songsfortheotherkind.com

GoingOn's Conversations among myselves thread caused me to see the value of people here having their own thread where they post things and others just comment. This is mine.

About a decade ago I see that I was mapping the virus a lot and made lots of notes which I find interseting to look back on. I plan on going through them and posting some of them.

I found one called rules, which has some clear frustration embedded in it:

* A criticism of your ideas is a criticism of yourself - you must defend all such attacks. Not defending is giving them the point.

* You think perfectly, and anyone who differs is thinking imperfectly.

* If someone doesn't understand, it's their fault.

* A person's actions and reputation are all that matters - if they don't behave in a socially acceptable manner, they are worthless.

* Everything is about gaining points against someone else. Always take the action that will score you the most points. If someone else is doing something that seems annoying, then they are doing it to score points.

* If someone makes a mistake or admits error, then they are forever in the "imperfect" category, not worth prime consideration anymore.

* Knowledge isn't important - the image of being smart is all that matters.

* If the situation got stupid with someone, hold out so they can admit the stupidity, and thus give you the point (and not be "prime" anymore - see above).

* Always be on the lookout for places to cry "hypocrisy!". Lots of points can be gained this way.

* Always set small goals that you can reach. Once you reach them, don't go further.

* If you are having trouble understanding someone, then they're stupid and from some other culture which is inferior to your own. Be sure to remove them from the "prime" category.

* Post-elaboration ("lazy elaboration", deferred until it is necessary or realized to be necessary) is just a way for the other person to gain points and act as if they knew it before. Insist that it is a lie and they just realized it (to gain points, of course).

* Some things are good and some things are bad - it's irrelevant how they are used. Like bad words, behavior, terms, activities. Common example: "you're judging - judging is bad!"

These days I just don't even play with people's games, so the above kind of stuff is just distracting to even think about. I find that focusing on it tends to draw me into it.

It was really helpful to me, to hear some of the old recordings playing as I read the list. Thank you.

Went through a bunch of writings and found many canned ideas, these from around 2002. Quite a few here.

* occam's razor - what seems simple is subjective. sticking to simple explanations limits one to what is already known, basically.

* much is considered random, thus the things behind them cannot be understood, as it seems that reason is being applied to randomness (then it is dismissed as imagined)
tendency to declare artificial foundation of observed phenomena, thus blocking further inquiry

* on danger of labeling one's states habitually: one often acts in response to imagined state of oneself. habitual labeling leads to incorrect labeling, so one's responses become incorrect.

* non-dominant (of the reader) writing style. features less exaggerated. reader more apt to explore various layers and angles, to discover deeper meaning

* lots of time spent converting things to other things. attempts to make situation better by converting obvious problems to non-obvious problems.

The above reminds me of a quote: "There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies." -- C.A.R. Hoare

This is a form of a general pattern. Human perception limited. Multiple ways of presenting something to person. Some ways perceived correctly, others incorrectly. Unawareness of limited perception can lead to "solving" problems by changing the situation in such a way that the problem just becomes invisible to perception.

* saying less, leaving unknowns in others' minds
they aren't so quick to judge
may seem deceitful, to create mystery
nobody every knows me to a great extent, either way
this helps keep others conscious of that

* perceive X to be the case. imagine causes which would lead to X being the case. feel more confident that X is the case, even though no further observations were made.

* Common advice: "find healthy outlets for anger and frustration." don't forget to find healthy outlets for joy and enthusiasm, too.

* only way to have a relationship with another person is to keep focused on your ignorance of them (humility?), forcing you to interact with them rather than your image of them.

* applying group characteristics to individuals works most of the time, so you say it's effective. for an individual who differs from the group characteristics and is repeatedly subjected to it, it always fails.

* "the sad part is..."
"*you're* the one who's..."
"the problem is..."

as if there is only one of whatever it is, in the entire universe.

* theory: one's actions *never* come from seeming reasons, choices (rather, they come from very complex, arbitrary systems). those are explanations made after-the-fact, from a set of explanations which can seem to explain any situation.

* Tannen, I only say this because I love you, p. ~130. mother pressing for child to report on inside experience. requires labeling of many yet-unlabeled things. act of labeling has strong effect on emerging integration of experience. thus one may not want to label at another's request. if one didn't care to be consistent in their reports of inside experience, or perhaps consistent about anything, then being asked to report on inside experience shortly after it occurred wouldn't be bothersome.

* parent's meta message when she describes her opinion of things is that these are not her opinions, rather facts. the way I work on saying things is to meta-communicate that I am only relating my experience.

