One of the most noticeable changes that has occurred to me since processing my 4th Internal Monad in positive poles has been a noticeable relaxation in my double CF of arrogance. Intimacy has always scared me. It took little to make me slam backwards and dive within, but disagreements were guaranteed to do so. Not so much other peoples' disagreements, but ones which involved me. I would have been one of the loudest voices discussing "peace and harmony" aka agreement on forums. That has changed. I no longer care.

But, I still wonder how much of the real person any of us are seeing.

Tonight, as I was reading one of Bill Moyer's latest transcripts, an interview between him and Sherman Alexie, they touched on a subject in "just" the right way that triggered my thinking about our various recent contretemps -- disagreements. It began with my uncomfortableness with Facebook:

The Facebook Sonnet.

Welcome to the endless high school
Reunion. Welcome to past friends
And lovers, however kind or cruel.
Let's undervalue and unmend

The present. Why can't we pretend
Every stage of life is the same?
Let's exhume, resume, and extend
Childhood. Let's all play the games

That occupy the young. Let fame
And shame intertwine. Let one’s search
For God become public domain.
Let become our church.

Let [us] sign up, sign in, and confess
Here at the altar of loneliness.

BILL MOYERS: Sherry Turkle has written a book called Alone Together on just this point. Talking about how the internet has produced this serial isolation.

SHERMAN ALEXIE: Well, when I think the human is so complex, you know? And as we're relating here, we're relating on so many different levels that we don't consciously understand. I mean, we're actually smelling each other right now, but our, we, as we talk, don't know that, but our bodies know that, you know? My gestures, your gestures, the look in your eye. And the internet takes all that away. There was, there is one level of communication on the internet, which actually in a way is really insulting to the complexity of being human.


SHERMAN ALEXIE: It limits us to one sense.

BILL MOYERS: One dimension.

SHERMAN ALEXIE: One dimension. And that's not who we are. The poetry, if you will, of life is reduced to this sort of dry, scientific, you know, it's the worst sort of précis of who we are. And, you know, I don't have Facebook friends. I have friends. And a lot of my friends play basketball. And when we play basketball together, literally, we're touching each other.

And that can't be replicated in any form whatsoever with the internet. And when people say they're really connecting with somebody, I think, it occurs to me that I don't know that they've ever really connected with anybody if they think the internet is how you do it.

You know? It's postcard relationships. In order to know somebody through their words, I mean, it has to be an, it has to be a letter, you know? It has to be a long e-mail. It has to be a five-page hand-written letter, you know, it has to be overwhelming and messy and sloppy as humans are.

That last has become a truth for me, "it has to be overwhelming and messy and sloppy as humans are." This doesn't mean that I'm partial to flamewars, but to honest exchanges. We all have such variable backgrounds and perspectives, I really don't see how we can be all that much in agreement on "everything."

I know for example that I'm in strong disagreement with Troy on several issues that are subject to his trigger-happy rants. I simply no longer bother to argue them as they've been argued previously. And, I'm unwilling to put our friendship at risk. But, I guarantee you all, that "Fuck you, Troy," gets stated a whole lot more often mentally than most people know. And, I do see why many feel he is patronizing. He's bending over backwards so hard to NOT rant that he comes across as insincere. I don't think he knows how to disagree without ranting. But, in time . . .

I think the disagreements are healthy. It's one way to express choice. It's also another way to strip off pieces of imprinting and conditioning. Prick the balloons of our self conceit and unquestioned beliefs. We may not change one anothers' minds today, but it allows in some sunshine that may melt an untampered block of ice sometime in the future.

What's the point of having an active site with virtually no censorship unless we USE it? Perhaps, we need to find that no-man's land of in between flamewars and unwillingness to express disagreement. because it might upset someone else?

What say you?

Views: 367

Tags: arguments, disagreements, negative poles

Public Wall

You need to be a member of The Michael Teachings to add comments!

Join The Michael Teachings

Comment by Maxim on January 3, 2014 at 11:21pm

Often when I read a post that stirs something up in me I don't actually read it, I start composing a response in my head, or wherever composing happens, leaving the text behind as my eyes scan through it.  So I decided to read through this blog again.

some notes...

Geraldine: But, I still wonder how much of the real person any of us are seeing.

Hunter: In other words an "argument" for me is a way of saying "how has your trip been so far."

Sarah: Did I miss the flamewar?

Anna: I am definitely on Starship Enterprise TLE, half of the time hanging on for dear life...

Ann H: Yes, Troy, it's true. A lot of your charm and sweetness is lost online.

Geraldine: These last two points are part of the same issue: triggering the most active members into reaction, a sense of strong loyalty to Troy, and where we've done a lot of our work. It can turn hostile in a heartbeat.

Ann H: Shit, that's a lot!

Maxim: On the other hand sometimes we act like the house is burning down when it isn't: instead we are burning inside. 

Nicholas: I have a goal of FLOW, and I do see how I refrain from jumping into many of these conversations because my goal is to "not get hung up...period!" 

Christian channeling Jon Stewart: Go fuck yourself.

ViP: I am liking this trend of reflection on our communication patterns, that has been brought into sharp focus lately.

Apologies if anyone is quoted out of context.  I thought I was going to make some further commentary but this is enough for now.

Comment by ViP on December 29, 2013 at 7:18pm

Maxim - negative  ;-)   The difference being in invitation vs imposition!

