I need to check some things out.
Posted by John on 03/25/2007 17:20:43
I'd like to check out a couple of things. I'm becoming confused about
the over-all context of what's going on among us here these days. What,
specifically, were we arguing about, Eddie? I seem to realize that
you've been telling me that you've been disagreeing with me. But, for
the life of me, I can't quite figure out exactly what you are
disasgreeing with me about, specifically. Is it just my ol' burning out
brain? Or would you help me here?
Would you do me the kindness of sharing three or four things, from
you're point of view (and pertaining to the coaching work we're doing
along here) where your sense of it is that you are *disagreeing* with me?
John the Younger, I think Eddie may be trying to teach me something along
the same lines as your remarks about feeling uncomfortable when others
are "speaking for you."
I have a hunch you mean more there than just the sort of speaking for
another person that I did, inapropriately, with Me2 the other day. And
I'd appreciate feedback.
Maybe it's the whole method I am trying to apply, where I am observing
things happening before my eyes here, with all of us, that I am so eager
to coach about each time, so the rest of you can see if it fits your own
experience, or not. When I share these observations . . .
Well here's a hypothtical example: "Okay, Sir or Madame as the case may
be. A minute ago you're laughing sardonically at your adversary, and
here now you're growling like a bear with seeming anger. Can you feel
your jaw is all gripped up there? It seems to me I'm seeing the pattern
of the Player/Judge happening here in you, and that maybe what you are so
angry about is that you often tend to argue that you are always right and
the other is always wrong . . . and *still* the other goes on disagreeing
with you!" while you go on saying "Grrrrrrr!"
The person here would be invited to share his/her own experience of that
event—perhaps *quite different* than the facilitator's view . . . yet,
perhaps the person would realize, "Oh yeah. I get it. I'm catching-on.
I see. I do do that, don't I?"
And no one is *asked* to "catch-on" to anything like this other than to
rely on their own sincere, direct experience that is simple, obvious,
and to them, whatever is apparent.
If the purpose of the group at the time were for teaching the personality
wheel, this could have been a time when that person and others would have
been able to see and experience more of what makes up the visible nature
of the Player/Judge, not theoretically, from a lecture or a book, but
through seeing it actually happening there before their own awakened
Yet I'm wondering now—and I'd dearly like to know—if you fellows may be
trying to help me to see that the method, itself, by "speaking for you,"
so to speak—as in my doing direct "interventions" on you personallly
while "the group" is going on, speaking out on things I notice that seem
valuable to point out—has such an unpleasant impact into your own
personal living space, that you don't like to play the awareness game
It would be a big help to me to hear some frank feedback on this.
I think some research into this question is relevant to the question of
whether a so-called awareness group, such as I've been describing along
the way here, can actually be done over the Internet. Maybe the question
is if it can realistically be done with the awareness game as the
principle method being both taught and *employed* in on-line practice . .
. if such a thing can be done at all.
Me2, even though Eddie's sleuthing into whether Scot was being here in
class, silently, or not at all, was expertly done and logically
concluded, I'm glad to hear you letting your voice be heard in case he *
does* pop in. And, I miss you, Scot!