* learning driving. teacher's role is to introduce new skills, then comment on student's perception of how well they're managing the skill, rather than comment on the student's management of the skill. ultimately, the student's perception of the skill is what matters most, since that is the feedback used to correct errors in execution of it.

example: student goes over crosswalk line when stopping. bad feedback from teacher: "you are supposed to stop before the crosswalk line" the student is probably aware of this. why did the student not stop before it, then? lack of skill. if this is the case, the teacher has nothing useful to communicate; the student will improve over time without assistance.

* "it's an inherent trait" is another way of saying "we don't know anything more about these behaviors."

* on appearance and substance. patterns have characteristic appearance. an appearance that doesn't include all aspects of pattern maps to more than one underlying pattern. the result of a pattern may be achievable using a different pattern, perhaps using the same general method, but having a different appearance.

* "If there were no internal models, one study suggests, people would be able to tickle themselves: They wouldn't be able to anticipate their own actions nearly as well, so they would catch themselves off guard." similar reasoning as to why another person can be so interesting: they can be very unpredictable, in ways that have emotional depth.

* "Come on, tell me the truth."

ironically, the person probably wants you to put on a better act of manipulation of their perception. if you were telling the truth already, the only change you can make is to add persuasive/manipulative aspects to your presentation.

wanting someone to say things in a certain way, because you don't believe them when said directly, means you want your perception manipulated.

* "I wanted to validate your feelings about the experiences you have had in therapy, because I have had similar ones." validation is spontaneous. attempts to initiate it result in manipulation, something which opposes validation.

* "You can choose to be happy." so, I could ask you to choose non-happiness for a day and I'd see you become unhappy for that day?

* every implementation of fulfillment of a desire necessarily involves arbitrary elements which one is neutral towards. thus expression of the plan of fulfillment mustn't be taken as expression of the desire, otherwise the desires will incorrectly be taken to as very specific and arbitrary.

* Where things are seen in binary terms, lack of evidence of X is taken as proof of Y.

* An overpowering aim for a particular outcome can divert efforts from achieving it to creating its appearance only.

* People try to make the situation right by changing theirs and others' perceptions of it, perhaps forcefully. The only thing they can change is the subsequent response they add to the running history of the situation. Seen in this light, what they end up adding makes the situation more wrong.

* Oversensitivity refers to a stronger response to an identically perceived situation. "You're overreacting to X" But if a person is more perceptive, they might be responding to Y, where others see only X, preventing them from assessing the person's sensitivity accurately.

* Growing an identity involves exploration of the vast space of possible ways of being, finding the ones which resonate with one's unknown nature. This process is stifled when one is busy fighting for survival or living in constant fear.

* Some problems which affect everyone are only within one person's perception. That person mentions them. Solving the problem is seen as benefiting only that person, because the problem isn't seen by others (the effects of the problem aren't seen to have that cause).

* Manipulation is what humans do all the time. They are masters at manipulating the natural world to their own ends. A child continuously learns how to manipulate his environment. If his parents have incomplete psychological development, they will be part of that which the child learns to manipulate. The solution isn't punishment of the child; this further hides the parents' own incomplete development. The parents must gain their own momentum so that their primary goals aren't affected by others.

* Common attempt to attribute standard inherent nature to person based on their age. How much of common behaviors at various ages are due to a common environment rather than inherent nature? The environment around a person is modulated heavily by the person's age (due to people treating the person differently based on their age). Similar observations can be made regarding gender and supposed inherent nature.

* The parents nourish the child in more basic forms than other people do. If the child didn't receive this, he won't be able to benefit from others later. A person who didn't receive education in basic math won't benefit from an algebra class.

* "You care too much about what others think." If the baby's parents think it isn't hungry, it won't eat. If this happens chronically, the baby will starve. If the parents require the baby to serve their wishes before they'll acknowledge its hunger, it will do that to survive. Caring "too much" about what others think may be necessary for survival.

* If the problem is outside a person, "fixing" the person will add a second problem to the mix and perhaps cancel out a symptom of the problem, making it seem a solution.

* Anger has its essential place in the organism. That one is jarred by it is exactly its purpose. If an organism lacked it, other organisms' lack of attention to injury they are causing an organism might be fatal.

* "A is an inherent behavior of X" as an explanation is the last resort when no explanation is available. It can be offered as an explanation for anything and no amount of evidence can refute it (if X isn't displaying behavior A at the moment, it can be said that it is currently dormant). Adoption of this pseudo-explanation will prevent further inquiry into actual explanations for the behavior. Where the behavior is a result of one's own actions towards X, this pseudo-explanation can serve to deny one's own involvement and allow one to continue without consideration of the effects.

* The "intangible emotional world" is probably just as tangible as rocks, trees, hands, and bodies, except that everyone's "emotional" eyes are gouged out or constantly irritated by pepper spray, "emotional" hands cut off or tied together. *Then* it's an invisible emotional world.

