Discernment on meeting new people

[Alchemie]

Sometimes it's really hard being surrounded by people who aren't on the same path, especially if you anticipated to meet someone who cared about the things you do. I think we all understand the feelings of loneliness. I agree with what everyone else has advised, just try to remember the externally considerate "listen for yourself and speak for others" - the more you understand yourself the more you'll understand others, in terms of knowing that we are all machines and are just running off our programs. It's also difficult to remember that we were once like they are, once as unconscious or oblivious to all the truth out there. Maybe one day you'll smile at these sort of encounters, :)

Good Luck Meechel17 :D

The feelings of loneliness are really not nice.
I had, I think, two days ago a strange dream. I try in vain to "run after" a person or look up to her. Somehow establish a connection. Because this person seems to have a large circle of friends, that I want to belong. I woke up with a bad vibe (felt in the abdomen, solar plexus), because it is unreachable.
Well, actually off topic. But I had to get rid of it. I told my husband about it, but it still remains.

So I hope this is of some help - lighten up where needed. & just enjoy this person for what they CAN give you, companionship (not politcal or personal bonds for example). Healthy surface relationships can stave off the loneliness too.

You say it.
With friends and acquaintances, it may already be difficult. But the most difficult it is in a narcissistic relatives, parents, siblings.

The more I ponder on it, I think that the upsetting part for me is knowing that two of my particular vulnerabilities got me again - longing for deeper connections in social networks and having someone seemingly value me. But, the deeper connection wasn't really there and he only valued me as someone to boost his ego - him being the teacher and me being the student. But, I'm still grateful for the lesson.
Lilyalic, it is definitely good to remind ourselves that we were once believers in the system as others are, and therefore to have compassion for them. Like I said yesterday, HifromGrace it did make me laugh when he had to call me over to his table to ask me if I knew someone else in town who has a bumper sticker on her car supporting Palestinians because he said I was the only other person he knew with that same view about Palestine/Israel and Putin. So, two steps forward, one step back sometimes. But forward momentum nonetheless.
solarmind, I definitely hear what you are saying, I know this is constantly a struggle for me in my work - knowing when to speak and when to stay silent and just listen. I definitely trip up from time to time.
These discussions on the forum are sustenance for my soul :)

From personal experience I can say that this happens, if one do not really have friends/someone "on ones doorstep" -- so in real life.
A acquaintance of mine had / and partially still living very much in the internet and forums.

 

[Deleted member 11729]

solarmind, I definitely hear what you are saying, I know this is constantly a struggle for me in my work - knowing when to speak and when to stay silent and just listen. I definitely trip up from time to time.
These discussions on the forum are sustenance for my soul :)

Yep ... thank you for bringing up this topic ... I have a public lecture next week within one event for young free lance professionals ... you know, that kind of inspirational meetings and conferences where our main goal is to give them strength to be who they are, though our example ... thank you for bringing this topic up, as it pushed me to do more research about things, and now I am happy i got the topic that I can so nicely deconstruct and hopefully give them hints not just for professional, but also for personal growth, as we know the work is life and life is work.

 

[Trobar]

I am thinking that all the posts on this subject are applicable on some level. We are all very different and I haven't discovered any 'one-size-fits-all' way to engage in conversation with any person I have just met.

In my own little book of lessons, what has served me well is remembering that not very long ago I was quite ignorant of many truths and was very much a 'believer'. This remembering helps me tremendously, in that I accept that I was absolutely entitled to believe my stuff for all the different reasons that I believed in it. The believing generated feelings of safety and strength. The slow and painful process of letting go of the old reality and learning to accept a new one was, and many times still is . . . frightening. Lately, I rarely feel the strong desire to inform or educate others. They are entitled to their ignorance and to their beliefs, just as I once was.

Recently I joined a group of people that get together about once a month to discuss different topics. The group is called Skeptical Philosophers. LOL! Every time we meet it is a different group of people. Some people are sort of 'regulars' and then there are new people that show up for the meeting. It is a good setting for, once again, remembering what I was a few years ago. I am more capable of understanding how different we all are as I watch and listen to different people express their 'beliefs' about a selected topic. The last meeting I attended was for the purpose of discussing free will. Although I actually had a lot to say on this subject, I said much less than I intended because I was stunned as I listened to the great differences of opinion on the subject of free will. It is all just lessons and some of these lessons provided by encounters with new people can be very valuable.

 

[Deleted member 11729]

Lately, I rarely feel the strong desire to inform or educate others.

Recently I joined a group of people that get together about once a month to discuss different topics.

