Buffers, Programs and "the Predator's Mind"

[Loud John]

Laura I recently lost my wife whom I had been separated from for ten years and this article explain's her life to a tee. A few years ago I had her pegged as a psychopath (only after a long study) but upon her death (which was self induced) I realized that she was what the cassiopaeaion's re-ferred to (if memory serves me right) as a confused souled unit. The above article describe's my life experience with her perfectly and I hope to expand on it and send it to you soon but my computer skills are very limited so it will be a while.

 

[clearmiddle]

When I review certain experiences I've had, I can quite easily see situations where "Primitive Defence Mechanisms" have started running. The
symptoms were exactly as Laura has described them - an inflexible, rigid perspective of "good" and "evil"; taking trivial events and using them as "fact" to build wild, paranoid scenarios; a sense of internal hysteria; incapability of taking an accurate reading of internal processes and emotions; placing persons involved on a "black list" where their actions and motivations are read as sinister, treacherous; unconscious projection of the negative emotions of oneself onto another etc.

Other hallmarks of these states are extreme fear, paranoia and an interpretation and projection of a subjective view that explains the paranoia. Subconscious selection and substitution of data occurs, making the paranoid fantasy seem absolutely "justified" and "real".

It also seems that, going from the experiences of others, that this false reality can manifest in the positive direction - a driving need or urge for something that is unambiguously felt as "good" or "safe", regardless of whether it actually is or not.

To use Martha Stout's terminology, I did not ever completely lose my "observing ego" during these states, thus I did not enter a fugue or "black out", and I still retain memory of being in the dissociated state, although there was a definite sense of being "out of control" and incapable of regaining my previous emotional equilibrium. This is possibly what Stout referred to as the "intrusion of a dissociated ego state": <snip>

Perhaps what Mouravieff referred to as the "Doctrine of the Present" can be used to strengthen the observing ego and help one not to be completely taken over by the intruding ego state? <snip>

Ryan, thanks. I know it has been a year since you posted that, but it is helping me now. I read this thread--and also Martha Stout's book--recently but I didn't understand how they related to my own experiences until I experienced an "intrusion" this last week. That, in turn, has brought back memories of many past experiences that I didn't especially want to think about.

I began to self-observe a few weeks ago while I was reading ISOTM. It wasn't the easiest thing for me to see the centers at work, but I started out doing what I could with what I knew. At one point I noticed a feeling come up that was hard to identify (described here). I decided to wait and watch more closely the next time, since it was something that I had felt many times before and I knew it would come around again.

Instead of that, however, I experienced an "intrusion." The earlier feeling, I realize now, occurs when something I see partly triggers me but not quite enough to actually enter an altered state. The second time I found myself, as you said, feeling "out of control" and not being able to go back to where I was moments before. It took me two days to settle down again. And yet I didn't lose my "observing ego" either.

What actually happened was simple: I was driving to a meeting and I arrived there and parked my car. On the road there had been someone in front of me that seemed to be having a little difficulty controlling his car. It later turned out that it was someone I knew, that was going to the same meeting, and that perhaps really shouldn't still be driving beause of his age and health. In the parking lot he slowed to a crawl, until he finally began to enter a parking space. At that point I was feeling a little impatient and I drove around and parked in the next space beyond, which was a little closer to where I was going.

As I was doing that, the other person suddenly stopped, leaving his car sticking part way into the driveway. I don't know for sure what happened, but I don't think he was able to judge distances, and that he stopped because he was afraid of hitting something that he wasn't even near. It looked rather odd.

But that is not what I saw at the time. Instead, I imagined that I had frightened him somehow, and that I was "in trouble," and I went into a strange "defensive" program, trying to justify my actions to myself. I was anxious, as though I was about to be attacked, and I felt anger as well, although it wasn't clear why. I wanted to run away. It was a very self-focused state, that seemed to belong to an entirely different time and place.