* Why would one find it so hard to ignore the deceitful things people say? Why would words in general have such a strong hold on one's mind, say in music? If they are ignored, one will be put in great danger, because one's welfare is mostly based on what the un-sane general population does, and what they are doing can only be determined by paying close attention to what they say and figuring out the false world they live within. When the insane run the show, one's own grasp on reality provides no guide as to what's going on inside the circus tent.

* A being must communicate. It tries to use words, but when they have no effect, it justifiably concludes that words are not a means of communication. So, it moves on to other means until it finds one which gets results. This must be considered when interacting with other beings, prior to attempting to control a being's behavior; the urge to communicate is an itch that only gets scratched when communication occurs.

* Serious injury to one's mental abilities affects one's ability to efficiently avoid high-danger zones of any kind, since the best way to defend from danger is to avoid it in the first place. An airplane pilot attempts to avoid heavy storms seen on the horizon by taking action before they get close; forced to enter one, the pilot's skills are put to more demanding use.

* To resolve an issue involving misperception of things, a person must be allowed to set up the conditions and make the observations himself, without interference. The setup of an experiment is critical in properly testing a belief; the belief won't be altered by the results if the setup is incorrect (an incorrect setup results in testing some *other* belief).

* Emotions have an effect on one's overall state. When denied, their effects on perception can't be compensated for. Without a separate realm for emotions to register, they must mix with perception. When the emotion is strong, the corresponding effect on perception is strong, and the effect on perceived options is lessened. Staying within these perceived options, one's behavior becomes very constrained, like a robot to others.

* One chooses self-identities that feel good. Those which reap others' scorn don't feel good. One's body sex determines which reap scorn from others, thus sex determines which otherwise-viable self-identities are abandoned.

Unresolved psychic abuse plays a significant role in one's personality. Body sex determines a large part of the type of abuse received from others, based on how they one is perceived.

I am seeing that this current pattern has been created by an imbalance, a lack of cohesion, of signal on this forum. I am about to create some shifts here, and am planning to make an audio expressing my views of this; hopefully there will be more cohesion of signal and less necessity to create separate rooms.



Thank you so much for posting this mapping of subtle- and not so subtle- virus frequency. It has expressed some of the energies I have been sensing and experiencing in other places in this forum that I found puzzling in the sense of 'this is non-creative and limiting, why are you doing that?'.



This expresses the why of the puzzling, which I knew in my Self I was experiencing as 'this frequency is boring and jangling, why go there at all?' and then attempting to point out the many interesting places there are that are more satisfying- from my personal perspective of satisfying- to go to.

This was excellent to arrive at first thing. I now have a smiley face as I'm sitting here writing, and a sense of having my intuitions- as expressed earlier this morning to Triffid- mirrored. The shifting energy here is a perfect expression of the evolution I wish to move in.

_________________
"For every lie I unlearn, I learn something new"- Ani DiFranco

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. ~ TS Elliot

I found this elaboration about how I feel as a being, from around the same time as the previous finds:

When I'm away from people for a while, I move back into my natural way of relating with the world and it's very peaceful. Finding it again after being around people is like finding that there is a vast network of pipes in the ground, carrying water all over the place. There is so much going on outside the sphere of what people I encounter talk about. When I am with someone in nature, they usually keep at arm's length from it by constantly commenting on how "beautiful" it is (sometimes I do that too). When that ceases, I slowly sink into a different world, with a different feeling.

I feel very separate from people because they are unable to sustain attention when I'm talking about it or asking them about their experience of things. They talk about it like they're on a school assignment, doing the minimum work necessary then disengaging from it. Or they'll talk about it just to support their view of things. I don't feel much intimidation to relate to it as they do, but I do feel out of place. I've worked on accepting that I probably live and relate to the world very differently than most people I interact with, and to look elsewhere for a sympathetic ear (usually not a human one).

I feel like I'm some other life form that mistakenly got put in a human body, stuck in a prison of mundane life with other humans, waiting to get free of it. I want to explore things, make journeys into the inner worlds whose entrances I sometimes wander near. People I relate with seem to desire living in a familiar place, fighting familiar battles with each other, striving for distinction within a common framework.

It's difficult to keep interested in the things that are thrust at me because so many things draw me in. I'll be looking at something and feel a whole world behind it. I'll be in someone's house and grasp a different way of living, a different scheme of things. The world seems to reconfigure in the subtle ways. When I look at things, I see an emotional world behind them. They have character, intention, a history, significance. I think that if I didn't have to interact with people who would think there were something wrong with me if I didn't abandon my visions, I would be able to live in these worlds much more, be able to sustain my contact with them. I imagine that there may be other people who can relate with me in different ways at different times, not worrying whether they're in my favor or not (the best way to stay in my favor, if you are, is to take me as I am without expectation).

