You could investigate your attitude towards being corrected for sure.
There is nothing, absolutely n.o.t.h.i.n.g “bad/wrong” about being corrected, advised etc.
Self-worth, self-esteem and validation seem to be your prominent themes Leila. It drips throughout your whole post-history. That is the thing to tackle for you. You seem to be aware of it which is good.
Maybe a good start would be to read and re-read Richards correspondence in regards to authority and expertise. You have to come to a point where you see that validation, drama, self-esteem are nothing but a distraction, an excuse to point you back towards your bubble. You have to come to a point where you see that you want it. You want it to escalate. It’s not happening to you at all. You actively want it. Why? Get behind it. Be patient.
It all feels so very important, dramatically important, but… it’s not. It just isn’t.
Hummmm you could not really have forgotten it so thoroughly. Because you knew you didn’t have permission… you literally said to Geoffrey you were posting it without his permission!
This also is not a one-time theme regarding permission. You told me that you hope I gave you permission to translate something I wrote, because if I didn’t you’d have to do it without my permission anyway. And you translated Felix’s (I think) posts even though he told you not to, and he ended up deleting them so other people wouldn’t do the same!
So this story you are telling yourself of having forgotten, is not what actually happened.
Maybe it’s time to recognize that actions have consequences - that if you do things without people’s permission, those people will sometimes not like that — and making excuses won’t always work to make it better? Maybe instead of that you could be more considerate and not do it in the first place … it’s just a suggestion though.
Also as Elgin alluded to… it’s not the end of the world! Everything will be ok . Good themes for you to investigate for sure.
Just to be clear.
I mean the emotions behind it, the personal, inner drama which plays out in the head and heart is rather silly, but appears to move mountains.
The privacy concerns are legit and to be taken seriously, because it could lead to physical/practical discomfort for an actual free person and to physical/practical/emotional discomfort for “unfree” persons.
I would argue that “forgetting” can happen on an unconscious level as I know from own experiance. It can happen when one doesn’t take another opinion/concern serious, in the sense that one doesn’t see the harm in doing so. I think Leila acted somewhat ignorant of the potential consequences, but in “good faith” nevertheless (wanting to help).
Yes you put it well. Must not minimize the fact - as in the practical consequences. But can emotionally accept the fact - even given this happened it’s not worth being upset or sad etc. But that doesn’t mean to just keep doing it. This is why pure intent is needed to replace the moral impetus.
Don’t take it so hard, @leila. As far as I am concerned, you have not caused me any inconvenience. And if you had triggered that, it would be my problem; an opportunity to investigate.
The posts of @Elgin and @claudiu have allowed me to eliminate most of what I had started to write yesterday. I think they contain good advice about what you can do with this episode,
so I will just emphasize two points:
Those of us who have a good memory (as you claim to have) tend to forget and “forget” mainly when guided or dominated by emotions (desire, annoyance, anxiety, rush, etc), causing us distraction, disinterest, omissions while living any situation such as listening to someone talking to us, reading, watching a video, etc. As others said, then, you could investigate those emotions.
The shame/annoyance/discouragement (bad feelings) that I may feel if I make a mistake, I am contradicted or I am corrected here in the forum, is not essentially different from the pride/pleasure/good spirit (good feelings) that I may feel in the opposite cases. The more so if the trigger in either direction comes from someone actually free (as they felt sometimes before they were free when faced with Richard’s “approvals” or “disapprovals” of their words, for example). Again just another objects of observation that I/you should not repress or exacerbate, and later investigate.
But, of course, now you should aim to feel good which in some circunstances it’s not easy. Apply the method and your previous experiences for that.
dear @Felix except for the one that you had EE or PCE , i did not translate anything from you …and the one i translated it , if i knew you dont like it i would delete it …the way you respond for the one i translated was that you said :
" my words has not been translated by any body (…) "
and from this i thought you said it out of excitement , so i did not delete that … when you said dont do the rest i did not …you can go and see it for your self …in the link below they are two post that are in number 158 to 161 from felix …
Hey @leila, wait really??!! That is amazing. My words have never been translated at all let alone into Farsi. You’ll have to share the translated text with me By the way have you written kind of intro here about how you came to actualism?
@leila hey, please don’t do that …. Just read my most recent posts - like the last week at most.like the last week at most. I’ve even thought of deleting my previous diary entries for this reason.
Dear Flix…
i did not know that your were deleting your previous post because of me , according to cludiu …i told you i am not gonna do that , and i did not translate them ,except for the two of the post your EE and PCE that i told you about it …
no it was not ignorant , i just did not remember that it is something private, even my first imput was that it was on you tube that i first saw it …i even first post the video and then wrote : by your permission Geofrry , and then i change it to " without " your permission …i swear there was no ignorant or anything …i just did not remembered at that time that it was private …i wish there was a video of my intent at that time ,so you all could see that i did not remembered anything …
Ignorant can mean: uninformed about a particular subject/not knowing, not understanding something. Hence I said you acted in good faith/wanting to help.
