|
Post by Andrew99 on May 16, 2007 13:02:02 GMT 1
"Reluctant tolerance and yet obvious/subtle annoyance. The message to a child is obvious. Another way of seeing this is that a parent lives a role of unconditional love 'giver' and yet the child sees the truth. It would be easier if there was no role and the child had a wysiwyg experience." Sounds like this might come from your experience - but it may not be the way that most parents relate to their children. It was not like that for me, nor in my relationship with my own children. ...and some people are easier to love at a distance - particularly when we feel threatened in some way by their way of being, or if it touches our sensitivities. "Only exceptional humans are not like this." When you say this, it means that only people who consider themselves exceptional can think of themselves as capable of unconditional love - and this is where we differ in our opinions Martin, From my point of view this whole conversation is based on a misunderstanding. I am sorry if i have created the impression that i am saying that *all* parents *always* treat their children as i have described in that one example. I am only saying that they *sometimes* treat their children as i have described. My own mother was a very loving woman and yet she could be very controlling and had unrealistic expectations driven in part by her own childhood experiences. Before she died she said "Andrew, you know? I can never remember sitting on my mothers knee", and yet my mother had a very remarkable memory for people and events - she was the unexpected and unwanted second twin to a very poor family. Such is the stuff of real lives unfortunately. From my point of view where we differ in our opinion is this: I (Andrew) dont believe that very many people are capable of unconditional love *all* of the time. Yes, it is true that we see good examples of unconditional love *some* or even *most* of the time but I am saying that we dont see these examples *all* of the time from these *same* people.. To my way of thinking if its not *all* of the time then it is by definition a conditional love, that varies depending upon our energy level or the amount of stress in a given situation and so forth. Are we to understand that some parents are perfect parents? I think that is very unreasonable to expect. Also as a separate issue i think we need to consider that the most perfect parent is not a parent who is perfectly accepting but is rather a parent who provides the most perfect nurturing and learning experiences for a child. In reality in healthy families there is the concept in the literature of the "good enuf parent". A sometimes angry parent provides the perfect learning experience for a child to learn how to handle their own emotions and other people in that same situation. Children who have been perfectly accepted and are never 'evaluated' cant handle any form of evaluation and get overly sensitive and defensive. As a cliche, mothers nurture and fathers guide. No way am i going to judge a parent because they get a flash of anger because a child misbehaves a few times - this seems normal rather than unusual. Contrary to what you are attributing to me, from my point of view the most loving people are often the most ordinary, rather than the most exceptional. I am meaning for example the kind of people who speak their mind and call a spade a spade and dont pressure their children to be anything other than what they want to become.....And what they do say they say with warmth and genuineness. I think i have said all i want to say on this..........i will give it more thought and meanwhile leave it at this. A.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brofman on May 16, 2007 13:40:21 GMT 1
"Children who have been perfectly accepted and are never 'evaluated' cant handle any form of evaluation and get overly sensitive and defensive."
In fact, children who have been perfectly accepted often develop self-confidence and trust in who they are, and can be quite open to positive feedback about how they can be even better.
You seem to be making a case against Acceptance.
Andrew - you posted on May 13, "This whole area of love is something that confuses me."
I can see that, and also that this "analysis" is not making things any clearer.
We have gotten away from the main idea being discussed - that of vision as a metaphor.
Let's get back to that, and any questions related to what to do about impaired vision.
Perhaps you can re-consider the thread in the light of an exchange between someone who is nearsighted, and someone who is not.
