Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 22, 2018 7:49:10 GMT
There's been some talk on ST about the necessity for "camouflage." Andrew described it this way: Not only is this seeming need to 'put on an act' of sorts not necessary, but if it's present, it's a clear indicator of the presence of fear. The following Adya quote seems to speak directly to Andrew's above: "Most human beings actually have an imprinting--not only in their minds, but in their bodies and their emotions--that if they are honest, if they are real, something bad is going to happen. Somebody is not going to like it. They fear they won't be able to control their environment if they tell the truth." He really nails it with his reference to 'control.' And, furthermore, The fear of not being able to control your environment is inextricably tied to the very idea that you 'can' control things. Andrew says it above so clearly; "I tend not to look people in the eye too much because I don't want to intimidate them." What he's really saying there is that he fears the responses of others, and thus, feels the need to try to control his interactions with them, but of course, underlying all of that is his mistaken belief that he as a person, actually can control any of that. Andrew, I'd love to talk about this with you if you're up for it.  I'd be interested in why he thinks he can intimidate strangers with a look.  Glancing is fine. Looking can be too much for some folks. Presence can be intimidating as I said. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 22, 2018 7:52:38 GMT
I don't consider it useful to present my ideas about what you are scared of right now, not least because I don't believe you will see it. Fear is usually surprising, it catches us off guard. So, if and when there is a time you are scared, that's the time to look at it. Yes. For you, one of those opportune moments would be when you are feeling the need to don your camouflage. It's right then and there that if you look within, at what's behind that urge to put on a mask, you just might see it. & it's interesting Andrew...cause for one who says he's not interested in engaging, when I speak to you on this forum, regardless of the fact that you might be refraining from engaging me back, you are here, as a non logged in, 'guest' almost every time I am here. So,while you are professing to not be interested, your actual behavior says otherwise. You are obviously very interested in what I have to say to you, but something (fear/ego methinks) is standing in the way of you responding in a way that would demand self inquiry. From what you say, You are very interested in controlling your behaviors, but have you noticed that you don't actually have control? You would like to just be able to turn away from this forum, from figgles and her pointy little fingers, but evidently, you cannot stay away. Again, that could serve as an important point of inquiry if you were so inclined. For me, camouflage is about turning the light down (as I said), it's not a mask in the sense I think you might mean. When I'm in the middle of a conversation, I tend to be logged on, but this last couple of days is the first time I've visited in a month, so you might be looking at the wrong IP or something. I'm also quite psychic/sensitive, so when someone is having thoughts related to me, my attention is drawn to that person. When I logged on here a couple of days ago, I wasn't surprised that you had been talking about what I said about camouflage, the energy of your attention draws me here to an extent. We used to call this the Batman signal on the other forum. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 22, 2018 14:23:01 GMT
I'd be interested in why he thinks he can intimidate strangers with a look. yeah...the very idea that making direct eye contact is a bad thing, is counter-intuitive. 'Let's pretend that we're all caught up in our own inner shit, averted eyes, downcast focus, just to make the other guy feel better'...said no Guru, ever.  Or...perhaps....  ?   Yeah, that would explain it.  |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Sept 22, 2018 14:52:44 GMT
I'd be interested in why he thinks he can intimidate strangers with a look. Glancing is fine. Looking can be too much for some folks. Presence can be intimidating as I said. Well, staring can feel intrusive or judgmental, but you don't seem to be talking about prolonged eye contact. Virtually every living creature responds to love with love, and to fear with fear, and no words are needed to convey the essence of that. People, and especially the lower animals, can see what you are being, whether or not they understand what they are seeing. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 22, 2018 15:31:05 GMT
Lol......yes, we all know Andrew how quickly you back down from arguments when the other demonstrates conviction of their viewpoint.  There's pages and pages of evidence that prove 'futility' in terms of having the other see things your way, was never an issue before. Again, you're being dishonest...lacking in integrity. You're scared to engage me because I'm challenging those spots you don't want to look at. In your case, it took me a long time to come to the point where I could see you definitely weren't ready to abandon the solipsism. It's really not Solipsism in the traditional/philosphical sense I'm asserting. Rather, it's the inherent emptiness of ALL experiential content. Apparent others just happen to be encompassed in that. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 22, 2018 15:39:08 GMT
I'd be interested in why he thinks he can intimidate strangers with a look. Glancing is fine. Looking can be too much for some folks. Presence can be intimidating as I said. I say you are taking your own discomfort with making eye contact, with being present, vulnerable, unguarded with regards to an interaction with an appearing other, and you're superimposing that discomfort upon them. Even if folks quickly look away or appear to be shy, that doesn't necessarily mean that they feel intimidated per se or that they would prefer to be engaged with one who puts on an act, or dims his light, vs. one who is authentic. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 22, 2018 15:42:49 GMT
