thelerner Posted January 7, 2007 I'm reminded of the classic male/female split. I.E. When presented with a problem, women will tend to listen and offer support. Where a guy will immediately seek to solve the problem (no matter how clueless) and move on. For example: Woman:I just cut off my finger tip. Woman2: Oh my god, that must really hurt, I'm so sorry. Whereas Man1:Maybe you should put the tip on ice. Or superglue, I think I read somewhere you can superglue it back on. Based on a true story, names have been changed to protect the foolish. Thus in a worst case situation we are faced with sympathy and inaction, vs. immediate stupid reaction. One more angle on the dilemma. Michael Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leidee Posted January 7, 2007 Teaching through sharing is perfectly fine, and occasionally noble. Far as I'm concerned, there is a right and a wrong way to teach. The "wrong" way I was referring to is to assume, or hint at, a level of accomplishment automatically superior to that of another poster -- without this another poster having implicitly or explicitly asked to be enlightened and guided in the general direction of "the right path." The wrong way to teach is to assume the Dalai Lama has been waiting in limbo till you (a generic you) explain to him that he really should not be attached to the red dust of Tibet; that Mantak Chia needs to consult the Pope of Rome on the issues of sexual expression; that Chen Zhenglei must immediately drop his taiji because you can assure him that there is no opponent; or that Taomeow doesn't know what to do with her emotions unless instructed. Maybe, Taomeow - you may want to consider the first couple of sentences of this post and acknowledge that there is a "right and a wrong way to teach (you)". Then, perhaps, once you are clearer on the kind of teaching/sharing you want and not the kind of teaching you don't want...then more of your teachers/mentors/friends etc will appear to walk alongside you. We manifest what we think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
三江源 Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) . Edited April 8, 2015 by 三江源 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) Leidee, exactly! The right way to teach me is to ask me what I want to learn. The right way to learn from me is to ask me what I can teach. The rest is innuendo. By the way, I don't mind "assumptions" that are rooted in reality and common sense at all! E.g., any native Chinese speaker can safely assume he or she knows Chinese far better than I do, and I will never take offense in the fact. Teach away, I acknowledge and respect your superior expertise and would be stupid not to. On the other hand, someone who (Cat, in the last post ) is into Jung assuming that whatever I (the generic I) happen to dislike is invariably a projection of something wrong with me personally -- that it can't possibly be my normal and healthy reaction to something wrong with someone else -- now that's the kind of assumption that is not rooted in reality or common sense. I don't necessarily buy Jung's take or any other authority's take that can be offered to disrupt my position; my position may be rooted in a good grasp of something entirely different that makes more sense to me than does someone else's authority, ideology, or belief system. So... if I don't like something or someone it might, just might be I don't like it or him or her without "projecting" my own imperfections. Of which there's many of course, but why assume I'm made of nothing but as soon as I notice an "external" imperfection?.. I don't like junk food, e.g.. I am a healthy traditional eater, I despise chemicalized stuff in a pretty box or can or wrapper, fad diets, bizarre eating, and vastly prefer to eat what my great-grandparents ate. (Who lived to be close to a hundred years old and died of bullets, not of a disease.) I submit I eat the way I eat because something is "right" with me, not because I'm projecting something that is "wrong." Ditto in interpersonal interactions: there's a chance I don't like stuff that is indeed lousy, and like stuff that is indeed decent -- so why not give me the benefit of the positive assumption? Edited January 8, 2007 by Taomeow Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted January 8, 2007 But its not aimed at teaching You. Some of the stuff written is for the guy who asks, "What is the Doh all about". Plus half the posts are off the cuff remarks thrown on the wall to see what sticks. If we had to check our posts for well thought out intelligent thoughts, we'd hardly be able to post at all. Michael Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wayfarer64 Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) Hey Michael- the doh is all about Homer Simpson having a satori! And again- I don't think many are here to presume to teach, we just want to share our various thoughts and enjoy the comradery of the web. I've flamed out at a few folks that seemed to be up on a high horse-, even while noting to myself that my mount was no less altitudinal in nature when I did so... But now TaoMeow- I need to say that your view of the right and wrong of how we explain ourselves is pretty subjective -the way you are phrasing it...So please don't take these entries so personally -even this one directed right at you is just a wisp in cyberspace... It should not dis-comfort you in the least! namaste- Pat Edited January 8, 2007 by Wayfarer64 