Talking or not talking?

[Gawan]

Hi there,

I had a seminar this week and it stirred up some emotions within me, I try to explain in the next paragraphs.
The topic was: "Therapy socialê" developed by a French citizen: Charles Rojzman

(_http://www.therapie-sociale.com/dossiers/dossiers.php?id_dossier=59),

The goal of his work, which begins with group dialogues and leads to transformative action, is to foster the practice and theory of healthy multicultural and multi-ethnic democracies. Termed ³transformational social therapy,² this work aims to transform institutions by helping people address the hatred and violence that separate them and prevent them from working together. Both symbolic and physical, this violence inhibits democracy and lends support to fear-based, authoritarian regimes. [...]

Rojzman¹s work focuses on societal problems that become visible in poor and ethnically conflicted neighborhoods. He brings together antagonistic groups n (youth and police; parents, teachers and students; immigrant and marginalized residents and local authorities) and, based on the understanding that they all have partial knowledge relevant to the problem, helps them create a ³collective intelligence.² As they go through this process, group members move from blaming others to taking collective responsibility for the problems they face. The facilitator then helps create bridges between different segments of the community and institutional change agents who can act on the group¹s proposals.

In Rojzmans words "society is sick" (kind of macro view about civilisation).

IMO it sounds like a really good plan, alas on the other side it misses some points, like that it tries to cure something, but misses to get to the main cause of an illness. Sociopathy is also mentioned in the theory but has a rather lower rank.
Well, I heard it, listened to the theory and emotions of speaking came up and maybe give a small hint of poneroligy bothered me all the time.
Is it external considerate, am I hurting the lecturer with these -new- ideas and so on. I did some pipebreaths to calm a little bit down, but the emotions of telling something about it had been too strong.
So I took finally the chance to explain a little bit about psychopathy, and what seemed to me very important to be mentioned, I started somehow a long the line with: "Do Not Attempt to Cure What You Do Not Understand" to understand specifics, to get to the source of "evil" so to speak and mentioned Lobaczewski work.

Okay, it all went good, they listened to what I had to say and -general law- got not “activated”, in my view I have to admit. But I myself felt somehow really stupid afterwards, have I gone too far?
They asked me, if I wanted to enlighten them, but I said: "no, that has been not my intention, I just try to give some small hints", when it has not?

Also the next days went quite well, we had good talks in -the group- and another chance came up, to talk about the EE program (I mentioned it in the context to have a place, where it is possible to feel emotions)
But something happened, a girl came later up and asked me: "tell me everything you know, you know so much" and I took a second and some pictures of the “knowledge and being video came up” with the hippie chick and that there is no free lunch, so I responded: "I can give you the references, and no I don't know everything, I'm still here for learning", or something along the line.

So this week has been really intense, also for this small group, somehow that there is hope in this world, that some people are open to new or different information. Also it happened relatively often in the last weeks to speak about topics like this, or to mention things.
But what is about: only give to those who ask? Or am I overreacting a bit and as always the specific moment is of importance?

 

[Gawan]

FWIW.

This lecture-week brought up another issue as well.
I stayed during this week at a very good friend and during this week I also checked relatively often this forum on his computer and out of this reason my friend asked me what it is all about and if I could explain the purpose of this forum etc. So far we had in the past already some small talks, because he likes to do some experiments in OBE, to find some proofing data that these things are possible, or that there is a soul and tries to find some scientific answers in doing it so to speak.
I tried to explain him, in Lauras words, that these experiments also can be dangerous, because -we- don't know for sure what else is out there, that it is a jungle. I didn't try to force anything upon him, just gave some critical comments about an experiment like this. And I gave him the link for the German "wave-site" so that he can make up his own mind, so my friend started to read and asked some questions the next time I met him again, what about this and that. Some of his questions I could answer, but always brought it back that he should keep on reading the "Wave-series", because I myself cannot be all the time too sure to answer his questions properly or without some twists.
Up to this point he also searched almost a life long for answers like what is Laura writing about.