Some movies I've watched have contained mock footage of earlier happenings. I usually connect with a very emotional space when seeing these. There's this whole world captured there, grainy, shaky. People doing things. It's like their fate is already set. Tragedy, everyday occurrences. Each person seems so precious, all part of some bigger scheme along with the things around them. There's some kind of drama going on that is always repeating itself. It's all from the same thread. I think of my childhood, or rather what I imagine it to have been, since it's mostly intellectual facts rather than emotional memories. Somehow everything seems related to finding meaning in my history and who I am today (which I know little of).

I started this one because I felt that GoingOn's would be better served by remaining pure, and this one being mostly my thoughts. I anticipated posting lots of material in a somewhat non-interactive way. I find it valuable to have a space where I don't worry about giving equal room for others, as I feel much more inspired and open about what's going on in my universe. I'm eager to see what you post (somewhere on the board) about your thoughts on separate threads and imbalances you see behind it.

Well, I assume this will get merged somewhere at some point, but I'm continuing.

I avoid TV (to put it lightly), but my housemate watches it all day. I'm hearing the news right now and thinking about it. I find it really pathetic, overall. Their first goal is to entertain, so they schedule the 30 minutes to keep the viewer there, for example by putting an interesting story at the end and mentioning it several times before it shows. They also write the narration to be dramatic and emotional. Next level, it presents itself as something that keeps you informed on what's going on, so you'll feel like you're on top of things locally. They also present stories that seem to point to problems and dangers, so you'll feel like you're better armed to deal with them. Anyway, listening right now I realized that hearing about all these unstable situations around town makes the viewer feel better about the (relative) stability they have in their life, sitting there watching TV. They can think, "at least I don't have that problem being depicted". There are also the stories where they have an opinion and feel good when someone interviewed shares it.

I see the local news as a microcosm of the virus in general. It's a form that I can pity more, since the local news is so archaic in the online age, clearly struggling to stay afloat, like newspapers. It's just pleading for you to keep watching, to keep giving it attention. It promises to make you feel good if you do, but watch out, you'll forget about all the real meaningful things you could be doing instead with your evening. But you know you want that escape from your own situation. It's like a lot of things in my life, though more open to abuse since it'll keep coming at you on its own schedule, unlike other things that require some kind of effort on the target's part.

No intention of merging this thread at all, prairie. I'm enjoying it as it is, as I'm sure others are as well.

_________________
"For every lie I unlearn, I learn something new"- Ani DiFranco

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. ~ TS Elliot

The concept of sui generis has gotten a lot clearer recently, particularly in regards to how others try to tear it down. To me it means being unique, absolutely unique. I have to take that idea and ramp it up to what seems an exaggerated level to feel that I've really got it. It's untouchable by anything.

When I have this in my mind, it becomes something that the virus can't stick anything to. When it tries, instead of doubting myself or thinking whether it's right, I look at the one wanting to stick a label on my being and easily see the motive. If it's just their attempt to understand me, there's no force involved; I can redirect in my reply and there's no hostility. But when there is hostility, I know it was an attempt to limit me, to say that I'm this, and importantly, that I'm not that.

Then there's my own labeling of myself. I've begun to see a lot of it as being to cater to others' conditional respect based on fitting myself into their labels; if I don't label myself in an acceptable way to them, they shun me, so I spend a lot of time trying to find the ones that I dislike the least. Seeing this for what it is, I've lost most interest in trying to find the right labels for myself. I'd rather get their hostility than walk on eggshells with the constant threat of slipping and getting the hostility anyway.

There's something powerful about really shunning the need to label each other. I imagine what it'd be like to be with a few people in person who are doing the same. I think there would be a big focus on things we can do (process), things we're experiencing right then (including things remembered), of constantly creating things.

I love this post, prairie. It harmonises so well with discussions I've been having with you and with others, that have been helping to further coalesce the sui generis signal for me, in my own expression.

I particularly love this:



This is what I spent several hours discussing with an Otherkind friend this afternoon, and those same words- process, creation, rather than focusing on product which is what the heteronomy is fixated on- lifted my spirit in glee: I too am delighting in the vision of a community that is entranced by process, engaged by and immersed in the evolution of their own individual sui generis as it dances within the co-creation of the download source, I Am, the external expression of the evolution signal- it all works together into such an exquisite and ecstatic expression for me that I literally feel like I'm dancing on the Bridge between Chaos and Order.

I love this direction and path. I am in love with the signal within me more deeply than ever. Talking with you was truly lovely and I look forward to doing it again.

_________________
"For every lie I unlearn, I learn something new"- Ani DiFranco

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go. ~ TS Elliot