Namaste
|
|
|
Post by Andrew99 on May 16, 2007 15:41:12 GMT 1
"Children who have been perfectly accepted and are never 'evaluated' cant handle any form of evaluation and get overly sensitive and defensive." In fact, children who have been perfectly accepted often develop self-confidence and trust in who they are, and can be quite open to positive feedback about how they can be even better. You seem to be making a case against Acceptance. Martin, I appreciate your invitation to move forwards so that i can learn from this. Before i do that I would like to point out that in the sentence above we are more or less saying something very similar. Ie: An accepted child can have their behaviour interpreted and evaluated by positive feedback about how they can be even better and therefore often develop self-confidence and trust in who they are. Now perhaps it is true that I am personally not so good at providing posative feedback without drawing attention to the area of "even better" without it sounding critical. Before you now tell me i am wrong:-) I wonder if you could provide an example with dialogue of an example of feeding back to a person how they can be even better where at the same time you dont in some manner draw attention to the area which is considered to likely to work better if improved:-) & Andrew - you posted on May 13, "This whole area of love is something that confuses me." I can see that, and also that this "analysis" is not making things any clearer. We have gotten away from the main idea being discussed - that of vision as a metaphor. Let's get back to that, and any questions related to what to do about impaired vision. Perhaps you can re-consider the thread in the light of an exchange between someone who is nearsighted, and someone who is not. Namaste I am open to suggestions. Once again I would like to point out that my confusion about love was related to the goodness of love as acceptance that i *know* feels good compared to the badness of none acceptance where the other person is kind of requiring i be different............i then went into that in some detail. When we were together in Egypt you mentioned how i experienced the other persons "requirements" as abuse where you felt that this was a distortion on my part. Its worth talking about that if you want to maybe? I had my controlling and yet loving mother. For example having to sit there on the potty or having to read *and* learn at a rate that satisfied her at a too early age when she was unqualified to know the abilities of small children to learn, or having to sit there till i ate the food provided, or having to take exstremely painfully hot baths, or have my hair washed with very stinging dish water and with only the most horrendous force field of manipulation and physical intimidation if it were not completed as required. Now to a degree at least some of these experiences are just normal childhood experiences for many people from loving parents wanting the best for their children (mum had a thing about us being clean) and i suppose had my father been supportive of my mothers methods i suppose it would not have been an issue. But there differentness provided for a twisting of me i think. It seemed pretty awful at the time. How could that be love? How could i be comforable with this woman? And yet i was drawn to her and i loved her and yet i resisted her love. Anyways .......I am open to your ideas Cheers Andrew
|
|
|
Post by Spirit Girl on May 16, 2007 16:29:38 GMT 1
hI Andrew, Martin and everyone
Thanks for continuing this discussion. I am getting some good insights from it.
peace SG
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brofman on May 16, 2007 17:01:00 GMT 1
"Before you now tell me i am wrong:-) I wonder if you could provide an example with dialogue of an example of feeding back to a person how they can be even better where at the same time you dont in some manner draw attention to the area which is considered to likely to work better if improved:-)"
---Wow, you are a really good artist. Would you like to have more tools to express yourself in new ways?
The discomforts you experienced were the effects of resistance to what was being done.
Consider the difference between the love and the way it is being expressed. The way soome people express their love is often interpreted on the other end as love being withdrawn or withheld.
I do not really want to go into past stuff in Egypt, etc., and I do not feel that this analysis will achieve what you want. If others have something more to contribute to this conversation, please feel free to jump in.
I repeat my personal suggestion, Andrew, which I feel would be really helpful to you - Perhaps you can re-consider the thread in the light of an exchange between someone who is nearsighted, and someone who is not. See what insights you gain from that when you look at it with no sense of personal involvement.
|
|
|
Post by Maria on May 16, 2007 17:06:15 GMT 1
Ok, now my wheels are turning……
Martin, you said to me "If you live with someone and find it difficult to love them, you have issues that need to be looked at and resolved. If you can accept a stranger with no expectations, you can certainly do it with a member of your family - or look at the possibility of no longer living with them."
I think I am not clear on the difference between loving and being a good housemate. For instance, I loved my ex-husband....still do in fact, but I know I never want to live with him again. I love myself enough now to know that I don't want to be around chain smoking and alcoholic behavior on a daily basis. I can accept that he is how he is for a reason, and I can love him and honor his path. But I choose to not live with it. Before when we were together I used to think "I love you, therefore I have to accept all this behavior and just learn to live with it." I saw it as me who had to fit into his world, and I thought that's what acceptance meant. Now I see things differently.
Still, there is some conflict in my mind about loving and honoring myself while living with someone else. When humans cohabitate certain expectations do arise.....its part of who we are and its not always easy to determine if the compromises we make are just part of the deal or if they represent a deeper loss of self as you give up part of who you are for the "good" of the family.
An example of this is the relationship between me and my daughter, who is 16. We get along wonderfully, but I must admit I look forward to the day when she moves out and I don't have the annoyances of tripping over her stuff, listening to her music, living in a place I don’t really like, and all the other little compromises I’ve made simply because I share space with another human being. But at the same time what does it do to our relationship to insist on her doing everything my way in the name of being true to myself. What about her being true to herself? Maybe in her experience dropping stuff all over the floor serves a purpose and who am I to deny her that? But going back to what I said before….at what point does it go beyond just "getting along" to unreasonable accepting of the other person and losing who I am in the process?
And yet at some level, I know I don't really want to live alone the rest of my life either. Despite all the pain of my marriage...I am still in love with the idea of being in love, and of having a good, solid relationship with someone special. I guess I'm not seeing the happy medium here, and I find myself wondering if there is any resolution......both living alone and with someone else seem to be different sides of "only somewhat happy."
Wow another day with a lot to think about!
Peace,
Maria
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brofman on May 17, 2007 9:31:23 GMT 1
Many people deal with the issue of, "I love you, therefore..." - for example, "I love you, therefore let's live together." For me, though, I prefer the "I love you" without the "therefore" - and the decision to live with someone is separate from the decision to love them.