Well imo there is much responsibility in these talkings, what to talk about, and what not (programs started to ran to protect Lauras work, if some critical comments came up) like to stay tuned all the time, what is going on within myself and what my friend is asking. So far I know he relies on my answers in some contexts and occasionally in some private issues, I'm not too straight forward to give him orders so to speak, what he has to do do and try to leave my answers open, that he can come to a conclusion himself.

 

[RyanX]

Gawan,

Was this a required seminar of sorts for a class or university program of sorts?

If it was such a setting, I would think intelligent feedback from students or participants is appreciated and appropriate for the setting. It sounds like they were fairly open to criticism. The question is, were your intentions in speaking up to give genuine feedback or were they to defend your own beliefs? That's not to say your beliefs are wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with what you've written in terms of psychopathy having more to do with the underlying problems of society than many other factors, but I'm not sure if your opinion on this was truly asked for based on what you've written.

I've only read the one page on the link you posted, but it doesn't sound like the aim of this man is to truly solve the root level problems of human society. It sounds like he is working at a level far removed from this. It seems like the man genuinely wishes to help people and certain social groups work through their programs that are the result of the ponerogenic process. Whether he is correct in how these problems arise is obviously open to debate and it sounds like this is what you have the most problem with. Does that necessarily mean that what he's suggesting as "therapy" isn't appropriate for the context of the social problems he is trying to address?

It sounds like what he is doing is very much what an activist friend of mine is doing right now in Palestine. He works with a group that brings together families of Israeli and Palestinian families who have lost loved ones and gets them to participate in simple social activities (games, sports, etc) for the sake of getting them to see the humanity in those "others". While I think this is mostly a band aid of sorts, a band aid can be crucial for stopping the blood flow even if it doesn't stop the reason for the blood in the first place. A band aid obviously won't prevent somebody from getting hurt in the future either, but it is still appropriate given the situation.

I could be totally off here since I have no idea what the man said in his seminar, but that is just my impression from his website.

 

[Gertrudes]

Well, I heard it, listened to the theory and emotions of speaking came up and maybe give a small hint of poneroligy bothered me all the time.
Is it external considerate, am I hurting the lecturer with these -new- ideas and so on. I did some pipebreaths to calm a little bit down, but the emotions of telling something about it had been too strong.

I can very well relate to the way you describe your emotions taking over when you listen to something with which you either disagree, or feel you have something to add.
The following are my reflective thoughts on this subject, some might apply to you, whilst some probably not at all. I decided to post all FWIW:

I think that it's important to "listen" to what's happening inside us in those moments because there will rest the cues for the origin of those feelings. If you feel the heat of emotions boiling up and leading your emotional and mental state into such an urge, it might be more sensible not to speak until you are able to cool your head.
Next step, I think, would be to consider: is what I have to say truly asked for (external consideration)? Well, that step should be the first in any case, more often then not in our current world it is either neglected, or left as a last "resource". I am not sure whether this is what happened to you, I am learning myself trying to discern these things hence the following question: could it be that such a strong urge resulted from a moment of internal consideration?
As RyanX I completely agree with your take on psychopathy but also based on what you've written, I am not sure whether they were willing to hear it.

From my experience, when allowing the "emotions of speaking" to become too loud and eventually leading us to speak, we will often do it under the wrong internal pressure or urge. We can end up feeling extremely Identified with what we're trying to expose. And I might be off but maybe that is the crux of the matter: being able to know something without self- identification. No matter how truthfull that something, it is helpful to maintain a space left for flexibility and for that something to be transformed, otherwise what we hear can end up being clouded by the need to defend our idea.

Well imo there is much responsibility in these talkings, what to talk about, and what not (programs started to ran to protect Laura's work, if some critical comments came up) like to stay tuned all the time, what is going on within myself and what my friend is asking. So far I know he relies on my answers in some contexts and occasionally in some private issues, I'm not too straight forward to give him orders so to speak, what he has to do do and try to leave my answers open, that he can come to a conclusion himself.

When talking about something with a backround program to defend it (in this case Laura's work) the listener can often somehow sense or perceive that program and act accordingly, with discredit or criticism. He/she might not be aware of it, it is truly amazing the quantity of information we can process without our conscious awareness. Nevertheless, those programs are often perceived and can highjack an otherwise openminded honest exchange.