I know that feeling ... but I am not rushing in that any more .... last 2 years, actualy until february 2014, we also formed a kind of non formal group of artists, humanist, journalists, intellectuals, not big gropup 6 of us ... and upon my concept, research and idea, we even were considering to create our own TV and media channel, to crossover the lies and brainwashing in mainstream media ... but ... I have to tell you, it was the biggest disaster I experienced ever in one effort to bring people together to do something valuable for comunity .... I trusted to people good will and honesty to much ;) .... after a wile, when each of us needed to take a part of the job to work it out, the mess started, and I realize it was all just because most of the participants get involved with main idea to fish something for them self, not to create a bigger picture for others and to grow through that process to understand things better .... I was so down after that, so disappointed, I wanted to give so much, to move things towards the truth, and to help young generations to stand up for their rights to work and live in our beautiful country ... it took me a while to recover, as that came just after the one heavy personal hit by a group of psychopaths that I was experiencing for full 3 years in most devastating aspects ...

but now I am grateful for each one of that rough experiences, as that pushed me to closed down from the world for a while, and to get back to research and read and learn more about relations and humans, and through that, and real life expirience I had, I realize patterns of egomaniacs and psychopaths better. This group was my final lesson that literary opened my eyes, to accept and realize that not all humans are here for good ... so ... don't know, it is very individual, but after a while you can see a pattern of certain programming that drives people subconsciousness to have certain opinions. So I think it is much better to listen and listen and listen ... and if conversation grows and make some valuable movements, than it make sense to get involved, but if it is just about proving what is right or what is wrong, I think when mind is under that agenda, to "fight for their rights", there is no much space for dialogue and deep understanding ... as I have been there too, and now I see how my mind was constrained with the naive urge and wish to "open up the veil of truth for them", now I see how trapped and programed I was.

Many times reading Laura's books and Css sessions and stuff on the forum from others, just light up the answers to so many questions and experiences I couldn't understand beyond emotional stress they were causing in me ... now I can say, my blurred glasses getting sharper each day, and that helps me to be better person towards those who are still not ready, and maybe will never bee ready, to put the blurred glasses off ... kindness and listening, even if it is totally opposite from mine perspective, and even if I know form the experience, that it is illusion, any way, I will hold on my horses, as it is much better to be patient and kind, than to rush into one argument ... and with your example, with real work, with real accomplishment, you can always give example how things can be approached differently ... that is much stronger I thikn, as through real work, a lazy man who just want to profit for themselves can't hide himself ...

 

[obyvatel]

Just my opinion but being a self proclaimed athiest and anarchist would have done it for me.

But I was going with this definition of anarchist:

"anarchy (countable and uncountable, plural anarchies)

(uncountable) The state of a society being without authorities or an authoritative governing body.
(uncountable) Anarchism; the political theory that a community is best organized by the voluntary cooperation of individuals, rather than by a government, which is regarded as being coercive by nature.
(countable) A chaotic and confusing absence of any form of political authority or government.
Confusion in general; disorder.
Usage notesEdit
(confusion or misunderstanding in general): Anarchists feel it is inappropriate to use anarchy to mean “a state of chaos or confusion”. However, this has historically been a common use of the word.:

Here is some discussion on the psychology of anarchist which may be relevant here.

 

[Jo Bugman]

I agree with letting them lead, keep in mind that there are programs created for everyone to capture their attention and shape their perception all the while having them believe that they have the whole organic banana (pun intended), and these most usually work by hooking on some emotional program already present in themselves.

Practice a strategic approach of observation, and slowly they will let you in on where their beliefs are, and where their ideas are originated, there are countless combinations and configurations for a persons personality and to see where they come from requires some observation and examination.

We've all felt the lonely state where seeing all this truth makes us feel isolated from the world immediately around us, but remember every stick always has two ends, that perceived isolation also means inclusion into a different group of people who have expanded their awareness via truth.

After a while it's actually a fun experience to listen to people as human beings still under some form of ideology or belief, as it expands your observation capacity, only thing I would add is, always remember as Morpheus would put it "most of these people are so hopelessly dependent on that system, that they will fight to protect it" which to me speaks to consideration, to understand and see their current state will help you know what the right approach is when encountered with situations as such, and that will allow you to navigate them with ease.

You're not alone.

Alejo

Very well said thank you. Some times when I get on those touchy subjects I get nervous of offending the other person.

 

[Trobar]

Lately, I rarely feel the strong desire to inform or educate others.

Recently I joined a group of people that get together about once a month to discuss different topics.