I saw what was happening to my thinking, and realized that it had happened many times before. Later I would connect it with dissociated ego states and, through your post, with "intrusion." It never took over completely. I was able to go on into the meeting and successfully present what I had been asked to present, even though my mind wanted to focus on defending my actions in the parking lot. What I said to those present was well received and, as far as I know, no one there had any idea that I was struggling inside to prevent this other rather obnoxious facet of my personality from making itself heard.

I have other "states." I have known of them for a very long time, but I could not make sense of them, other than supposing that they were somehow connected with forgotten childhood trauma--which they apparently are. I had a two-week intrusion last month that was my motivation for reading ISOTM and returning here. I wanted to stop this and find something better to do.

I am wondering now what to do about it. Laura said in the original post of this thread to "struggle with it," and that does make a difference. The most troublesome of my states has not recurred for over 25 years.

I was self-observing when this happened last week, and what I saw was confusing. I saw the involvement of my emotional and intellectual centers, but it appeared as though the centers themselves had changed. It did not seem like simply a shift in which centers were active.

It seems as though there are I's and then there are I's. We can behave differently depending upon which centers are active, or we can behave differently depending upon which dissociated ego states are active. Or at least that is what it looks like to me.

 

[Ryan]

I am wondering now what to do about it. Laura said in the original post of this thread to "struggle with it," and that does make a difference. The most troublesome of my states has not recurred for over 25 years.

There is not much advice I can give you other than to agree that it's something that simply needs to be "faced down", and suggest you keep reading and studying. Looking at your situation, the fact that you were able to not-express the negative emotions caused by the intrusion of the dissociated ego state suggests that you already have good control over yourself and that the "observing ego" is the dominant element of your psyche. Try to ensure it stays that way. You may find different emotional states (even positive states such as enthusiasm) try to overwhelm the observing ego and find expression through your actions. The observing ego needs to stay as the "conscious gatekeeper" for such emotions, while fully acknowledging and feeling the emotion without repression or suppression. The process is difficult, and the phrase "inner war" is quite appropriate sometimes.

I was self-observing when this happened last week, and what I saw was confusing. I saw the involvement of my emotional and intellectual centers, but it appeared as though the centers themselves had changed. It did not seem like simply a shift in which centers were active.

I can't comment here, as I'm not sure what the centers mean to you personally, or how you may have perceived a change in them. Can you elaborate?

 

[clearmiddle]

There is not much advice I can give you other than to agree that it's something that simply needs to be "faced down", and suggest you keep reading and studying...

That is what I thought, but it doesn't hurt to ask. :) Thank you!

I was self-observing when this happened last week, and what I saw was confusing. I saw the involvement of my emotional and intellectual centers, but it appeared as though the centers themselves had changed. It did not seem like simply a shift in which centers were active.

I can't comment here, as I'm not sure what the centers mean to you personally, or how you may have perceived a change in them. Can you elaborate?

I can try... I have been self-observing ("recording") as Ouspensky described it, noting thoughts, feelings, sensations, and moving impulses, corresponding to intellectual, emotional, instinctive, and moving centers. I am still new at this, although it is starting to make more sense. I have some sense that different combinations of active centers may present different "I's," but I don't see that clearly yet.

And then suddenly a memory is set off and I start feeling like a different person, an angry and defensive one. It's not simply that I shifted to my emotional center. I seem to have shifted, part way, to a different personality. I can note this and and ward off the negativity, but I don't know how to relate my observation to what I have read in Ouspensky or Mouravieff. Is this another kind of "I" besides the "little I's" I have read about?

I do see that I behave differently in different situations. Some of that might have to do with which centers I am using--I am not sure yet. Some of it depends upon who I am with. Some is from major mood shifts such as the one above or a PTSD-like episode of anxiety and depression that I had last month. Now something else is happening. I have just finished reading The Myth of Sanity and Trapped in the Mirror, and things that were fuzzy have become clearer--what my early life was like, how I survived, and how it affects my choices in relationships. And I am starting to speak up when people say things about me that aren't true. It is a different kind of shift, I think. Are these all "I's?"

