OSIT, it's IMHO-tep!

[WhiteBear]

Subject disclaimer: I immediately realize that this subject is hitting some button or program, because I'm making light of it, including ghetto-speak and a Halloween mummy reference in it.

OSIT: Or So I Think
IMHO: In My Humble/Honest Opinion

I read The Way of the Fool today, in which Laura speaks of "circuit dominance" and realized that it was bothering me in that, for years, as a result of my working through my addiction issues with 12-step methodology and group sessions, I've been training myself to remove the phrase "I think" from my verbiage and replacing it with "I feel".

I have been doing this because one of the first things I was taught when dealing with my addictions is that my brain has been hijacked by a "junkie bus-driver" and I am a victim of "stinking thinking". So now, years later, I'm here, dealing with a bad feeling inside that I may be misrepresenting myself, showing visible "clues" of circuit dominance that may not reflect my actuality. This bothers me, because it is just one more hurdle that I need to first identify whether it exists or not, then remove, before I can receive an accurate mirror from a forum member.

I've noticed usage of OSIT and IMHO quite often in the forum, and part of what is bothering me is...is OSIT used at the end of a sentence as a way of avoiding starting a sentence with "I think"?

IMHO is also something I've been wondering about, in this train of thought. Is an opinion something other than a thought? A thought paired with belief? Is it a thought backed by some emotional attachment, in which case, it may be more illuminating to use "I feel" at the start, rather than IMHO at the end? And most of all, I suppose, tying this in with the first part of my post...are OSIT and IMHO used to avoid saying "I think" and "I feel" without the user even realizing it?

 

[anart]

Hi Whitebear,

Since this is a research forum and it is generally requested that people back up statements with references and data, it long ago became customary to use OSIT or IMHO to qualify that the preceding statement has no supporting data.

In other words, since clarity of thought and statement is so vital on this forum and in the Work in general, most people want to simply clarify that something they have written is merely how they understand things at that present moment - thus the two abbreviations. It's a manifestation of the culture of the forum.

Unfortunately, ones feelings and thoughts are rarely reliable, which is why it's important to network and attempt to communicate as clearly as possible, often erring on the side of stating the obvious (osit and imho) instead of being unclear.

In short, I don't think the usage of these two abbreviations has anything to do with the author trying to avoid using 'I think' or 'I feel'.

 

[WhiteBear]

In other words, since clarity of thought and statement is so vital on this forum and in the Work in general, most people want to simply clarify that something they have written is merely how they understand things at that present moment - thus the two abbreviations. It's a manifestation of the culture of the forum.

Would it not be clearer to start the statement with something indicating that it is something not based fully on fact, then, rather than ending the statement with a disclaimer, after the initial statement has been read?

In short, I don't think the usage of these two abbreviations has anything to do with the author trying to avoid using 'I think' or 'I feel'.

No, I don't think the author is "trying to avoid" anything either, that would be too easy a self-deception to spot and deal with...that's why I said, "without the user even realizing it".

I'm not trying to get argumentative or start a semantic squabble, these are issues I'm trying to wrestle with in my mind, tying in to my trying to find out if I'm misrepresenting myself through previous faulty self-training.

 

[Buddy]

In short, I don't think the usage of these two abbreviations has anything to do with the author trying to avoid using 'I think' or 'I feel'.

I agree with anart. And personally, I don't use IMHO because I understand the undesirability of 'opinion' in the first place. To me, an 'opinion' implies an unsubstantiated 'belief', and would likely, and justifiably, be interpreted as 'noise', so I tend to prefer OSIT which implies the existence of at least a little bit of evidence to back it up, from my point of view. :)

 

[anart]

I'm not trying to get argumentative or start a semantic squabble, these are issues I'm trying to wrestle with in my mind, tying in to my trying to find out if I'm misrepresenting myself through previous faulty self-training.

Is the issue you are wrestling with simply the fact that you find these abbreviations at the end of posts to be a 'displeasing manifestation of others'?

 

[WhiteBear]

I'm not trying to get argumentative or start a semantic squabble, these are issues I'm trying to wrestle with in my mind, tying in to my trying to find out if I'm misrepresenting myself through previous faulty self-training.

Is the issue you are wrestling with simply the fact that you find these abbreviations at the end of posts to be a 'displeasing manifestation of others'?

Not at all, Anart. I understand the use of them by others and what they represent, and accept their use in the spirit in which they are used, to clarify. It is not displeasing to me that others use it. I need to clarify within myself whether I've trained myself to use "I feel" instead of "I think". I apologize if this wasn't clear in the first or subsequent posts. Part of my mental process with wrestling with this is to sort out the usage of IMHO and OSIT...what they are actually used for, and when, and if there's a possibility of self-deception in using them.

 

[Possibility of Being]

I need to clarify within myself whether I've trained myself to use "I feel" instead of "I think". I apologize if this wasn't clear in the first or subsequent posts. Part of my mental process with wrestling with this is to sort out the usage of IMHO and OSIT...what they are actually used for, and when, and if there's a possibility of self-deception in using them.

Some people (in fact, many) tend to 'think' when they should feel and acknowledge their feelings. For them, it is important to learn and use the right words, and focus their their attention on what they are feeling at that moment when the thing is about feelings. On the other hand, when discussing a research or a logical/intellectual issue, feelings have nothing to do with that, hence "or so I think". In other words, there are places for thinking, and there are places for feelings, and they are not the same. Does it make sense to you?

 

[mkrnhr]

...and there are times to expose humbly our opinion :)

 

[WhiteBear]

I need to clarify within myself whether I've trained myself to use "I feel" instead of "I think". I apologize if this wasn't clear in the first or subsequent posts. Part of my mental process with wrestling with this is to sort out the usage of IMHO and OSIT...what they are actually used for, and when, and if there's a possibility of self-deception in using them.

