Gregory James - Faux "Master"?

[GregoryJ]

Just what you are doing here: accustoming yourself to discussing your own self, nature, etc, receiving feedback, recapitulating, until you are divested of all emotional attachment and self-importance. Of course, it is one thing to do it in writing when you can take time to cool down from shocks etc, or think about things, and another to be able to do it in real life. But being objective about the self, first of all, is essential and it CANNOT BE DONE ALONE. If you read the threads in the cognitive science forum you'll get the picture in more scientific terms and also a lot of pointers. The bottom line is: no one - no exceptions - can really see or know themselves without robust feedback from other sincere seekers of truth who care enough to offer that feedback as neutrally as possible.

Laura, you always say the most in the fewest words. This is why I trust your work, and I thank you from the depth of my heart for it.

I do see, per the last several posts, what it is you are all trying to get me to do/see – which is not to accept blindly your opinions but rather to release the need to defend myself. That makes perfect sense, and I was hoping that was the case – but wasn't sure at the onset (indeed, I was not involved in the thread at the beginning, yet ideas about me [several of which were erroneous and a bit derisive] were being stated). I was simply not sure at the beginning of my actual participation how much this exercise had to do with getting me to come 'round to another way of seeing things (i.e. your/the forum's way of thinking/beliefs) and thereby receiving the group's approval (making "me" finally "good" in the group's eyes) – which of course would be deficient by nature – vs. simply divesting myself of my own beliefs so to see more clearly the way of things, which is of course very noble and selfless, on the part of everyone involved (assuming all were aware of, and intent on this).

Whether or not you will accept it, I have "fought so hard" not so much because I felt my self-worth being threatened (though I am not denying there is some truth to this, for which I am grateful) but because I would not think to accept (and invite further) assistance in my own Work from others (i.e. this forum) without testing their "moxie", temperance and prowess (by this I do not mean that everyone and everything cannot be my teacher, only that there's BS for the sake of BS and then there is wisdom). I'm sorry for this – I do not mean disrespect. In fact, I mean precisely the opposite and I have never taken a teacher without first testing him/her to be sure he/she can accomplish the task and not just waste my time. Although I have certainly come to odds with much of what Anart has stated (partly carrying over from – admittedly – a perceived disrespect in an earlier thread, as well as here regarding my path and my sincerity), I do see the value in it – I just wasn't certain of the aim. I am reminded of my training wherein I have invariably come to admire most those who have given me the most trouble – those whom I have fought the hardest and who have thereby reflected the most and helped make me of a finer quality.

It was the neutrality (per what I have bolded in Laura's statement quoted above) that I held in question – and indeed I'm going to have to let that one ruminate for now. ;)

 

[GregoryJ]

...If you think of it like others can see you better than you can see yourself [...]

I'm still not quite available to agree with this statement, entirely. I know there are A LOT of variables which need to be there before this can be true. But if I am understanding your meaning in context to the rest of your post, Heimdallr, it isn't so much about trusting that others can implicitly see me better than I can see myself, but that if I choose to see it this way (to consider it first) it would go a long way toward addressing my own self-importance and a subsequently perceived need to defend myself – making me better available to accept criticism constructively whether or not it is constructively presented.

 

[GregoryJ]

BTW: Voyageur, I have very much enjoyed your deep insights throughout this thread. Thanks for taking the time to construct them here.

THANKS TO EVERYONE for your replies. It has given me much to contemplate. And I do feel this group is worth its weight in gold (no pun intended, as I guess an internet forum doesn't actually weigh anything). ;)

 

[GregoryJ]

Another side to this question is that if you are learning in a school, and considering the forum as a school, you'll find the Work much more effective if you are able to surrender what you have so far preserved as the most precious in you: your beliefs. That surrendering of beliefs can appear to outside eyes as subservience to certain members, whilst it is simply part of a learning process which also includes inner dissection. You are not surrendering your ability to think nor feel, in fact, you are trying to find it.

By my estimation, this is precise, profound and very helpful.