Sometimes I don't know what to ask. :/

 

[anart]

I was self-observing when this happened last week, and what I saw was confusing. I saw the involvement of my emotional and intellectual centers, but it appeared as though the centers themselves had changed. It did not seem like simply a shift in which centers were active.

Hi Megan,

I think you might be thinking a bit more literally than necessary concerning what Ouspensky an Mouravieff have written. Then again, Ouspensky was/is famous for over-intellectualizing while missing a certain depth of emotional understanding and M's biblical gloss and structured presentation can also be difficult to weed through. And in our unnatural state of being it is almost always the case that one center is usurping the energy of another center to operate, thus blurring the line in our own understanding of what is really 'going on'.

I can try... I have been self-observing ("recording") as Ouspensky described it, noting thoughts, feelings, sensations, and moving impulses, corresponding to intellectual, emotional, instinctive, and moving centers. I am still new at this, although it is starting to make more sense. I have some sense that different combinations of active centers may present different "I's," but I don't see that clearly yet.

It might be wise to realize that at this stage of your awareness, you most probably are not even accurately perceiving whether an impulse or behavior is the work of the emotional, intellectual, instinctive or motor center, or if one center is usurping energy from another - observation and 'recording' is key at this stage (which you are doing, and which is enormously helpful).

As far as identifying the 'little i's' as simply parts and parcels of each center or combination of centers, again, that's a bit of an over-intellectualization, to my understanding; a bit of a mechanical equation that is rather missing the 'messy truth' of the matter.

And then suddenly a memory is set off and I start feeling like a different person, an angry and defensive one. It's not simply that I shifted to my emotional center. I seem to have shifted, part way, to a different personality. I can note this and and ward off the negativity, but I don't know how to relate my observation to what I have read in Ouspensky or Mouravieff. Is this another kind of "I" besides the "little I's" I have read about?

Nope, that sounds like exactly what a 'little i' is - it is a small sliver of yourself that takes control and 'becomes' you for a period of time. It is not simply different aspects of different centers operating, though it can encompass that, it is more akin to what you've read in 'Myth of Sanity' than just an equation of the combination of the different parts of the centers.

The real 'kicker' is that the vast majority of the time we do not notice when these different 'i's' shift position from a background program running to the one running the show. In a very nuts and bolts way, 'Myth of Sanity' gives a more accurate description of our fragmented state of being - our little i's - simply because it is a more readily applicable explanation of what it is to 'be' simply a conglomeration of many little i's, instead of one fused being.

Hopefully my brief explanation doesn't confuse the issue further.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Just to add a small thing to what Anart said above, besides just having centers and things like ego, self-importance, and various desires and drives, we have programming/conditioning/beliefs, among many other things. And a single i can be easily an entire personality with its own opinions, beliefs, desires, fears, etc. You could have 2 i's that use the centers in the same way and still be completely different i's. Kinda like you could have 2 different people, even if both of them are acting 100% out of just their emotional center, they could still be completely different in terms of their outlook on the world, on themselves, their direction in life, desires, fears, beliefs, etc. And so I think it's more of a fluid and qualitative reality we're dealing with rather than a digital/mathematical one where you can just plug factors into an equation and calculate numbers of this or that. But being non-digital doesn't make it any less real.

There's always a danger to get hung up on words/analogies/symbology used to describe a process as more important than the process. Little i's is just one way, a good way but not the only way to try to describe our inner state. It's more of an approximation that uses concepts and words that are easy to understand rather than being an absolute description of exactly what's going on. And its usefulness is to give us a "good enough" understanding of the idea behind the words, so we know what to look for. But the accuracy of the approximation can only go so far using words, no matter how good it is - it serves as a way to get us to self-observe and SEE the process happen for ourselves. And only by SEEing it we begin to get some understanding of what's really involved. But "little i's" is just a useful way to communicate/approximate the concept to others, probably as close as we can get using words. I hope that made some sense.