Some people (in fact, many) tend to 'think' when they should feel and acknowledge their feelings. For them, it is important to learn and use the right words, and focus their their attention on what they are feeling at that moment when the thing is about feelings. On the other hand, when discussing a research or a logical/intellectual issue, feelings have nothing to do with that, hence "or so I think". In other words, there are places for thinking, and there are places for feelings, and they are not the same. Does it make sense to you?

...and there are times to expose humbly our opinion :)

Yes, it does make sense, PoB. Thank you and mkrnhr for your inputs. I don't know why I'm struggling with this dichotomy so much...on the surface, it seems very simple to deal with, but the more I dig into myself for the reasons I'm having trouble, the more I'm finding. A lot of self-doubt about my thought process in general, from years of being told it is messed up, and even more self-doubt tossed on top of that, wondering if my self-training was self-defeating after all this time. All these years I've been relying on my "gut feelings" and how I "feel" about things, because I've been told by my fellow addicts in recovery that my brain is faulty and the only thing I can truly rely on are my feelings conflicts with what I'm finding here (and finding to be -true- as well), that emotions are much more subject to manipulation and programming than a clear thought process.

 

[go2]

I read The Way of the Fool today, in which Laura speaks of "circuit dominance" and realized that it was bothering me in that, for years, as a result of my working through my addiction issues with 12-step methodology and group sessions, I've been training myself to remove the phrase "I think" from my verbiage and replacing it with "I feel".

WhiteBear, your bothered by `I think`and `I feel`, brings up some complex associations, which I have considered and understand to the following extent, which is only a beginning and others may have more or clearer understanding of the relationship of sensing, feeling, and thinking in our Work of self transformation.

It is a method of the Work to sense, to feel, and to think separately and simultaneously concerning any event. These three functions are called three-brains by Mr. Gurdjieff. Mr. Gurdjieff suggests, `not-to-give-oneself-up-to-those-of-one`s-associations-resulting-from-the-functioning-of-only-one-or-another-of-one`s-brains.` (Tales-p 445) That is a tall order!

We are rewiring the neural circuits between the brains, circuits established by our so-called normal life. This requires attention and repetition. When I think, I make an effort to incorporate my feeling and my instinct into the blended perception of the event. When I feel, I make an effort to blend the images of my thinking and images of my instinct into a multi-faceted perception of the event. When my instincts run wild, I make an effort to think and to feel this event simultaneously or at least before I act. Restaint of pen and tongue can permit time for this blending effort. This effort opens up new neural circuits and new possibilies of understanding, hence new possibilities for right action.

WhiteBear, I am active in Twelve Step Work and have noticed error in Twelve Step dogma as well as error in interpretation of Fourth Way methodology. It bothered me for sometime and still can on addiction issues, but this bothered has given me a great opportunity to notice my one-brained or two-brained reaction when I am identified. Identification is often called a `sacred cow` on the forum. Identification seems to me, the same dynamic as narcissism. The event is perceived by one-brain or two-brains, but not by three-brains. It is an un- reconciled impression, third-force blind in Mr. Gurdjieff`s language. The feeling-brain is concerned with relationship of self and others. The thinking-brain examines the logic of the event. The sensing-brain or instinctive-brain is concerned with predator, food, mate. All these functions considered and blended lead to right action instead of pathology.

I am a work in progress and often wrong, so I remember Laura`s admonition not to throw the baby out with the bath water.This folksy phrase may be useful when considering your Twelve Step experience, WhiteBear. :)

 

[WhiteBear]

I am a work in progress and often wrong, so I remember Laura`s admonition not to throw the baby out with the bath water.This folksy phrase may be useful when considering your Twelve Step experience, WhiteBear. :)

Thank you, go2. That is very helpful :) I have no intent of throwing out any babies, however. I'm compartmentalizing my 12-step knowledge, sectioning it off into "true" "some true" and "not true" packages, for active removal (in the case of the "not true") and reconciliation (in the case of the "some true"). I'm not about to just ditch over 25 years of self-work at this point :)

I've been putting off reading Gurdjieff, even though his "Tales" was the first book I purchased since joining the forum. I started reading it, and something inside told me I wasn't quite ready for it yet. Perhaps the issue in this thread had to come up, for me to do some preliminary work with compartmentalizing the damage before I got down to the nitty-gritty of the Work...or maybe I was just flat-out scared. Either way, I have a date with Mr. G now, and I don't want to be late. :)

 

[Nienna]

WhiteBear, Beezlebubs Tales is quite a dense read so I would like to suggest that you start with In Search of the Miraculous by Ouspensky. It's easier to assimilate. And it is a good start to help you understanding the Work. :)

 

[Buddy]

WhiteBear, Beezlebubs Tales is quite a dense read so I would like to suggest that you start with In Search of the Miraculous by Ouspensky. It's easier to assimilate. And it is a good start to help you understanding the Work. :)

I must second this. The metaphors and similes used in 'Tales' require an understanding of what G originally said in plainer language. At least it seems true for me. :)


Edit: clarity

 

[Raccoon]

Thank you WhiteBear for finally telling me what those blasted acronyms mean. Seriously. Wierdly I had been able to intuit that they are meant as an invitation to differ and so clarify, on a point made mostly from personal experience. There was a (flawed) study on female speech about 10 years back, which suggested that women tend to question themselves by ending spoken statements with a rising tone, as in a question. While males didn't. Reminds me of that--both of which remind me that it's good to ask for help clarifying, and to say thanks too.

 

[Beau]

There's another thread that details all the acronyms commonly used on the forum - http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1599.0