The decision to live together implies compatibility.
If your 16 year old is living in your house she has to abide by your house rules in the spaces you share - or you can even discuss it in a family council, deciding that in her own room she can do what she wants, but in the shared space, it has to be like this...
I use my alarm clock - "I love where I am, I love who I am with, I love what I am doing" - and if it reaches a point where it is not comfortable to say that, it is time to change something - and that has to do with self-respect, and not on your ability to love someone and accept them as they are. If your daughter had her own place and lived as she does, that would not be any of your business, and you could just accept her and love her anyway.
Right?
|
|
|
Post by Maria on May 17, 2007 16:08:00 GMT 1
So are you saying you can love someone but not be compatibile housemates - and you can live with someone and get along fine without loving them in a particular way?
As far as my daughter....as you may know I have a problem with rules, especially pointless rules and also with people who's words don't match their actions. I also believe that a teenager is no longer a child, but an adult in training and therefore needs to be treated as such. My issue with Donna is not about "house rules" or "acceptable behavior" as such because we've pretty much got that figured out.
It's more about the everyday annoyances that occur just by virtue of having a second body in the house. We like different music (sometimes). We watch different t.v. shows. We both want to use the computer at the same time. I tripped over her shoes and stubbed my toe (or she tripped over mine). Someone didn't put their dishes in the sink and the cat spilled stuff everywhere. I am trying to figure out when these little things are just an ordinary part of living with another human, and when they cross over into unacceptable domination of the situation. I never figured that out with my marriage and it turned into a series of passive/agressive power struggles until we were both miserable.
I guess it comes down to mutual respect and consideration for everyone in the household, and knowing what the hot spots are and caring enough to avoid those. With Donna I get aggravated and want her to go away and just leave me alone. But then in general I am a person who rather likes the idea of being left alone. But at the same time I miss having a close relationship (ie boyfriend, husband).
I'm kind of thinking in print here more than asking for answers I guess. Trying to figure out how to live happily with another human without losing who I am in the process.
Peace,
Maria
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brofman on May 18, 2007 6:59:16 GMT 1
"So are you saying you can love someone but not be compatibile housemates - and you can live with someone and get along fine without loving them in a particular way?"
Yes.
...and when the crown chakra is closed, the thought processes tend to give the person reasons for being alone.
Your daughter can listen to "her" music in her room, have her own tv, her own computer, etc.
Perhaps it will help to look at it as a partnership, and partners do have to resolve things sometimes through communication.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew99 on May 18, 2007 8:24:43 GMT 1
Is it true that Unconditional love is the loves that flows by Universal law regardless of whatever vibrations or thinking a person has towards another person?
And is it therefore true that this unconditionally flowing love, that flows in all cases, for all people, is only not seen by the person receiving it, because they perceive the experience as love being taken away?
This interpretation seems to fit the dialogue between Martin and others here.
Am i getting close?
So presumably the soldier killing the foe, is only killing the foe because the foe wanted to be killed but had not realised it intellectually?
At first this seems bizarre but when i was 13 i was hit from the side by a car while riding a bike. The car was doing around 20 mph. The car travelled about 30 feet or so forwards before mounting a pavement. There was more or less no clearance under the car for a person to pass under the car. The bike was trapped under the car and passed with the car to the kerb where it was totally destroyed. There was not a *single* component left on this bike other than ball bearings that was undamaged. I did though reuse the badly grazed leather saddle.
Somehow i passed with the bike under the car and then free from the bike and car, and I was left where the car had hit me. I was able to get to my feet afterwards before falling back down covered in blood and bruises. I was released from hospital later that evening. All witnesses reported that i must surely have been killed and yet.....................
Maybe i just was not ready to die and indeed i was just looking for attention?
Just how creative can i get!
:-)
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brofman on May 18, 2007 11:24:35 GMT 1
"Just how creative can i get!"
Yes, you are a creator - as are we all - even my 6 year old son.
"So presumably the soldier killing the foe, is only killing the foe because the foe wanted to be killed but had not realised it intellectually?"
From the point of view that we each create our reality, the one killed attracted the experience, though indeed it mayu not have been realised intellectually, since the decision was made at deeper levels of consciousness.
Sounds like you were indeed not ready to die, but perhaps had been considering it at some level - and your reasons for attracting the experience are a matter for conjecture.