It’s obvious you didn’t intended to harm anybody.
It’s not something which is special to you Leila, all identities do this to some degree. You explained yourself. It’s time to chill down and reflect on it. Nobody is mad at you, though it might seem so to you of course. Remember you’re dealing with actualist, not some hardcore emo-chumps on the internet.
You now understand that privacy concerns are to be respected at all times. Lessons learned, finished.
Now comes the work, the interesting part.
Maybe something to write about it in your journal at some point when it’s pleasant for you
Well I might as well say it. To an outsider this response would appear a bit surprising, especially coming from someone purported to be actually free. It certainly looks like it comes from a place of emotion, but of course I cannot confirm that at all.
Was responding in this way truly helpful? It just seems like intensifying the tone of the message would make the situation worse instead of calming it, and it seems like the latter is more preferable.
Is that what you are referring to? I didn’t read any particular emotion other than my own projections. Geoffrey just seemed to be asking an adult why there were acting like a child. Of course, when seeing this in person it is always accompanied by a power dynamic and/or a deep feeling of fear that other is going to hurt themselves or them. But it doesn’t have to be the case.
Ftr, I actually thought Geoffrey’s:
Doesn’t seem super clear to me. If one were to focus on the latter
with whoever you think could benefit from it
Then one could easily miss the
privately
Most adults rush to act. It is childish but it’s 100% par for the course too. If you want your concerns to be respected then it’s up to you be excessively clear, especially, when you are saying two separate things that often are odds with each other. In this case privately and share with whoever….
Okay I see, yeah I definitely got a whiff of the power dynamic thing, but that could just be me. I think I possibly saw some room for relaying the message in such a way that optimizes for the emotional comfort of the other person. For example:
Please do not post this video publicly, such as on this forum. I am not allowing that. I have deleted your comment.
. . . after having deleted the comment. (I’m just guessing as to what happened, since I wasn’t here.)
But yeah, maybe that won’t actually work, since it’s not forceful and unambiguous enough to deter someone from making the same mistake again.
If that were what I’m optimizing for (emotional comfort), then indeed, you’d be right.
I think it was (helpful), for it made the situation clearer. For Leila’s own benefit. She might not have seen it at the time, and you might not have either. I’m still confident it had to be done.
My purpose here is, to the extent that I can, to help people achieve actual freedom. This takes many forms as people (identities) come in many forms, and find themselves hold up at many stages, with many obstacles.
You might have noticed I’m pretty laid back usually, not intervening much, content to watch people figuring stuff out for themselves. I sometimes intervene when it appears that a nudge, a hint, an allusion, might be enough to help people see something, or go over some hurdle. They’re free to do whatever they want with it, it’s not like it’s my responsibility what people do with their lives. And I certainly don’t picture myself a guru, a teacher, a guide or whatever.
When I see someone stuck in a particular problematic situation (as regards one’s progress towards actual freedom), not showing sufficient or impending clarity about it that would let one think that they’re about to go over it, my intervention (if it happens) may be less subtle. It may be as plain as it needs to be.
Actually this has changed somewhat, for I would indeed have let these states of affairs slide, one or two years ago. And I did. Allowing people to linger in the comfort of their ignorance about their own stuff. Allowing them to turn around on themselves for years, blocked in their progress. Which I saw as respecting people’s freedom, but now see as kinda giving-up on people. So you might say that my (actual) caring has increased… even if it might look like the opposite from a feeling-caring point of view .
I’m glad you brought it up because when it seemed the same to me, I re-read it and explained to myself that it must have been my own projections (as @proporcrutch said), but then I asked myself the following questions:
“If someone other than @geoffrey or @Srinath had written the same, would I ascribe my perception to my own projections? No. Most likely I would have trusted my perception and been certain that the author wrote emotionally”.
“If I (or anyone other than @geoffrey or @Srinath) had written it, would the other participants have remained silent as in this case? Absolutely not! At least someone would have invited the author to check his emotions and, if nothing else, to doubt the usefulness of his manner (if not the very substance of his messsage)!”
Both questions led me to observe that various pre-judices (one could be our respect for authority -and our lesser respect toward those we do not consider authority) may judge the same words differently.
Of course, we can call those pre-judices “knowledge” or “information”:
“I know that Geoffrey or Srinath cannot give emotional responses. Therefore, the response was not emotional, and any judgment to that effect must be my projection.”
