of mine who are myopic, and they had never heard it used either. They all agree that they don't mind being called myopic, because that's obvious, but to be referred to as a "myope" sounded and felt "extremely negative, limiting and hurtful psychologically." There is a huge difference between being in denial and allowing yourself to be called by something that feels hurtful to you. I keep thinking of the movie "Tombstone," where they referred to Doc Holliday as a "lunger." Not exactly conducive to thinking you've got a healing shot.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 24, 2006 2:49:53 GMT 1
Martin said just above " the term "myope" is descriptive of a specific condition the person is experiencing, until they change that. " When i read Martins book on vision the only version that was available to me to read was the French version. Evidently the translator decided that Martins "near sighted person" was best translated by the French 'le myope' In the English language myope is probably a more technical term but since i read this book maybe 100 times??? i guess it stuck in my mind maybe? Also Americans use the term "near sighted" and English people use the term "short sighted" So it all gets confusing! I suppose i stuck with myope not thinking too much about it. If nothing else i think we can agree that the word seems to generate thought provoking and lively conversations! I think though that those who object to the label are in fact objecting to the idea that our consciousness creates our symptom? The cancer victim is a victim of their own thoughts in Martins and Louise Hays wellness model The near sighted person is also a victim of their own thoughts. The first stage in returning to wellness is not to reject the label but rather find out the thoughts that create the condition. This is why the lable is only useful to us and is not harmful to us. It can only be harmful while we refuse to see the thinking creating the condition. Louise Hay is pretty clear about this in these unedited lines from her book "you can heal your life" "Chapter 6. Resistance to change "I am the rhythm and flow of ever-changing life" Awareness Is the First Step in Healing or Changing. When we have some pattern buried deeply within us, we must become aware of it in order to heal the condition." Now it is true that visualising yourself as being desease free is part of the method of altering your consciousness so that you are desease free, but in order to be desease free you also need to have changed your consciousness and to have done so in a quite specific manner based on the descriptive word or label used to identify the condition. If a myope attacks me for bringing to their attention aspects of their consciousness they dont like, it unfortunately encourages in them the idea that they are well and i am unwell. Please consider the purpose of this message board. It has the purpose of educating people in the concept that our consciousness or are own thoughts or our "wrong thoughts" is the *only* factor responsible for the illness or condition we suffer from. It is *our* condition. Rejecting the label alters nothing and to my mind simply makes a person more determined to reject change. I realise this is not a nice idea but if people have time maybe they could read this rather wonderful exstract from Barry Longs book "Only fear dies" www.barrylong.org/statements/truthoflife.shtml"Often when I suggest a solution to the client - a new way to approach the matter or forgiving the person involved - I will see their jaw begin to clench and jut out, and arms cross tightly over the chest. Maybe even fists will form. Resistance is coming to the fore and i know we have hit upon exactly what needs to be done." Louise L Hay - You can heal your life
|
|
|
Post by Jess on Aug 24, 2006 3:42:31 GMT 1
Hey Andrew - been reading all this and I gotta say, even though Martin supports your stance, he doesn't use the word myope in his books, not even the vision book, I don't think. If the French translation employed it, that's their translation, we don't have to use it. In fact, it's not even in Webster's Dictionary, I just looked.
If you wanna label yourself a myope (which sounds like a dreadful horrible sad and desperately incurable disease, to me, and I'm not near-sighted), that's your business. But I see here that you asked to be accepted for who you are. That works both ways. If people here at this site are telling you that they object to that word, you should accept that as well. If you wanna communicate with people, it can't be done this way. If someone tells me, for instance, that they object to a word I use because it feels offensive to them, and I keep using that word in their presence, they can conclude that I don't really give a hoot about their feelings. And don't counter with "if they accepted you, they'd let you use the words you feel comfortable with". It's a two-way street, communication, and in this case, it seems very arrogant and futile to insist on using a word that people are telling you they don't like, and that isn't even in the dictionary, for pity's sake.
All I have to say about this.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 24, 2006 4:11:01 GMT 1
Hello Jess The word myope is not the issue here apparently? It seems permissable to say "you are myopic" but i think you are a "myopic person" would not be received well? I am not familiar with Websters Dictionary. My concise oxford dictionary has: Myope n. short-sighted person Myopia n. short-sightedness (literal or figurative) from the greek muops (muo shut, ops eye) wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=myopewww.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/myopeMaybe we do need to open our eyes here a bit! :-) Andrew
|
|
|
Post by eromeo on Aug 24, 2006 4:14:15 GMT 1
Very well put, Jess. Right on the money. Especially the part about the dictionary. You're right, it's not there.
And also, for the record:
Dancing Flame posted last night, and I responded. Her post is deleted today, so it looks very strange, my "For Dancing Flame" response. She was saying that she was insulted by Andrew's insistence on using the "m" word, and she thanked me for my "gallant and eloquent" contribution to this discussion.
|
|