Comment by Maxim on December 29, 2013 at 7:00pm

ViP.... thanks for the priestly emphasis from a priest.  More consciousness.  More essence.  Yes.  You'll have to excuse me but my mind went somewhere else entirely when you wrote: the unfortunate souls who don't have the same understanding of what "dick" means within a given group are probably going to be taught, fast - even if they refuse to accept or internalize the lesson.  Is this Dominance with a negative or a positive pole?;)

Our group ethos is influenced by the society we live in.  It is said that we humans have an average soul age of first level mature while the average soul age at TLE is much higher (now I'm curious as to what it is).  Mature souls, baby souls exalted, participating in the playground of relationship, tend to want others to share their rules and expectations...let's all play the same way.... way more than old souls, infant souls exalted, swimming in the playground of imagination.  Not only is it wise to allow others to evolve at their own pace but growing pains are part of finding a footing in a real and whole expression of self especially with all the external signals generated from environment around us calling for "correct" and "corrective" responses and behaviors to be more alike.   How far we can move toward intimacy and trust (if that is desired) is up for grabs.

I do credit Troy and all here for a commitment to openness and inclusion.  This place is such a great resource.


Comment by ViP on December 29, 2013 at 5:39pm

I am liking this trend of reflection on our communication patterns, that has been brought into sharp focus lately. As with the last quarter of 2013 having a collective energy of Self-Destruction, in some extent reflected by the tone and happenings around here during that time, I feel that some of the Priest energy for 2014 (as described in the Dec 2013 energy report) may be involved now. The questions that Michael provided for reflecting on what would have been learned from 2014 (link) were:

[MEntity] How willing were you to share in the enthusiasm that is expressed and exhibited by others?

[MEntity] What responsibility did you take for how you reflect the best of others back to them?

[MEntity] What responsibility did you take for what you saw reflected about yourself in others?

[MEntity] How willing were you to ask for help?

[MEntity] How willing were you to see that another may need help, even if not asked?

[MEntity] How much freedom did you allow for others to evolve at their own pace, regardless of your contributions from your own position in your own evolution?

[MEntity] How much intimacy did you allow in your life, even with your wounds, your shame? How willing were you to allow the wounding and shame of others into your life that is not your own? (counting as one element here)

These are probably good questions to ask at any time, and the point of the current discussion seems to be largely about where the line is drawn between making the effort implied by the questions above, vs saying "OK, stop, I've had enough", when "contretemps" (love this word!) do occur. The second to last question,

"How much freedom did you allow for others to evolve at their own pace, regardless of your contributions from your own position in your own evolution?"

seems to be the most relevant in this particular context. "Don't be a dick" is a great rule, and the unfortunate souls who don't have the same understanding of what "dick" means within a given group are probably going to be taught, fast - even if they refuse to accept or internalize the lesson. The balance between allowing others to evolve at their own pace, while being tolerably (or at least familiarly) dickish, is what is sought. The answer to finding that likely lies in what is probably the most frequent piece of advice that I've seen Michael give (after the importance of choice): bring more consciousness into the picture. In this case, I would say the onus is on both sides - the larger group, who understand the group dynamics and have settled into their own places and "public overleaves" within the group, as well as newcomers, to make an effort to learn the other sides' style and seek a middle ground, That is where self-censorship would fall, until the balance is found, when it would not be necessary, or be considered self-censorship any more. The group dynamic is defined by the collective tendencies of the individuals in the group, and newcomers either have to adapt to what exists, or the group alters its own foci as the weight of tendencies changes with time. The group is going to win most of the time.

Comment by Geraldine B on December 29, 2013 at 1:23pm

LOL -- you're such a bratboy :)

Comment by Christian on December 29, 2013 at 1:21pm

Grins and runs. 

Comment by Nicholas on December 29, 2013 at 12:26am

Oy!  My grammatical and spelling errors in these last two posts have been horrible! lol:-)

Comment by Nicholas on December 29, 2013 at 12:25am

Maxim, a part of me cringes to when the "offender" has gone.  Like with the Zsolt shenanigans...I do feel somewhere in there a great opportunity for connection and understanding was lost, and lost do to the words and energies of both "parties."

Comment by Maxim on December 28, 2013 at 11:53pm

Good points Nicholas.  I can agree that in writing text I can get in touch with myself, in fact, emailing friends can be quite a meditation for me where I come alive as I compose and write.  I find myself cringing a bit when I see someone vilified for not being like "everyone else" and the delight when the "offender" is gone.  I'm glad to read these more self-reflective and inclusive posts.  The learning comes in waves.  

Comment by Nicholas on December 28, 2013 at 11:34pm

Hmmm...this is interesting to me.  I have a goal of FLOW, and I do see how I refrain from jumping into many of these conversations because my goal is to "not get hung up...period!" (paraphrased from one of Maureen's transcript sharings)  But I'm often amazed at the defenses that rise up in some of these exchanges.  As an onlooker, it is quite obvious when someone is in defense and protection of their self.  And I often wonder why people get hooked in this way.  At the same time, why not?  I feel this medium of internet is no different than in-person, except that yet, you have to work harder to BE CLEAR IN YOUR COMMUNICATION AND EXPRESSION.  I don't have any problem with "just text."  I actually feel I express my ideas much more clearly and intuitively when I am writing.  In person, I get all jumbled up!  Perhaps that charm and enduring quality gets lost in the cyber-world, but I don't mind.  I love the drama of it all!  It's high entertainment for me here on TLE, sometimes.  Troy is a hoot!  Sometimes I read what he has written in response to someone, and I go "Oh, Lordy, here we go!"  LOL!  And then I sit back with my popcorn.  Overall, I think this community is VERY loving and compassionate and AUTHENTIC.  So, that's why I don't think there is any need for censorship.  We're all a bunch of old farts philosophizing and ranting about "the good ol' days."  It's great fun!







PLEASE CONSIDER A DONATION to help keep services alive and low-fee, and to keep your resident host and channel alive and well! THANK YOU SO MUCH! This is my only source of income, so I have to do a bit of humble groveling and ask for your support. Thank you!

© 2014   Created by TROY.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service