 

[Beau]

I'm still not quite available to agree with this statement, entirely. I know there are A LOT of variables which need to be there before this can be true. But if I am understanding your meaning in context to the rest of your post, Heimdallr, it isn't so much about trusting that others can implicitly see me better than I can see myself, but that if I choose to see it this way (to consider it first) it would go a long way toward addressing my own self-importance and a subsequently perceived need to defend myself – making me better available to accept criticism constructively whether or not it is constructively presented.

Once you read and understand the cognitive science information, you'll come to realize that the first thing that matters is that we do not see ourselves objectively. That's a fairly large variable that I don't think you are accounting for it at the moment. You think you do know yourself even though the science proves quite conclusively that you, and the rest of us, don't, and then your self-importance goes into overdrive defending itself from all outside feedback. Even the idea that you haven't received criticism constructively is just a narrative that you have created in order to reject the feedback you have been given. I really think that getting up to speed on the ideas being put forth in the current cognitive science community will hasten your understanding of these concepts and in turn make your time spent on the forum more constructive for you and lessen the need for you to defend your way of thinking.

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=GregoryJ]
(indeed, I was not involved in the thread at the beginning, yet ideas about me [several of which were erroneous and a bit derisive] were being stated)...[/quote]

...and you did not approve. You left that part implied (in the dark and with no further qualification) because that may be where your thinking trails off. The matter can actually be minimally divided into 1) the comments, 2) whether they were actually erroneous and derisive AND 3) you being identified and not seeing it and missing a learning opportunity.

The point being that it seems you could benefit from understanding how to separate what you perceive and your thoughts about that from what appears to be automatic emotional valuations pointing to it.

I had my first visceral realization of the above when I realized that those negative feelings that came with anothers comment really referred to me. Yes, the negative feeling was self-referential. The feeling was one of self-disapproval for my low-level competence to really grok what was being communicated. Those negative feelings always disappear when I improve my own understanding. Always.

Do you see what is meant? Many times our negative feelings and disapprovals of others may be nothing more than inner self-evaluations of our own competence in that particular situation.

Which reinforces this...

[quote author=Heimdallr]
Once you read and understand the cognitive science information, you'll come to realize that the first thing that matters is that we do not see ourselves objectively. That's a fairly large variable that I don't think you are accounting for it at the moment.[/quote]

...OSIT

 

[anart]

I do see, per the last several posts, what it is you are all trying to get me to do/see – which is not to accept blindly your opinions but rather to release the need to defend myself.

No, it's actually much more simple than that. We have given you an opportunity to see yourself the way others see you, and, in that, to realize that all is not as you think it is.

That makes perfect sense, and I was hoping that was the case

No, it's not really that - it's not just about 'not defending yourself', which from what I gather you are interpreting in a way that is similar to 'not defend your ego'. It's more akin to, "this is what your behavior indicates about you which is in complete contrast to how you see yourself, thus you are lying to yourself/living in an illusion". To simplify that down to 'no need to defend myself' is to miss the point entirely. It is, in fact, a buffer.

– but wasn't sure at the onset (indeed, I was not involved in the thread at the beginning, yet ideas about me [several of which were erroneous and a bit derisive] were being stated). I was simply not sure at the beginning of my actual participation how much this exercise had to do with getting me to come 'round to another way of seeing things (i.e. your/the forum's way of thinking/beliefs) and thereby receiving the group's approval (making "me" finally "good" in the group's eyes) – which of course would be deficient by nature – vs. simply divesting myself of my own beliefs so to see more clearly the way of things, which is of course very noble and selfless, on the part of everyone involved (assuming all were aware of, and intent on this).

All of the above is merely self-importance. People made observations about your behavior - there was no ill-intent or malice, even if one or two people could have phrased things in a softer manner, they were still merely observations that present a fairly cohesive picture of a man living in an illusion. It's not about 'seeing things your way' or 'seeing things the forum's way' - it's simply about the truth.