The end result of the experience was the real motivation, metaphysically speaking - so if you got some attention you can say that you did it for that reason - or perhaps to just catch your attention in some way.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew99 on May 18, 2007 13:04:28 GMT 1
Linking the theme here to what i said on the other thread on Vision as a metaphor "when i was 13 i was hit from the side by a car while riding a bike. The car was doing around 20 mph. The car travelled about 30 feet or so forwards before mounting a pavement. There was more or less no clearance under the car for a person to pass under the car. The bike was trapped under the car and passed with the car to the kerb where it was totally destroyed. There was not a *single* component left on this bike other than ball bearings that was undamaged. I did though reuse the badly grazed leather saddle. Somehow i passed with the bike under the car and then free from the bike and car, and I was left where the car had hit me. I was able to get to my feet afterwards before falling back down covered in blood and bruises. I was released from hospital later that evening. All witnesses reported that i must surely have been killed and yet..................... Maybe i just was not ready to die and indeed i was just looking for attention?" Martin answered there &Sounds like you were indeed not ready to die, but perhaps had been considering it at some level - and your reasons for attracting the experience are a matter for conjecture. The end result of the experience was the real motivation, metaphysically speaking - so if you got some attention you can say that you did it for that reason - or perhaps to just catch your attention in some way. Well strangely there is a bit more to this story. The police informed my family i had been in an accident and i was in hospital. My father fearing the worse arrived at the hospital and found where i was. I recall i was drifting in and out of consciousness at that time. When he arrived at the door and without me knowing he was there and with me seemingly dead he really did fear the worse and yet he recalled that I just sat up and said "Hello dad" as if i had just been asleep waiting for him!! Why had i created this reality? I probably was suicidal i probably was desparate and yet i loved my father and yet i could not love him while i experienced him controlling me. Under attraction law you attract to you the things that are in your consciousness.........i thought he was controlling me....... And my solution was to control him so he came to the hospital in a state of high anxiety to realise the power i had over him! Naturally i felt good. I was back in control. Meanwhile in reality i was blindly charging from one disaster to another in an attempt to be the most powerful God on Earth. The next disaster was maybe to feel guilty about what i had done to my father and i then created the reality that the police charged me with reckless driving (or the equivalent for a cyclist) and formally read me my rights and truelly put the fear of god into me for about 6 months until it was decided that blaim was equally apportioned between me and the car driver who did not stop once they saw me in front of them. Naturally i controlled that reality too.....but she allowed me to do it.......perhaps it was all her own doing and i allowed it because of my guilt.......she came around to see me shortly after the accident and seemed puzzled to see that i was just perfectly ok! Since the police were prosecuting her.....maybe another reality i created......perhaps she realised this and got her own back with this nightmare scenario of me being formally prosecuted by the police since she knew my worst nightmare was the feeling of being controlled by others! Haha! Related to this I experienced myself as God and yet considered that a shameful rediculous thing to think. I rejected God....What a joke! And yet God had some power over me which i feared and i did not want to see. So according to 'the secret' we are all infinately powerful beings who can create any reality that we desire providing we follow the laws of the Universe One of those laws is of course that all the other Gods area also, potentially anyway, are *equally* powerful. When we are nearsighted we see more "i" than the others in the universe. Getting there i think now:-) On a related note the painfully hot baths that both me and my nearsighted brother experienced were created by me because of my resistance to mum and desire to punish her:-) Mum felt that was a rediculous reality but it upset her and she therefore shouted at us with great force......but then she had to use great force to control the meglamaniacal little brat i had become. This then explains all the beating slappings and so forth. It was war. It also explains my mothers bizarre habit of washing our willies with a bar of soap as if she were ...you know...... If only i could get rid of dad my plan would have been complete:-) And wait there is more. A gang leader once threatened to have me killed....it was a bit unsettling but i did not believe he had that power......he was going to find out where i lived and get me killed. I was not in one day when the killer arrived.....very big and very ugly......my flat mate knowing nothing asked if i was in some kind of trouble....and as far as i was concerned i was not.....i had forgotten the incident About 2 weeks later the gangleader warmly took me to one side and said he was sorry and it had all got out of hand....and could he buy me a drink.....he had overreacted......hmmmmm well did he over react? I insulted his wife and i never apoligised for it really. Maybe he and the killer came up against a greater more powerful force..........or so they thought. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brofman on May 18, 2007 15:59:55 GMT 1
It can be interesting for you to re-read this as if the person who posted it were not you - to see what your thoughts are of that person who posted it, and of the parents with whom this being lived - what must have it have been like for them?
In this way, you can see yourself through their eyes - not in order to agree with them, but to understand their point of view - and to see them - and yourself - with compassion.
|
|
|
Post by Spirit Girl on May 22, 2007 20:31:05 GMT 1
Hello everyone
I agree with Martin about seeing life from the point of view of the parents. Good questions to ask are, What were their beliefs about raising children, how was their childhood, relationship with their parents, how old were mom and dad when they had kids, got married etc, the culture they grew up in etc. It certainly gives a different persepective on situations.
SG
|
|