It shows a good awareness the fact that you perceived this program running on the backround. And as you've said, leaving your answers open so that he himself can come to his conclusions or even, who knows, do his own research is probably the only ting you can do.
In this type of situation, I suppose the devil maybe hides in the "detail" of how we feel about it, meaning how honest can we be in our openness.

Apologies if I am completely off and none of this applies to you :(

 

[Nienna]

Apologies if I am completely off and none of this applies to you.

I think that what you have written applies, basically, to everyone that is truly trying to Work on themselves. You bring up some very good points.

I would like to add that while reading In Search of the Miraculous, one of the things that really is helping me, (when I remember it) is what Gurdjieff said to his class, and I am paraphrasing.

He basically said that in order to do the Work one cannot Identify with something, cannot Internally Consider and cannot show negative emotions. To do these things makes it impossible to really do the Work.

So, for me, remembering those three things helps me a lot when I start to see the programs starting. I, of course, do not have any of these things anywhere near mastered, but it is a work in progress for me. One of many. ;)

fwiw

 

[Gawan]

Was this a required seminar of sorts for a class or university program of sorts?

Yes, it has been one week with that topic about and was one offer from the universitiy so to speak.
And the lecturer has not been Charles Rojzman himself, I would call them pupils of him.

It sounds like what he is doing is very much what an activist friend of mine is doing right now in Palestine. He works with a group that brings together families of Israeli and Palestinian families who have lost loved ones and gets them to participate in simple social activities (games, sports, etc) for the sake of getting them to see the humanity in those "others". While I think this is mostly a band aid of sorts, a band aid can be crucial for stopping the blood flow even if it doesn't stop the reason for the blood in the first place. A band aid obviously won't prevent somebody from getting hurt in the future either, but it is still appropriate given the situation.

I could be totally off here since I have no idea what the man said in his seminar, but that is just my impression from his website.

I called it: "To beat around the bush“.

Apologies if I am completely off and none of this applies to you :(

There are no apologies needed Gertrudes you have been spot on.
Thank you for that.

I think that it's important to "listen" to what's happening inside us in those moments because there will rest the cues for the origin of those feelings. If you feel the heat of emotions boiling up and leading your emotional and mental state into such an urge, it might be more sensible not to speak until you are able to cool your head.
Next step, I think, would be to consider: is what I have to say truly asked for (external consideration)? Well, that step should be the first in any case, more often then not in our current world it is either neglected, or left as a last "resource". I am not sure whether this is what happened to you, I am learning myself trying to discern these things hence the following question: could it be that such a strong urge resulted from a moment of internal consideration?
As RyanX I completely agree with your take on psychopathy but also based on what you've written, I am not sure whether they were willing to hear it.

Yes, that's the question, somehow it also really depends on how to say it, not to run over the other persons, but for this a cool head is needed as you described.
Well, I found many excuses afterwards, why I have spoken up and have been looking for self-calming arguments, to defend my automatic behaviour.

From my experience, when allowing the "emotions of speaking" to become too loud and eventually leading us to speak, we will often do it under the wrong internal pressure or urge. We can end up feeling extremely Identified with what we're trying to expose. And I might be off but maybe that is the crux of the matter: being able to know something without self- identification. No matter how truthfull that something, it is helpful to maintain a space left for flexibility and for that something to be transformed, otherwise what we hear can end up being clouded by the need to defend our idea.

Absolutely.

It shows a good awareness the fact that you perceived this program running on the backround. And as you've said, leaving your answers open so that he himself can come to his conclusions or even, who knows, do his own research is probably the only ting you can do.
In this type of situation, I suppose the devil maybe hides in the "detail" of how we feel about it, meaning how honest can we be in our openness.

Somehow many of these situations if not all is like walking on a double egded sword. I think that is the difference simply being aware, to see oneself and as well what is happening outside of oneself and than to decide accordingly.

He basically said that in order to do the Work one cannot Identify with something, cannot Internally Consider and cannot show negative emotions. To do these things makes it impossible to really do the Work.

Thank you, I try to keep that in mind.