Whether or not you will accept it, I have "fought so hard" not so much because I felt my self-worth being threatened (though I am not denying there is some truth to this, for which I am grateful) but because I would not think to accept (and invite further) assistance in my own Work from others (i.e. this forum) without testing their "moxie", temperance and prowess (by this I do not mean that everyone and everything cannot be my teacher, only that there's BS for the sake of BS and then there is wisdom).

LOL - that is classic. First off, yes, it is about your self-importance and nothing else. That is blatantly obvious. Secondly, you saying that you were basically just 'testing us' is hilarious because it's simply not true. Read back through your posts. You weren't testing, you were reacting and there is a very, very big difference.

Until you learn to really see your own self-importance and how it rules you, you are stuck.

I'm sorry for this – I do not mean disrespect. In fact, I mean precisely the opposite and I have never taken a teacher without first testing him/her to be sure he/she can accomplish the task and not just waste my time.

No need to be sorry because it's not true. You've just created a narrative to explain your own uncomfortable reactions to yourself. It's really obvious, we've seen it a hundred times.

Although I have certainly come to odds with much of what Anart has stated (partly carrying over from – admittedly – a perceived disrespect in an earlier thread, as well as here regarding my path and my sincerity), I do see the value in it – I just wasn't certain of the aim. I am reminded of my training wherein I have invariably come to admire most those who have given me the most trouble – those whom I have fought the hardest and who have thereby reflected the most and helped make me of a finer quality.

It was the neutrality (per what I have bolded in Laura's statement quoted above) that I held in question – and indeed I'm going to have to let that one ruminate for now. ;)

Again, you requiring neutrality when you are too emotionally reactive to even perceive neutrality is a very interesting narrative that you're telling yourself. The reality is that you were offended and reacted - that's it. Period. All of that is tied directly to your self-importance and not seeing yourself the way that others see you. That can be painful. If you actually just accepted that about yourself and sat with it for a while then maybe you'd come to a deeper understanding. Creating narratives that you have actually always been in control of yourself here and were just 'testing' us does you no good at all because you are, once again, being a sheep dreaming he's a magician. The simple fact that you used the word 'disrespect' above proves this has all been about your self-importance, so if you can see that, for only a second, then you can get to the truth. The truth is all there really is.

 

[Laura]

...If you think of it like others can see you better than you can see yourself [...]

I'm still not quite available to agree with this statement, entirely.

Best believe it - there's not only Gurdjieff who said it long ago, but a load of science to back it up.

The ancient statement of the mystery schools was "Know Thyself". That was the first - and main - order of business. Nothing else can be achieved without that. Everything is sawdust if that is not accomplished. And the truth is, it is one of the hardest things you'll ever do.

Initiation is not a "grade" or an "award" or a "test" - it is the horror of seeing the self. And until you have been stripped to the bone - almost literally - crucified psychologically and emotionally by realizing the terror of the situation which is that you are NOT in control of your own mind, you ain't there. If it doesn't nearly kill you, it ain't the real deal. And I don't mean hanging from a tree or jumping off a cliff or some ridiculous physical activity. Initiation is INSIDE - between you and the Cosmos.

 

[Joe]

...If you think of it like others can see you better than you can see yourself [...]

I'm still not quite available to agree with this statement, entirely.

Best believe it - there's not only Gurdjieff who said it long ago, but a load of science to back it up.

The ancient statement of the mystery schools was "Know Thyself". That was the first - and main - order of business. Nothing else can be achieved without that. Everything is sawdust if that is not accomplished. And the truth is, it is one of the hardest things you'll ever do.

Initiation is not a "grade" or an "award" or a "test" - it is the horror of seeing the self. And until you have been stripped to the bone - almost literally - crucified psychologically and emotionally by realizing the terror of the situation which is that you are NOT in control of your own mind, you ain't there. If it doesn't nearly kill you, it ain't the real deal. And I don't mean hanging from a tree or jumping off a cliff or some ridiculous physical activity. Initiation is INSIDE - between you and the Cosmos.