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ian Posted January 8, 2007 On the other hand, someone who (Cat, in the last post ) is into Jung assuming that whatever I (the generic I) happen to dislike is invariably a projection of something wrong with me personally -- that it can't possibly be my normal and healthy reaction to something wrong with someone else -- What makes something "wrong"? Does it have an inherent indwelling wrongness, or is it merely that it doesn't work for you? Many things can be ineffective, wrong even, but we can let them go by. For those things to actively wind you up and provoke this "more-complex-than-irritation" response will often imply that they trigger something in you. (or in me at least. maybe you're different) That something in you would then your responsibility, not the other person's. Why does people telling people how to behave annoy you so much? And how can you ask a question of a bunch of people who aren't you, who don't know you, and expect there to be no assumptions in the answer? Oddly, most of the vibe I get from you is one of you telling other people how to behave (communicate). What do you want ??? Us all to go away and leave you here in an empty forum? To me you sound as if you are demonstrating the very superiority you claim to despise. This may be a false impression, but it's all I have. I am irritated by you. Nothing more complex. And I take responsibility for that. My problem. Am I wrong in my interpretation of your typed words? Could you be wrong in your interpretation of other people's typed words? I hope I haven't been offensive. I just like Cat, that's all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted January 8, 2007 I don't know what to tell you, Ian. What I "expected" was to get what I asked for -- for people to share their experience of tackling the situation I described. That's "share experience," not "tell me how." Quite a few did and were quite helpful. Liking Cat is not the greatest rationale for disliking whoever disagrees with her, but that's up to you of course. I don't know either one of you well enough to have an emotional investment. Maybe it will change with time. Most of the things I was talking about had nothing to do with TTB, by the way, so far I think this place is saner than many. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wayfarer64 Posted January 8, 2007 TaoMeow - It seems that what you are asking for is a fight. Why are you being so cantankerous? Do you expect us to pussy-foot around you while you are complaining about how some of us express our views of your delema? Jung is one of the west's most rational and staunch proponants of Taoism - and much revered by many here - as a pioneer in the exploration of the Tao. The supposition that you are projecting is not so far fetched, nor a closed-minded approach to your question. That you take such umbrage indicates some truth in it. Taking various tacks to get to a destination is the way of these forums, to squelch responses to your question just seems oddly out of synch with what you are asking in the first place. Do you presume to teach us how to respond to your question? Are we to change our ways to suit your needs and assumptions? I am not irritated as yet, just puzzled by your take on these well-meaning responses to ya... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted January 8, 2007 It's interesting how the pecking instinct gets transmitted once the first beak has been dug in. No, I wasn't asking for a ganging-up effort to set me straight, but apparently I didn't express myself clearly enough, for which I apologize. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wayfarer64 Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) That more than one TaoBum has the same reaction to something you wrote is hardly a hen-party. Communication on any forum isn't easy. There is no need to appologize for any lack there of. We are each only trying to make ourselves clearly understood as best we are able. I am just expressing that I am confused by the series of entries you have offered here. It was a reaction. We are not waiting to pounce on each-other, but most are pretty fiesty about much of what is written. I guess seeking answers is almost always looking for some sort of trouble. If it were easy we would never gain any merit or wisdom. As I just added to another thread- salesmanship is not education- a real teacher is not trying to put one over on, nor be one-up on others. Edited January 9, 2007 by Wayfarer64 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wayfarer64 Posted January 11, 2007 (edited) In Paul Levy's book The Madness of George W. Bush: A Reflection of our Collective Psychosis he points out that one of the fundamental psychological dynamics in-forming the crisis that is playing out in our world is the unwillingness to "consciously experience" our own sense of shame, guilt and sin. This turning away from the darker part of ourselves that pervades the entire field exists within each one of us in potential. This contraction against our own shadow side is an active dynamic reveals itself to us as it gets "dreamed up" in the "outside" world. This inner psychological process of turning away from our own darkness is giving shape to collective events in our world. I just came across this on another site - newrealities- it seemed pertinant to a few threads going on here of late Edited January 11, 2007 by Wayfarer64 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