"any times reading Laura's books and Css sessions and stuff on the forum from others, just light up the answers to so many questions and experiences I couldn't understand beyond emotional stress they were causing in me ... now I can say, my blurred glasses getting sharper"

Hello solarmind,

Many of your words resonated for me and I was thinking that oftentimes one challenge encountered in the 'work' , is that we feel driven to act - when in fact, depending on the particular details of an encounter, the better choice might be to refrain from action. Understanding and accepting that I am capable of violating the free will of another is a tough lesson. It is all too easy to violate another's free will if we perceive the person as a 'stranger' versus someone we think we know and care for. I'm finally starting to get it - that other people are only as strange as I choose to perceive them to be, and assuming I will never encounter them again, in no way lessens the responsibility for the words that I speak.

Writing here - within the context of the forum is safer than my interactions with others in the matrix. The safety lies within an environment that does not suffer my attempts at BS. Here . . . the veils of pretense and programming are stripped away with a level of genuine honest transparency seldom encountered in the matrix. I used to think/believe that the forum was somewhat like the rabbit hole in the Alice in Wonderland fable - and that the matrix was the 'real world'. However, I eventually realized that it is all as real or unreal as I choose to perceive it to be and my opportunities to learn something new are available in all areas of this earthly experience.

I too experience the desire/need to occasionally be "closed down from the world" as it can be difficult - challenging - and disappointing. We can serve others here by trying to understand what is shared with the written word and by encouraging each other to continue working for a new and better earth.

Edit=Quote

 

[Micah Awake]

I've had a difficult go of meeting new people that do not think I am 'out there'.

I am radically different now at 44 than I was even at 40. My friends from my past do not even recognize my personality or see how I have come to the path I am on or my focus on spiritual awareness.

This is a fairly solitary existence. I do wish more people 'networked' into "Intentional Communes" with the focus being on awakening as understood by the active members of this forum.

Yesterday I was told verbatim:

"You can be very self involved sometimes... I don't know if you can even do a relationship right now, you are so concerned and consumed by your ascension, I don't think you have room for anyone".

Being told I was 'self-involved' was rather shocking and new, but I do consider all things told to me by people. however, I can't help but feel in this regard to what I want from life, what I am learning and how that is helping me spiritually, a person is either with me or against me, and I am not sure if this is proper to feel this way. But if the people I meet in my life seem a bit negative I tend avoid them because I do not want anyone bringing down my FVR, I have my own difficulties as I am sure we all recognize. Therefore, I count these people as not being on the same page as me, even when they claim they are.

I have honestly never before felt so alone. It is rather odd. I do feel some connection to people here and those who read and understand the Cas Logs and then adjust their life accordingly. But, in the end I am still alone with my thoughts.

I've been meeting people online since 1986 via Bulletin Board Systems, so I am ok with screening who I meet through silicon, I just want to meet more like minded people to share physical space, life experience and learning with.

 

[Deleted member 11729]

Understanding and accepting that I am capable of violating the free will of another is a tough lesson. It is all too easy to violate another's free will

That is a quite challenge not to violate someone free will instinctively out of wish to help, based on some assumptions and not on a real help request, so to let your unconsciousness to do it insted of step back and listen what is reality of the person needs and wishes from you ... this is for me such a revelation on a way, it is not easy yet not to jump into that situations, but I am learning ... and most important - it is something that I understand better, and all the bad sides that can come out of that for the person that we thought we are helping.

 

[Nienna]

I've had a difficult go of meeting new people that do not think I am 'out there'.

I am radically different now at 44 than I was even at 40. My friends from my past do not even recognize my personality or see how I have come to the path I am on or my focus on spiritual awareness.

This is a fairly solitary existence. I do wish more people 'networked' into "Intentional Communes" with the focus being on awakening as understood by the active members of this forum.

Yesterday I was told verbatim:

"You can be very self involved sometimes... I don't know if you can even do a relationship right now, you are so concerned and consumed by your ascension, I don't think you have room for anyone".

Being told I was 'self-involved' was rather shocking and new, but I do consider all things told to me by people. however, I can't help but feel in this regard to what I want from life, what I am learning and how that is helping me spiritually, a person is either with me or against me, and I am not sure if this is proper to feel this way. But if the people I meet in my life seem a bit negative I tend avoid them because I do not want anyone bringing down my FVR, I have my own difficulties as I am sure we all recognize. Therefore, I count these people as not being on the same page as me, even when they claim they are.

What do you think raising your FRV entails? Have you read The Wave Series? Are you doing the Work? Have you read In Search of the Miraculous? What is your diet like? Are you seeing reality as objectively as possible?

Are you familiar with strategic enclosure and external and internal considering?

We do learn a lot about ourselves from how others view us. Others see us better than we see ourselves. Have you read any of the threads (and books) in the Pschology and Cognitive Science threads? Most especially Thinking Fast and Slow and The Adaptive Unconscious and other related threads/materials?