Gregory, have you ever had an encounter with someone where they were acting in a way that turned you off, YET, you realised that they were, in fact, trying to achieve precisely the opposite effect? It's a pretty normal occurrence, happens millions of times every day. You can extrapolate a bit, I'm sure, from that example and come up with many other situations where you perceived something about someone (from their behavior or words etc.) that they themselves were clearly NOT aware of. Yes?

Now, do you think that such 'blindness' does not apply to you too?

 

[darksai]

People made observations about your behavior - there was no ill-intent or malice, even if one or two people could have phrased things in a softer manner, they were still merely observations that present a fairly cohesive picture of a man living in an illusion.

Thank you :)

 

[Bernhard]

For someone who doesn't care much for it, you do have spent much time explaining it. ;)
http://supremeboundlessway.com/2011/10/27/what-is-a-master/

Yes, Spiral Out. And I think you know that I wrote that piece so to avoid having to explain it so many times. ;) And I think you know that it is a explanation of a classical perspective pertinent to the context of the tradition – rather than a self-agrandizing endeavor. If this is your idea of a contribution to the thread, dear friend, perhaps you could also import your insights and my clarifications from some of the conversations we've had on the matter. As our friendship has developed and proven mutually beneficial, you are likely to be in the best position to confirm for others that my intentions are well placed. I know the topic has been a sticking point for you, but I also know you have come to terms with it in the proper context.

Thanks everyone for your feedback. I truly have appreciated it. :)

I think it's pretty clear from the posts on here so far that everyone thinks you're a nice guy with good intentions. You share good information on facebook and you have written some good articles which have been posted on SOTT as well. However, that is not the really the issue at hand.

perhaps you could also import your insights and my clarifications from some of the conversations we've had on the matter.

You contacted me on Facebook last year since you enjoyed my articles and the videos I made with de-tached. You've sent me some of your articles from your blog to check out and I did. From the beginning I was questioning with your identification as a "Master" and signing all your blogs with "Master Gregory James". I was wondering why you have to present yourself as a "master"? I was also wondering if you feed off it and if it elevates your self-importance, even if only unconsciously. Even if you deny it, it doesn't mean it's not true for the predator mind can be very tricky and deceiving as I've seen in myself. I also think a true "master" doesn't need to mention that he's a "master", osit.

Now I understand that that title is simply a recognition given by your "Master" to be a Tai Chi teacher. I also practice Tai Chi and Chi Gong and we had some chats about that. However, the way you seem to portray yourself goes beyond just being a Tai Chi Master. It looked to me that you were portraying yourself as a "teacher" who is "dreaming to be a teacher" so to speak, claiming that you "know". You even wrote this comment on your article about "what is a master", mixing in some Gurdjieff and I'm not sure if you actually have read the whole book this quote is from (In Search of the Miraculous) and/or understood it.

Yes, the title is a bit of a pain, actually, especially in our modern day of complacency, where it is commonplace and “acceptable” to assume knowing and to disrespect the true keepers of Knowledge. It is just a title, of course. I do not call myself “Master”; my Teacher has. It is our tradition. You can, of course, call me anything you like, but the student who calls me “Master” or “Teacher” is the one I know to take seriously. The title only means that I am qualified to guide others Rightly, and that I have made an achievement set forth by a dependable criteria. You wouldn’t take medical advice from someone who wasn’t a doctor (unless you are more ill than you think). You wouldn’t fly in a plane with someone who wasn’t a pilot. And you wouldn’t trust the care of your home to a known thief. It makes sense therefore to take Knowledge from he who possesses it. Gurdjieff said it best:

–>”The acquisition or transmission of true knowledge demands great labor and great effort both of him who receives and of him who gives. And those who possess this knowledge are doing everything they can to transmit and communicate it to the greatest possible number of people, to facilitate people’s approach to it and enable them to prepare themselves to receive the truth. [...]