 

[clearmiddle]

I think you might be thinking a bit more literally than necessary concerning what Ouspensky an Mouravieff have written. Then again, Ouspensky was/is famous for over-intellectualizing while missing a certain depth of emotional understanding and M's biblical gloss and structured presentation can also be difficult to weed through. And in our unnatural state of being it is almost always the case that one center is usurping the energy of another center to operate, thus blurring the line in our own understanding of what is really 'going on'.

Thank you, Anart. This is what I was trying to feel my way through. Mouravieff, though very informative, literally puts me to sleep! I found Ouspensky much more readable but he presents "fragments." I had a sense of which parts are important, but I wasn't sure.

It might be wise to realize that at this stage of your awareness, you most probably are not even accurately perceiving whether an impulse or behavior is the work of the emotional, intellectual, instinctive or motor center, or if one center is usurping energy from another - observation and 'recording' is key at this stage (which you are doing, and which is enormously helpful).

I am noting what I think is the active center or pair of centers, but I don't expect to be accurate at first. Even if I wanted to analyze, there usually isn't time if I am doing something with other people.

I just realized, though, that I do have at least two different ways that I appear to other people depending on whether I am "thinking" or "feeling." I grew up in a family where expressing emotions was not OK, and I find myself "thinking" a lot. That "I" is very opaque and isolated. When I am "feeling," I am a different person, and not so isolated. I think this is coming from my centers, because I can switch from thinking to feeling (or back) by just reaching for it. There are some things I can only do from feeling, like choosing colors or clothes, or listening to someone else, and when I need to do those things and can't, I have learned (fairly recently) how to switch. An outward change does come with that--I am easier to get along with. I just hadn't connected it with what I have been reading.

As far as identifying the 'little i's' as simply parts and parcels of each center or combination of centers, again, that's a bit of an over-intellectualization, to my understanding; a bit of a mechanical equation that is rather missing the 'messy truth' of the matter.

Mouravieff goes so far as to calculate that there are 987 possible "little i's." I was a little skeptical when I read that. I guessed that it was much messier.

... Is this another kind of "I" besides the "little I's" I have read about?

Nope, that sounds like exactly what a 'little i' is - it is a small sliver of yourself that takes control and 'becomes' you for a period of time. It is not simply different aspects of different centers operating, though it can encompass that, it is more akin to what you've read in 'Myth of Sanity' than just an equation of the combination of the different parts of the centers.

The real 'kicker' is that the vast majority of the time we do not notice when these different 'i's' shift position from a background program running to the one running the show. In a very nuts and bolts way, 'Myth of Sanity' gives a more accurate description of our fragmented state of being - our little i's - simply because it is a more readily applicable explanation of what it is to 'be' simply a conglomeration of many little i's, instead of one fused being.

Hopefully my brief explanation doesn't confuse the issue further.

No, that helps. I began self-observing in a limited way a long time ago, but I was missing a lot. Some of the programs caused me so much trouble that I had to find ways to control them or else give up on the idea of having any kind of normal life. The rest have been harder to see. I was subjected to some of what was in Trapped in the Mirror but I didn't understand--it seemed wrong and yet it seemed "normal"--and I didn't pay a lot of attention to how it might have affected me. I noticed lots of "little i" things going on but I didn't connect them very well, or have a name for what I saw.

Unholy Hungers is even harder to relate to. At first it seemed very metaphorical and abstract, and then I realized that a religious leader that my mother and I came under the influence of when I was growing up was indeed one of those vampires. He passed it on to us, instilling a sense of superiority in his followers. I came to terms with it 10 years ago, when I let go of being one of the "chosen ones" (it took a couple of years to come down from that), but I never understood very well what had happened. Now I am beginning to see, and I can sense that not all of it is in the past. 8|

Thank you again. I see what to do--keep reading and keep 'recording.'