This knowing, of course, is ultimately based on believing their testimonies and their general behavior over time through their interactions with us, as we don’t live with them 24/7 (although we might not even be able to detect if they are AF given we are not also AF), etc. But that being the case, the conclusion is necessary.
But the opposite knowledge or information does not necessarily lead to the same conclusion:
“I know everyone else here is not AF and use to give emotional responses. Therefore, this response was emotional and in no way my perception was a projection”.
However, firstly I would most likely not even stop to observe whether it was a projection or not. Secondly, the writer could obviously be using the same words without being tinged by his emotions.
But most likely the failure to observe ourselves, and our disbelief that such a feeling being could avoid writing emotionally would lead us to react emotionally “accordingly”.
In my case, if the post had not been written by Geoffrey or Srinath, I think I would have emotionally written a suitable suggestion to the author.
Having been written by Geoffrey, what I observed is that I did not write anything because of my knowledge/belief about him (he is AF) and for which I concluded that my emotional reaction (which existed -no matter if it was small or large-) must be a projection.
BUT there was something else BEFORE all this: I emotionally anticipated (felt) the “social sanctions” I might receive if I said something similar to what you said. And this is revealing of “me”…
As long as there was a social identity extant (and even after somewhat, out of habit), there was some level of attention given to appearances, to fittingly ‘play the part’ of the ‘actually free guy’.
To the extent that it was seen (not fully), it was internally justified by ‘caring’.
The reasoning went something like this : “Becoming actually free is in their best interest, they’re more likely to do so if actually free people demonstrate the condition in a somehow ‘perfect’ manner, even from a feeling-being point of view, meaning: no potentially confusing behavior should be displayed”.
What would have happened then, if a similar circumstance occurred? I would have re-read my post, considering what it looked like from a feeling-being’s point of view, and I would have erased the last paragraph. Because such is not what is expected from an actually free guy.
But what would have actually happened? I would have over-ruled my actual caring for Leila (and for open-eyed readers), potentially delaying the spread of peace-on-earth (for that is what this is about), in order to ‘play the part’ of the ‘actually free guy’ on the reasoned possibility that such paragraph might be read as uncaring, or even harmful, and as such attributed to an emotional response, therefore being a source of confusion for inattentive readers (inattentive to their own projections and expectations). I then would have raised no eyebrows, rocked no boats, and everything would have been allowed to go on steadily for days months and years, everyone comfortable in the confirmation of their views. And there we would have gone, for another decade or whatever.
Btw it’s not even like this ^^ occurred to me, in some kind of ‘new’ reasoning. I just have no investment any more in appearances, in looking the part, in confirming people’s expectations. And that means that I’m finally ready to actually help. For actual caring is free and unhindered.
This is interesting because it reveals how much our trying to ‘figure out’ situations is emotional projection. It’s so much different to ask if a particular response really is useful or not and to say something about that, and even then any one person may disagree on the basis that they have had some different experiences (or lack of experience) compared to us.
I am mostly pleased to know of @geoffrey’s conviction that his response was not written from a place of emotion. I think to me the response seemed confusing because it certainly evoked emotion in me, and given that I live in an emotional world, that’s probably what I saw.
I can certainly see an argument for optimizing for clarity, however, as there have been times in my life where I would optimize for someone else’s emotional reactions to my words, and this can sometimes delay clear, unambiguous communication.
The same applies to many, many things Richard wrote in his correspondence. At first I just couldn’t believe that his guy was harmless until I read everything with both eyes.
I see it as you Miguel. If it wouldn’t come from a AF person I would very much project emotions into it - my own emotions of course.
Also if it were written by someone not actually free … it wouldn’t have come from a place of actual caring.
The words may even be identical (though unlikely), but the difference is… there would be psychic currents underlying the message, that we feeling-beings would pick up on.
The nature of the currents would depend on the person who wrote it. If they were upset or angry they’d be upset/angry currents… if they were feeling like they wanted to help the other person then there’d be that helpful current (with a likely undercurrent that if that help was challenged they would get defensive and then retributively offensive)… best-case scenario if they were feeling naive and happy and harmless then there would be naive, happy, harmless currents (though still with that possibility for things to go awry).
So it wouldn’t be “just” projection though projection makes it impossible to really accurately ascertain these things. But what I mean is there would be something ‘in the air’ besides just what we read into it, that would lead to the reactions we speculate we might have had were it not an actually free person.
. Good themes for you to investigate for sure.
By the way have you written kind of intro here about how you came to actualism?
.
though projection makes it impossible to really accurately ascertain these things. But what I mean is there would be something ‘in the air’ besides just what we read into it, that would lead to the reactions we speculate we might have had were it not an actually free person.