He who wants knowledge must himself make the initial efforts to find the source of knowledge and to approach it, taking advantage of the help and indications which are given to all, but which people, as a rule, do not want to see or recognize. Knowledge cannot come to people without effort on their own part. They understand this very well in connection with ordinary knowledge, but in the case of great knowledge, when they admit the possibility of its existence, they find it possible to expect something different.

And yet there are theories which affirm that knowledge can come to people without any effort on their part, that they can acquire it even in sleep. The very existence of such theories constitutes an additional explanation of why knowledge cannot come to people. At the same time it is essential to understand that man’s independent efforts to attain anything in this direction can also give no results. A man can only attain knowledge with the help of those who possess it. This must be understood from the very beginning. One must learn from him who knows”<–

Based on the tone in some of your writings and posts you seem to take much pride in being a "teacher" and "master" although you say you don't care much for the title. Reading through this thread I see contradictions, self-importance, circular reasoning and self-justifications because some of your beliefs are challenged. There is also a bit of a word salad that is avoiding the issue altogether. It's like you are over-estimating yourself and have a hard time taking in mirroring/feedback that would actually help you to see yourself more clearly.

What anart and others have pointed out to you so far is what I've observed in you as well before you started posting here. Are we all "projecting"? You see, this network has a specific purpose and aim and that is research and self-work, becoming more objective with the world and ourselves. This work cannot be done alone, as Laura said. Ironically you "agree" that being part of a network that seeks truth sincerely is imperative, as you told me in our exchanges. You also "agreed" that mirroring is a vital part of it as we ALL have subjective blindspots. However, when the mirror is turned on you, you seem to see most of it as "projections".

For example, I wrote to you:
---
Me: "It can be very challenging at times when things are pointed out to you about yourself, you don't SEE at all and your ego is trying to rationalize and deny it in any way possible."

Your response: "yep"

Me: "I've had many blindpsots and still have. Without the feedback from others I wouldn't be able to do what I do."

You: "indeed, lots of funny tricks and traps, not just the ego."
---
You just keep "agreeing" but don't apply it to yourself. Numerous time you've written to me with questions about various things. Many times I've suggested to you to share it on the forum, especially since you have gotten into Laura's work and reference her work and other forum members' articles a lot. So, I'm glad you are engaging on this network, because it is better to have these conversations here than on facebook chats for reasons anart mentioned in another post.

You also said something that you only take mirrors from your "Master". So you are definitely identified with having a "master" and being one yourself as you've been "recognized" as one.
---
Me: "Speaking for myself, I know I have over-estimated myself in the past about "teaching" and I see many "teachers" here in LA, who have a large following of "students", yet they feed off more of the attention they're getting. Without a strong network of people where we can give each other feedback, we all can tend to mistake STS for STO, despite the well-meaning intention, especially since we ALL have STS tendencies and our blindspots."

You: "i agree. I have also overestimated myself several times in the past... I have been corrected, both by my Master and by the Tao.
And by the same measure I have since been recognized as a Master and qualified teacher. You'll understand if I give more weight to my Master's declarations than yours."

Me:"I don't know your "master" but what I do know is that we can get accurate mirroring even from others who are not "masters" of any tradition."
---

The fact that the mirroring happens in written form on a forum doesn't make it automatically invalid. A LOT can be seen in words and expressions, how people react and how they present themselves. Most forum members are well trained in that work and can see things in you that are true but you cannot see yourself. I have experienced this myself on here and received mirrors that I was automatically writing off as "projections" at first with similar reasoning as you now, thinking that "they don't know me how I'm in person". However, thanks to the feedback and what I've learned on here since I've joined and staying with it, it has helped me to get to know myself better, even if it was challenging at times. I've realized that I cannot trust my "thinking" and my predator mind can be very cunning and deceiving, over-estimating myself. The work I've done in terms of writings and making videos wouldn't have been possible without this network, feedback and the information on here. It takes a lot of work and reading so Knowledge is lined up with Being and Understanding. Many people "know" many things but they don't "understand", which is coming through your posts as well.