And, lastly, we cannot do the Work by being by ourselves. The Work is done in everyday life, being around others. So this brings me back to What do you think raising your FRV entails?

 

[Mal7]

Just my opinion but being a self proclaimed athiest and anarchist would have done it for me.

But I was going with this definition of anarchist:

"anarchy (countable and uncountable, plural anarchies)

(uncountable) The state of a society being without authorities or an authoritative governing body.
(uncountable) Anarchism; the political theory that a community is best organized by the voluntary cooperation of individuals, rather than by a government, which is regarded as being coercive by nature.
(countable) A chaotic and confusing absence of any form of political authority or government.
Confusion in general; disorder.
Usage notesEdit
(confusion or misunderstanding in general): Anarchists feel it is inappropriate to use anarchy to mean “a state of chaos or confusion”. However, this has historically been a common use of the word.:

Here is some discussion on the psychology of anarchist which may be relevant here.

Regarding someone's labelling of themselves as an "anarchist", I wouldn't rush to pigeonhole them as being such-and-such a type or person without taking the particularies of the individual situation into account. Someone said somewhere there are as many forms of anarchism as there are anarchists. The Greek roots of the word "anarchy" translate at something like "without leader", but that doesn't mean an anarchic society is unorganized, chaotic, and consists of people running around throwing Molotov cocktails at each other. I think different anarchic ideals have in common that what organization exists comes from a bottom-up rather than top-down structure, e.g. local groups of people organizing among themselves, rather than relying on the State to organize their lives for them. There may even be leadership roles at this small local level, rather than a complete reliance on, say, leaderless consensus decision making in all matters.

I don't mean to particularly promote anarchism in any particular from, but just suggest it should be taken on a case-by-case basis as one encounters it. Sure probably many anarchists are idle dreamers, lazy good-for-nothings, authoritarian followers, black-and-white thinkers, post-modernist crackpots, or ultra-liberal anything-goes types, but OSIT that determination should be made on the evidence, rather than pre-emptively pigeonholing someone because they are an "anarchist". I am sure there must be some anarchists who would be good people to know too, e.g. maybe Noam Chomsky?

Here's a quote I quite like, though it is perhaps a little "postmodern / cultural relativism-ish", from an Anarchist journal "Imminent Rebellion":

A politics that refuses to reduce the complexity of life to the singular logic of the State cannot be simple, it cannot be the domain of easy slogans. Nor can an anarchist politics ever take the risk of believing it has achieved a finality, even if only theoretical. This journal is therefore not propaganda, but a genuine attempt to articulate an anarchist practice and theory, one whose articulation must be without end.

 

[Henchman 21]

Just my opinion but being a self proclaimed athiest and anarchist would have done it for me.

But I was going with this definition of anarchist:

"anarchy (countable and uncountable, plural anarchies)

(uncountable) The state of a society being without authorities or an authoritative governing body.
(uncountable) Anarchism; the political theory that a community is best organized by the voluntary cooperation of individuals, rather than by a government, which is regarded as being coercive by nature.
(countable) A chaotic and confusing absence of any form of political authority or government.
Confusion in general; disorder.
Usage notesEdit
(confusion or misunderstanding in general): Anarchists feel it is inappropriate to use anarchy to mean “a state of chaos or confusion”. However, this has historically been a common use of the word.:

Here is some discussion on the psychology of anarchist which may be relevant here.

Regarding someone's labelling of themselves as an "anarchist", I wouldn't rush to pigeonhole them as being such-and-such a type or person without taking the particularies of the individual situation into account. Someone said somewhere there are as many forms of anarchism as there are anarchists. The Greek roots of the word "anarchy" translate at something like "without leader", but that doesn't mean an anarchic society is unorganized, chaotic, and consists of people running around throwing Molotov cocktails at each other. I think different anarchic ideals have in common that what organization exists comes from a bottom-up rather than top-down structure, e.g. local groups of people organizing among themselves, rather than relying on the State to organize their lives for them. There may even be leadership roles at this small local level, rather than a complete reliance on, say, leaderless consensus decision making in all matters.

I don't mean to particularly promote anarchism in any particular from, but just suggest it should be taken on a case-by-case basis as one encounters it. Sure probably many anarchists are idle dreamers, lazy good-for-nothings, authoritarian followers, black-and-white thinkers, post-modernist crackpots, or ultra-liberal anything-goes types, but OSIT that determination should be made on the evidence, rather than pre-emptively pigeonholing someone because they are an "anarchist". I am sure there must be some anarchists who would be good people to know too, e.g. maybe Noam Chomsky?

