We are speaking of acceptance, and yet here we are in 3D, veiled, with emotions running wild, faulty communication, misunderstanding upon misunderstanding.
Does anyone else see the irony here?
We are discussing how and if one can totally accept an entity acting in a violent, STS manner, in the face of death to self or a loved one, yet we have difficulty accepting the well-intentioned, but misunderstood words of someone we know shares the same spiritual ideals?
We know from Ra that emotions are very powerful tools. So, when we feel emotions triggered by the words or actions of other selves, is it important to acknowledge and heal those emotions, in order to accept the person who inadvertently hurt or offended us?
Or, does acceptance mean we must suppress those emotions?
These are just musings, in light of what just went down. Apparently, my efforts to communicate academic points were construed as hurtful. I could cite examples of words directed at me that I perceived as very confrontational and accusational, but I see no need to do that. I'm not angry or upset. Just weary of miscommunication.
Thank you for expressing your feelings, 3DM! I won't apologize again since you asked me not to. All I can do is offer my own perspective:
My husband loves our son as much as I do. But he is the first to admit that he cannot comprehend the nature of a mother's love for her child, who came forth out of her own body.
It's interesting that you mention feeling that your 'character' was being questioned and accused of 'labeling' me. Yes, I did feel labeled, and I too felt my character had been questioned, when you told me that I would let the murderer rot in prison, might not be sincere, etc. Isn't it amazing how we are mirroring to each other?
Well, apparently no matter what I say, I will be perceived as acting STS. So I will say this, not as an argument, but as an invitation for you to consider, should you ever decide to consider another viewpoint (or for anyone else who might be reading).
It's the same pattern as the previous examples. The term arguing is subjective. When does an in-depth discussion become arguing?
Many people enjoy deep discussions (as we discussed on the Cognitive Distortions thread) while others don't. Or, some consider it a 'discussion' when it's in their favor, but an 'argument' when it's not.
You just expressed your own perspective, just now, when you said you felt 'labeled' and 'hurt' by me. Is that self-serving? Or were you just expressing your feelings, in the hopes of bridging the chasm of misunderstanding?
If the latter, then I'd say that was an STO action, not STS.
I think it becomes STS only when views are imposed on the other-self against their will.
How is that even possible, on an internet discussion forum? No one is being forced to participate. All comments, and all reading of comments, are voluntary.
Does anyone else see the irony here?
We are discussing how and if one can totally accept an entity acting in a violent, STS manner, in the face of death to self or a loved one, yet we have difficulty accepting the well-intentioned, but misunderstood words of someone we know shares the same spiritual ideals?
We know from Ra that emotions are very powerful tools. So, when we feel emotions triggered by the words or actions of other selves, is it important to acknowledge and heal those emotions, in order to accept the person who inadvertently hurt or offended us?
Or, does acceptance mean we must suppress those emotions?
These are just musings, in light of what just went down. Apparently, my efforts to communicate academic points were construed as hurtful. I could cite examples of words directed at me that I perceived as very confrontational and accusational, but I see no need to do that. I'm not angry or upset. Just weary of miscommunication.
(04-26-2011, 03:30 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: "As a mother, I find it distasteful, even offensive, to be told that when I take any action on behalf of my child, it is out of self-interest. You made that blanket statement. You aren't a mother so you cannot know."
This hurts my character. It suggests I have acted to offend you. It suggests I have labeled you. It suggests that my love cannot equal yours.
Thank you for expressing your feelings, 3DM! I won't apologize again since you asked me not to. All I can do is offer my own perspective:
My husband loves our son as much as I do. But he is the first to admit that he cannot comprehend the nature of a mother's love for her child, who came forth out of her own body.
It's interesting that you mention feeling that your 'character' was being questioned and accused of 'labeling' me. Yes, I did feel labeled, and I too felt my character had been questioned, when you told me that I would let the murderer rot in prison, might not be sincere, etc. Isn't it amazing how we are mirroring to each other?
(04-26-2011, 03:30 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: if this is the scenario, then the actual polarization that has occurred is STS. Arguing our own perspectives is self serving and we are both guilty of acting in STS fashion and it matters not what our intentions were, STS is the result.
Well, apparently no matter what I say, I will be perceived as acting STS. So I will say this, not as an argument, but as an invitation for you to consider, should you ever decide to consider another viewpoint (or for anyone else who might be reading).
It's the same pattern as the previous examples. The term arguing is subjective. When does an in-depth discussion become arguing?
Many people enjoy deep discussions (as we discussed on the Cognitive Distortions thread) while others don't. Or, some consider it a 'discussion' when it's in their favor, but an 'argument' when it's not.
You just expressed your own perspective, just now, when you said you felt 'labeled' and 'hurt' by me. Is that self-serving? Or were you just expressing your feelings, in the hopes of bridging the chasm of misunderstanding?
If the latter, then I'd say that was an STO action, not STS.
I think it becomes STS only when views are imposed on the other-self against their will.
How is that even possible, on an internet discussion forum? No one is being forced to participate. All comments, and all reading of comments, are voluntary.