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.
dudes, i keep getting notifications on “my” thread but as it seems, this has ventured wayyyyy off topic lets bring this home and keep our eyes on the ball - The ongoing enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive!!
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.
lets bring this home and keep our eyes on the ball - The ongoing enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive!!