Yes. For you, one of those opportune moments would be when you are feeling the need to don your camouflage. It's right then and there that if you look within, at what's behind that urge to put on a mask, you just might see it. & it's interesting Andrew...cause for one who says he's not interested in engaging, when I speak to you on this forum, regardless of the fact that you might be refraining from engaging me back, you are here, as a non logged in, 'guest' almost every time I am here. So,while you are professing to not be interested, your actual behavior says otherwise. You are obviously very interested in what I have to say to you, but something (fear/ego methinks) is standing in the way of you responding in a way that would demand self inquiry. From what you say, You are very interested in controlling your behaviors, but have you noticed that you don't actually have control? You would like to just be able to turn away from this forum, from figgles and her pointy little fingers, but evidently, you cannot stay away. Again, that could serve as an important point of inquiry if you were so inclined. For me, camouflage is about turning the light down (as I said), it's not a mask in the sense I think you might mean. When I'm in the middle of a conversation, I tend to be logged on, but this last couple of days is the first time I've visited in a month, so you might be looking at the wrong IP or something. I'm also quite psychic/sensitive, so when someone is having thoughts related to me, my attention is drawn to that person. When I logged on here a couple of days ago, I wasn't surprised that you had been talking about what I said about camouflage, the energy of your attention draws me here to an extent. We used to call this the Batman signal on the other forum. "Turning the light down" purposefully, is the equivalent of donning a mask, putting on an act, trying to be something other than what you intrinsically are. Interesting then, that on one hand, you feel pulled to conversation, but on the other, you often pull away when the challenge goes too deep. Something worth looking at. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Sept 22, 2018 15:47:40 GMT
Glancing is fine. Looking can be too much for some folks. Presence can be intimidating as I said. Well, staring can feel intrusive or judgmental, but you don't seem to be talking about prolonged eye contact. Virtually every living creature responds to love with love, and to fear with fear, and no words are needed to convey the essence of that. People, and especially the lower animals, can see what you are being, whether or not they understand what they are seeing. Well said. Kids in my experience are usually very tuned into this. When my son was around 3ish - 4ish, he'd been taking swimming lessons and afterwards the kids and teachers all got into a big hot tub to warm up. The mom's would stand by, towels in hand. As we made our way to the change room after, my little guy explained how the swim teachers were putting on act, being extra nice to all the kids, because the parents were listening. I found that incredibly astute, and I think even if they can't necessarily formulate that observation in words like that, most kids are aware of that kind of thing....when they encounter authenticity vs. a lack thereof....and as you say, same can be said for animals. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 22, 2018 16:23:39 GMT
Glancing is fine. Looking can be too much for some folks. Presence can be intimidating as I said. Well, staring can feel intrusive or judgmental, but you don't seem to be talking about prolonged eye contact. Virtually every living creature responds to love with love, and to fear with fear, and no words are needed to convey the essence of that. People, and especially the lower animals, can see what you are being, whether or not they understand what they are seeing. How long do you consider to be prolonged? The way I see it is that some people (more than others) are living a deep lie, and are stuck in that lie. It is painful for them. Now, I embody freedom to a relatively great extent, I'm not even bound to the tyranny of mortgage, debt, possessions or job...which is quite rare where I come from. I consider it inappropriate to compound their suffering, by rubbing my relative freedom in their face, and make them feel even worse. If I believe that truth/presence is something they need to see, then fine. Otherwise, I am happy to dim the light for them. Of course, this all happens very quickly, in the space of moments, I don't have to think about it, it happens without any effort or volition on my part. Just one of the reasons that I have spent so much time with so many animals in the last years is probably because light has to be dimmed less, though even then, it's not wholly the case, because animals have a loyalty to their owners and it's not always appropriate for me to get fully in the way of that. When my family leaves their life, they have to return to their family, and that's not something I ignore. |
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 22, 2018 16:24:09 GMT
In your case, it took me a long time to come to the point where I could see you definitely weren't ready to abandon the solipsism. It's really not Solipsism in the traditional/philosphical sense I'm asserting. Rather, it's the inherent emptiness of ALL experiential content. Apparent others just happen to be encompassed in that. I addressed this on the other thread. |
|
? 
There's pages and pages of evidence that prove 'futility' in terms of having the other see things your way, was never an issue before.