 

[clearmiddle]

<snip>... I think it's more of a fluid and qualitative reality we're dealing with rather than a digital/mathematical one where you can just plug factors into an equation and calculate numbers of this or that. But being non-digital doesn't make it any less real. .

When I was growing up I chanced across an old (late 19th or early 20th century), pre-quantum mechanics chemistry book that had belonged to my grandfather. I could actually understand a lot of it. When I took college chemistry, I didn't do well. The book was incomprehensible. That reality? :)

There's always a danger to get hung up on words/analogies/symbology used to describe a process as more important than the process. Little i's is just one way, a good way but not the only way to try to describe our inner state. It's more of an approximation that uses concepts and words that are easy to understand rather than being an absolute description of exactly what's going on. And its usefulness is to give us a "good enough" understanding of the idea behind the words, so we know what to look for. But the accuracy of the approximation can only go so far using words, no matter how good it is - it serves as a way to get us to self-observe and SEE the process happen for ourselves. And only by SEEing it we begin to get some understanding of what's really involved. But "little i's" is just a useful way to communicate/approximate the concept to others, probably as close as we can get using words. I hope that made some sense.

It does. The reading and observing I have been doing has had an effect. When I am talking with people, and especially when I am doing things with my SO, I am hearing things differently, especially when I hear things that resemble what my parents used to say--put-downs and such. Instead of reacting automatically, as I learned to do back then, I am starting to discuss it with them. Sometimes they get it and sometimes they don't. I am realizing that a lot goes by without awareness on anyone's part, and if I begin to notice and point something out (using non-confrontational "I words"), sometimes it is as though I hadn't said anything--no reaction. Sometimes there is no place for it in their program, I guess. But I do need to say something, to alter the pattern.

More frightening, though is that I am hearing things from my SO that match things I have been reading about in these books. And I see that the problem may as easily be in how I perceive what was said than in what was said, or in what I did to provoke what was said. Little i's, dissociation, negative introjects, programs. Things can be very fluid. I don't think anything I have read could prepare me for this. But it is really the same world from a slightly different view, and all I really need to do is note what is happening, and perhaps make small, appropriate changes as I go. Do things a little differently; alter habits. Listen. Ask more questions. Hand out fewer "facts."

 

[anart]

Instead of reacting automatically, as I learned to do back then, I am starting to discuss it with them. [...]But I do need to say something, to alter the pattern. [...] Hand out fewer "facts."

What's really fascinating is that - at some point down the line - you'll not 'feel' the need 'to discuss', 'to alter', or to 'hand out facts' - you'll simply be able to recognize the programs and allow those around you to be who/what they are. (much easier said than done)

Of course, then, other things might shift and while focusing less on what 'they' need to understand or do, you'll realize 'they' really don't 'fit' anymore in the 'roles' they used to play.

You see - the 'discuss', 'alter' and 'hand out' all speak to you looking out, needing to 'change' those around you, when, really - the only one you can change is you - so all the rest basically boils down to 'determining the needs of another' - odd how that works, really.

From my own experience, it is a VERY slow process, filled to the brim with mistakes, backtracking and realizations that come a few minutes too late - but -- -- -- learning is 'fun' right? =)

 

[Ryan]

Megan, anart has covered everything I was thinking of (and more besides), so I have nothing to add.

 

[clearmiddle]

Instead of reacting automatically, as I learned to do back then, I am starting to discuss it with them. [...]But I do need to say something, to alter the pattern. [...] Hand out fewer "facts."

What's really fascinating is that - at some point down the line - you'll not 'feel' the need 'to discuss', 'to alter', or to 'hand out facts' - you'll simply be able to recognize the programs and allow those around you to be who/what they are. (much easier said than done)

OK, this is new. To me. Two things are happening. First, between my reading and everything else I have been doing recently, I am somehow not reacting on cue when people "push my buttons," at least in certain situations. But then something else is telling me what I "should" do in this new situation. So I am still responding automatically, but from a different program?