The way to minimize "projections" is to do it in a network like this where everyone can share their observations and objectivity is increased. Some on here have been doing "the work" longer than others and everyone is on a different step on the learning curve.

On another note, you also kept asking to me to share your blogs on my wall and very insistingly so. As I've told you, I don't just post articles because someone tells me to share them. In fact, it does the opposite, because it shows me that that person is not as "aware" as he/she claims to be. It's like you've been trying to "give" without me "asking" and also trying to "teach" me which relates to your identification as a "Master" and "teacher". I post articles I read based on if I like them or not, not because someone tells me to post them. The information will get out regardless and free will needs to be respected, without "pushing" it on anyone. I'm not saying not to share information. It's fine if you send messages if you want to make me aware of them. But it's a whole different issue to repeatedly ask me to post them.

It's actually a bit ironic that you talk about letting go of identifications, yet you identify yourself with a system/tradition so strongly that you took on a title. Just something to think about, imo. As I said before, it's fine to present yourself as a Tai Chi teacher, but you DO give the impression that you are a "teacher" and "master" that goes beyond what you think you know and essentially set yourself up as a "guru" for your students. In other words, you don't consider the image you portray. It may be unconsciously or you do know but are lying to yourself about it.

For example, the other day, a girl commented on one of my facebook posts and you commented, telling here that she's a "good student", etc.. . I asked you why you have to address her like that on a post that really had nothing to do with you. You said. "well, she's my student....". You put yourself into a position of "spiritual authority". Again, my impression is that you feed off that identification as a "teacher" as you keep referring to it.

Your justifications are intellectual word salads at times that can mean nothing or everything, using philosophical generalization that just validate your buffers and keep you from seeing yourself clearly.

But I actually don't "identify myself" as it may appear. I don't really think of myself as a "master", or even as a "man", as "short", as "tall", as "thin", as "caucasian," as "Taoist", as "Gregory", or whatever. I don't mean to be mystical (or "arrogant"), I just don't think of myself as anything special or significant where any identity is concerned — not anymore. Of course the irony here being that "I" have to say "I don't think of myself" to tell you about the "I" that I Am Not (and furthermore engage the potential appearance of arrogance in doing so)! Thus, you can call me Fred the jackass if you prefer, I will take no offense whatsoever, but the student who calls me "Master", I know to take seriously. The title is not for "me", my friend. Truly.

Lastly, you messaged me recently asking "please tell me what "taken a course" means."

You seem to be referring to what Laura wrote, so I don't understand why you don't ask her directly on here. But to answer your questions, you do have taken a "course" with certain criteria you've met (as you've said yourself) and hence gotten the title of a "master". Sounds like a "course" to me.

Overall your identification with being a "master" comes through very strongly, although you deny it. I hope these posts on here and feedback by others will help you to see yourself more clearly. I also recommend for you to read "Strangers to ourselves" based on Cognitive Science. I just wrote an article referring to it as well and how important networking in terms of mirroring is in "the work" to seek truth within and without: http://veilofreality.com/2012/10/20/voting-cognitive-dissonance-and-fear-of-the-unknown/

Fwiw.

 

[dugdeep]

Whether or not you will accept it, I have "fought so hard" not so much because I felt my self-worth being threatened (though I am not denying there is some truth to this, for which I am grateful) but because I would not think to accept (and invite further) assistance in my own Work from others (i.e. this forum) without testing their "moxie", temperance and prowess (by this I do not mean that everyone and everything cannot be my teacher, only that there's BS for the sake of BS and then there is wisdom). I'm sorry for this – I do not mean disrespect. In fact, I mean precisely the opposite and I have never taken a teacher without first testing him/her to be sure he/she can accomplish the task and not just waste my time. Although I have certainly come to odds with much of what Anart has stated (partly carrying over from – admittedly – a perceived disrespect in an earlier thread, as well as here regarding my path and my sincerity), I do see the value in it – I just wasn't certain of the aim. I am reminded of my training wherein I have invariably come to admire most those who have given me the most trouble – those whom I have fought the hardest and who have thereby reflected the most and helped make me of a finer quality.