Here's a quote I quite like, though it is perhaps a little "postmodern / cultural relativism-ish", from an Anarchist journal "Imminent Rebellion":

A politics that refuses to reduce the complexity of life to the singular logic of the State cannot be simple, it cannot be the domain of easy slogans. Nor can an anarchist politics ever take the risk of believing it has achieved a finality, even if only theoretical. This journal is therefore not propaganda, but a genuine attempt to articulate an anarchist practice and theory, one whose articulation must be without end.

Well said Mal7. Personally I have always thought of myself as an anarchist, obviously not the Molotov throwing type. But this decision comes mostly from watching all of the forms of government fail in front of my eyes. This isn't to say that my idea of anarchy wouldn't be disturbed by being blown up by a Molotov coctail, but then again this seems to be the route of all the other options.

This may be a bit simple minded but I just don't like the idea of having special people making decisions on my behalf. And in this world who could blame me for having this opinion. This is not to say that I wouldn't be happy living under any of the forms of government out there if they were not so unbelievably corruptable.

In a world filled with caring people who genuinely care for the wellbeing of others I would be happy being a capitalist, socialist, communist, or heck if we had an awesome dictator who loved the world and the people in it whose only agenda was to help everyone then I would even support that. But we don't live in that world so I guess it's anarchism for me. None of this matters though because we do not live in a fantasy world. We live on planet earth so good luck being an anarchist because no one really is anyway. ;D

 

[obyvatel]

Moderates and extremists differ significantly in the interpretation of political and psychological concepts. Authors of the study A step into the anarchist's mind using neural methods found that "an extreme political attitude of a moderate differs from an extreme political attitude of an anarchist". Extremists and moderates process certain types of information differently - so one may not be able to simply extend and extrapolate moderate attitudes to obtain an extremist attitude.

Does the original post by Meechel17 about a self professed anarchist merit this "heavy" stuff? I would say no. Since a general question about anarchist/anarchism was raised later, I thought I would point to the study.
No "preemptive pigeonholing" was either intended or implied; just data on how the extreme brand of anarchism looks like and what moderates attracted by anarchism potentially to a degree beyond armchair intellectualization may need to be aware of.

 

[Buddy]

How is there such a disconnect between someone who believes in fair trade coffee and rights for workers and environmental responsibility? How can your eyes be open to some things and not others along the same vein?

Sometimes I think most people are just collections of points of view that they get from various sources. Like there's no common thread that connects them...or that there's no deep unifying principle from which to view various separate topics as an integrated whole. Maybe that's a reasonable explanation?

I just get lonely feeling like I'm the only one in this area who believes in truth.

I thought something like that too at one time. My real concern, though, turned out to be more related to needing a mutually caring relationship where there were no concerns about hidden self-interests or ulterior motives. It allows me to feel comfort in a way that knocks the edge off that loneliness feeling. Could be different for you, though, I don't know. Might be worth thinking about?

I don't mean to imply that you're not wanting to share truth with a stranger - I'm sure you want to as much as I, it's just that, from experience with people, it appears more like people aren't looking for 'truth' so much as they're really asking for help relating to information or situations as they perceive them - like a plane that lacks a programmed approach or 'attitude' towards it's final destination. If you do tell them 'truth', you'll probably have better outcomes if you present it within their own frame of reference - which is most likely a motley collection of other people's points of view that they feel comfortable with.

 

[Meechel17]

Just my opinion but being a self proclaimed athiest and anarchist would have done it for me.

But I was going with this definition of anarchist:

"anarchy (countable and uncountable, plural anarchies)

(uncountable) The state of a society being without authorities or an authoritative governing body.
(uncountable) Anarchism; the political theory that a community is best organized by the voluntary cooperation of individuals, rather than by a government, which is regarded as being coercive by nature.
(countable) A chaotic and confusing absence of any form of political authority or government.
Confusion in general; disorder.
Usage notesEdit
(confusion or misunderstanding in general): Anarchists feel it is inappropriate to use anarchy to mean “a state of chaos or confusion”. However, this has historically been a common use of the word.:

Perhaps you could have asked him his definitions of those words then. Sometimes when people tell me they are awake i ask them what that means to them and it gives me a little insight. again, just my opinion.

That is true, again one more notch on the learning curve. I think his definition of atheist would be different than most people's. I'm struggling to remember what he said about where we find God. I think on that level, we are probably more alike than he realizes, but when you label something and stick with it... I think based on our conversations, he is more just against religion than a belief in "God".

And he definitely doesn't believe in a state of chaos or confusion - you can't like unions as much as he does and want chaos, lol.