It is hard for me to imagine not doing anything other than "recognizing," but I would like to see if I can. I don't even know where the impulse to "discuss" is coming from, for sure. But yes, I am feeling a need to change something in the other person as it pertains to me and, now that you mention it, it doesn't sound all that different from any other attempt to change other people.

Of course, then, other things might shift and while focusing less on what 'they' need to understand or do, you'll realize 'they' really don't 'fit' anymore in the 'roles' they used to play.

You see - the 'discuss', 'alter' and 'hand out' all speak to you looking out, needing to 'change' those around you, when, really - the only one you can change is you - so all the rest basically boils down to 'determining the needs of another' - odd how that works, really.

I have been catching glimpses of what I might be doing to prompt other people to do the things I expect them to do. It's hard to see. I am pretty sure I would not want to see everything at once.

From my own experience, it is a VERY slow process, filled to the brim with mistakes, backtracking and realizations that come a few minutes too late - but -- -- -- learning is 'fun' right? =)

Ouch. Yes, where have I heard that before? (It has been a few years since I read The Wave.) Here goes...Thank you!

 

[clearmiddle]

I remembered after my earlier posts that my SO and I had agreed to recognize and "discuss" our upsetting exchanges in a structured way, at the time they occurred. We had not been doing this recently, though, and I see anyway that either of us might still use it to try to change the other.

The idea of recognizing other people's programs and then allowing those people to be who/what they are seems to go against everything I have been taught. But I suppose that following "everything I have been taught" is why I am stuck going in circles.

I am coming to appreciate the book Unholy Hungers, although I have not finished reading it yet. I had joined a group for the summer that had a particular defined social/educational/entertainment purpose (I am leaving out identifying details because this is a public forum). Instead, however, a power struggle was developing between those who wanted to do what we had said and others who wanted to something quite different. After two sessions of this I was convinced that it was not what it was advertised to be and I decided that I wouldn't be returning. I happened to notice, however, that each side of the struggle was represented by an individual acting like a "vampire," one in a masculine role and the other in a feminine role (though both were women). It was a competition between them, and either way we were the meal!

I also noticed, even before that, something in me that wanted to step in and try to "fix things." For once I said no to that, because it would have meant sacrificing what I went there to do and taking on a job that I didn't want (as I so often have done). After that, I saw the two "vampires" at work and understood why I was feeling so drained from being there.

During the sessions the one in the "masculine" role began to usurp leadership of the group from the "vulnerable" one (who seemed very happy to have it usurped). She made it clear to everyone that she was going to do what she wanted to do, as if no one else there even existed, and then she proceeded to do it, and everyone followed her lead. (My own impulse was to "discuss it" with her, but I refrained, more or less, and let everyone do their thing.) None of this made sense until I connected it with what I had been reading in Unholy Hungers and Trapped in the Mirror. Now I am beginning to see that there are many, many examples.

After this I understood something that had happened at the earlier meeting I attended, where I had the "ego state intrusion." I had been there representing a particular committee within the organization at this meeting, and someone--the leader of the organization--had, out of the blue, unfairly negated one part of what I said, on what appeared to be totally selfish grounds. I found his behavior very odd at the time, especially since this person has a reputation for being fair, but now I see what is going on, especially after doing a little more investigation and "connecting dots." I am shocked, although once more I see now why I was feeling "drained." This is going on everywhere.

But now begins the real "vampire hunt." The one within.

 

[clearmiddle]

...You see - the 'discuss', 'alter' and 'hand out' all speak to you looking out, needing to 'change' those around you, when, really - the only one you can change is you - so all the rest basically boils down to 'determining the needs of another' - odd how that works, really...

OK, this makes much more sense to me now than it did when I first read it.