This reminds me of when a child, caught in an elaborate lie with no way out, will say something like "I was just joking." It is blatantly obvious to anyone present that it wasn't a joke, it was a lie. But the child perceives the threat of being caught in a lie as being so bad that he or she will lie further in order to escape rather than face the music. I find it interesting here that we can see how child-like the predator can be in a person - self importance has us playing children's games, trying to reinvent reality rather than be exposed. I recognize it as something I've seen in myself. And the shock of it all is that it's obvious to everyone else 'in the room', whether it gets acknowledged or not.

 

[Joe]

Whether or not you will accept it, I have "fought so hard" not so much because I felt my self-worth being threatened (though I am not denying there is some truth to this, for which I am grateful) but because I would not think to accept (and invite further) assistance in my own Work from others (i.e. this forum) without testing their "moxie", temperance and prowess (by this I do not mean that everyone and everything cannot be my teacher, only that there's BS for the sake of BS and then there is wisdom). I'm sorry for this – I do not mean disrespect. In fact, I mean precisely the opposite and I have never taken a teacher without first testing him/her to be sure he/she can accomplish the task and not just waste my time. Although I have certainly come to odds with much of what Anart has stated (partly carrying over from – admittedly – a perceived disrespect in an earlier thread, as well as here regarding my path and my sincerity), I do see the value in it – I just wasn't certain of the aim. I am reminded of my training wherein I have invariably come to admire most those who have given me the most trouble – those whom I have fought the hardest and who have thereby reflected the most and helped make me of a finer quality.

Concerning the above; I think you might be misunderstanding the way this forum and how the 'Work' we do actually works. There really isn't any way to "test" this forum as you would test a teacher or whatever. Indeed, the idea that you would even be able to effectively 'test' a good teacher is a bit problematic. I mean, what would you be looking for? A teacher that makes you feel bad about yourself? Or one that makes you feel good about yourself? Do you see my point? If you know what you are looking for from a teacher you don't really need such a teacher. The success of this forum as a teacher is directly proportional to the extent to which you are willing and able to be honest with yourself and share your beliefs and ideas etc. with others, and, the extent to which you are willing and able to learn from that feedback and apply it to yourself and your life. Note, that in both cases, the first step, and much of the effort, comes from you.

 

[Miss.K]

...If you think of it like others can see you better than you can see yourself [...]

I'm still not quite available to agree with this statement, entirely.

I have a question, and my apologies if noice (hope it isn't).
What I'm thinking is that both statements above seem right to me. It is true that others can see one self better, but it is also at times untrue.
I mean many people "see" Laura as a crazy cultleader, and it would probably not be advisable for her to say "oh, I can't see myself clearly so they must be right"

So I'm thinking that whether or not "others can see you better than you can see yourself" depends who is doing the seeing, in which case it comes down to whether or not one trusts the ones doing the seeing, when things that oneself cannot see, is being seen.

Then even as a group, it can be possible to not see one self clearly, even with feedback, because one will choose to trust the feedback coming from the ones one trust, and one may be more inclined to trust the ones with a similar view as ones own.

So my question is: How does one know who to trust? Or how does one know, when to trust or not, as if one can't rely on what resonates with what oneself sees, as one cannot see oneself, but it is a fact that not all that all people see is true, how can one know if the ones doing the seeing are right or wrong?

 

[Laura]

...If you think of it like others can see you better than you can see yourself [...]

I'm still not quite available to agree with this statement, entirely. I know there are A LOT of variables which need to be there before this can be true. But if I am understanding your meaning in context to the rest of your post, Heimdallr, it isn't so much about trusting that others can implicitly see me better than I can see myself, but that if I choose to see it this way (to consider it first) it would go a long way toward addressing my own self-importance and a subsequently perceived need to defend myself – making me better available to accept criticism constructively whether or not it is constructively presented.

Actually, there aren't many variables at all. Science, Gregory, science. Start catching up!