Coming from an overtly narcissistic family, life was about 'determining the needs of another'. Or rather two others. Now I begin to see why trying to do that backfires so often and so badly. It perpetuates the no-win family life pattern--back then my efforts to determine my parents' needs always always seemed to end badly as well.

Even without that influence I can see why I woudn't want to do it (do I want other people 'determining my needs' for me?). But my family experience helps me see why I have felt strangely compelled to do it anyway.

 

[Buddy]

So, the clue that one is running an infantile program (that is, one inculcated in infancy) is that it reveals this "good / bad" categorization of everything, and that there is little flexibility in dealing with the reality of the moment. Under the influence of such a program, the individual is not able to appreciate the subtle shades of a situation or to tolerate ambiguity. This leads to distortions in perceptions since the external reality is filtered through - made to conform to - the rigid and primitive internal structure of an infant.

I finally found a useful explanation for a time in my pre-adolesence when I was "...not able to appreciate the subtle shades of a situation or to tolerate ambiguity."

Many times, I tried to reconcile the apparant contradictions between how I saw myself internally, and how certain others 'made' me feel about myself.
I felt that I was a good boy that didn't want to hurt anyone or anything. I just 'wanted to understand', so I asked a lot of questions and questioned a lot of behaviors - for a short time. I had to tolerate questions like "Have you lost your mind?", "Are you stupid?", "You'll never know as much as ...", and what I considered to be other general emotional abuse - and some physical.

I went through a period where I felt extreme stress about my ability to 'figure things out', and 'understand' and I constantly asked why it was so necessary for me to think and do the way someone else said I should. I even resorted to grabbing a dictionary and looking up words certain people used just to make sure I didn't make any mistakes understanding what they meant. That coping technique didn't last long because I 'figured out the problem wasn't me.'

Well, the problem WAS me, it just wasn't ALL me...and this article goes a long way in explaining what was happening.

I recall hearing, many times, things like "I'm a grown man! I don't have to explain myself to you!", or "Because I said so!", or "I'm a grown man, I don't have to blah, blah, blah!"; and my inevitable, and strictly mental comeback: "The only thing grown about you is the part you had no control over!"

Hindsight and self-improvement work can be very revealing of a lot of things, and I believe that I no longer hold grudges against certain people who were just working as hard as they could, to do their best with what they had to work with. '...the rigid and primitive internal structure of an infant' can be present and active no matter how old a person gets to be.

Looking back with an eye toward learning lessons and recovering/releasing trapped emotions, I see a certain entertainment value in the experiences as well...something like 'babies fighting babies' regardless of the age of the participants...and both completely unaware.

How tragic...and how funny...depending on your point of view.

 

[Bobo08]

So, the clue that one is running an infantile program (that is, one inculcated in infancy) is that it reveals this "good / bad" categorization of everything, and that there is little flexibility in dealing with the reality of the moment. Under the influence of such a program, the individual is not able to appreciate the subtle shades of a situation or to tolerate ambiguity. This leads to distortions in perceptions since the external reality is filtered through - made to conform to - the rigid and primitive internal structure of an infant.

I finally found a useful explanation for a time in my pre-adolesence when I was "...not able to appreciate the subtle shades of a situation or to tolerate ambiguity."

Many times, I tried to reconcile the apparant contradictions between how I saw myself internally, and how certain others 'made' me feel about myself.
I felt that I was a good boy that didn't want to hurt anyone or anything. I just 'wanted to understand', so I asked a lot of questions and questioned a lot of behaviors - for a short time. I had to tolerate questions like "Have you lost your mind?", "Are you stupid?", "You'll never know as much as ...", and what I considered to be other general emotional abuse - and some physical.

Hi Buddy,
I don't think the paragraph you quoted is relevant to your example. I think the example is actually emotional abuse as you considered previously. It is emotional abuse when people tell a child to shut up because he asks too many "stupid" questions.