Memes and stuff

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related. No insults or personal attacks allowed. Rated G.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Searching for the missing pieces of the Bothell Codex

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Res Ipsa »

Since I get to pick, I’m going to start with something that looks easy: aggression and assertion. Both are in the upper left quadrant, which puts them on the shameless part of the horizontal axis and the selfish portion of the vertical axis.

I have a couple of questions about the axes. I’m guessing they are descriptive as contrasted with judgmental. In other words, the model isn’t saying that any position along the axes is better or healthier than another. The vertical axis simply describes the extent to which a reaction or response is intended (?) to benefit the self or others. And the horizontal describes the extent to which the person is affected by the perception or maybe judgment of others.
Ballpark?

So aggression and assertion are selfish — for the benefit of self — and shameless — relatively unaffected by the judgment of others. I can picture that.

But when I think about the distinction between the two, my brain goes straight to the concepts of control and boundaries. By boundaries, I mean what divides self from other. I think of aggression as a boundary problem — the self crossing the boundary and attempting to control the other. I think of that as unhealthy. And when I was LDS, it was embedded in LDS culture. That makes sense to me in the context of the model.

But it’s not my model. And I understand that the model uses some common terms as terms of art. And when I look at the complete graphic, the words control and boundary do not appear. So how close is my intuition about those terms to how they are defined in the model?
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Binger »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun Jan 30, 2022 5:14 am
Since I get to pick, I’m going to start with something that looks easy: aggression and assertion. Both are in the upper left quadrant, which puts them on the shameless part of the horizontal axis and the selfish portion of the vertical axis.

I have a couple of questions about the axes. I’m guessing they are descriptive as contrasted with judgmental. In other words, the model isn’t saying that any position along the axes is better or healthier than another. The vertical axis simply describes the extent to which a reaction or response is intended (?) to benefit the self or others. And the horizontal describes the extent to which the person is affected by the perception or maybe judgment of others.
Ballpark?
You got this. The Self Axis is a spectrum. In the model it is the vertical axis. It is not a judgment, correct. Selfishness and Selflessness are not pejorative, one is not better than the other. The intention of the benefit of an action is a great way to look at this. I think of selfishness and selflessness simply as the identifier of the priority in a reaction or response. It is simple as this, to me, "Who is the priority in what I am doing? Am I prioritizing myself, or someone else?"

The Care Axis is also a spectrum. Do I care about the effects of what I am doing, or not? Do the consequences for me or anyone matter, or not? Does another person's or the group's experience matter to me, or not? For some people it is tough to see shamelessness with anything but negative applications. They shame shamelessness, unironically. And for some people, it is tough to see conscientiousness, with anything but kudos and praise. For this model and these archetypes, shamelessness and conscientiousness are just orientations. One is not better than the other.

I think it helps to find a positive application of these terms as an image. With shamelessness, I like the example of entrepreneurs, scientists, inventors and explorers. We need people to be shameless. We need them to do new things in new ways and not be crippled by fear of failure. We need people to do things without fear of gallery comments. We need them to take risks so that we can go on their ride and enjoy the things they do and build and learn. We need shameless people. We need people to serve without worrying about the drama and consequences. We need Moms and Dads to be bold and raise their kids with all their own guts, and not the all the opinions and judgments that are swirling around them.

We also need conscientiousness. We need people that speak truth to power, who take care of themselves, who understand that they are an individual in systems. Awareness of others, consequences of actions, conditions for participation, all of these can benefit others even if the priority for the conscientious person is to take care of themselves.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun Jan 30, 2022 5:14 am
So aggression and assertion are selfish — for the benefit of self — and shameless — relatively unaffected by the judgment of others. I can picture that.
Going backwards and then zigzagging through this. At the same time I was working on this model, I was also finishing our patent application for our airborne infection control invention and solution. I had to really wrap my head around "terms of art" and "original art" in ways I had never dreamed. I remember thinking at one point that lawyers are the ones that use metaphors, not the artists. Anyways, back to the program....

Aggression is extreme. It is often the instant reaction when thought and consideration of others is avoided and pure instinct is embraced. Trigger happens >>>> then aggression. The chronically selfish and shameless person is also looking for ways to use aggression. He insults the waitress, coworkers and his family. He initiates connections with aggression. He is handing out danger everywhere. He wants people to flinch, step away or even question themselves. He wants shock. Threatening others makes them submit, or fight. And the fight turns him on. He asks for fights. This is what aggression looks like in real life. It serves the person who is aggressive, and they do not give AF about anyone but themselves.

Assertiveness
is still in the same quadrant as aggression. Think of aggression as having too much selfishness and too much shamelessness. Too much of two good things. Gas is good. Fire is good. But a damn lot of gas and hell of a lot of fire, together - not a good thing all the time. Assertiveness is shamelessness with respect and intention, applied deliberately and thoughtfully. It is doing the right thing, without being dramatic about everyone's feelings or consequences. Assertiveness is also selfishness in control, with the intent of getting things done even to a personal or selfish benefit.

I don't always go to the drive up window of a fast food place, but when I do, I take the order from the server at the window and drive away. I never confirm that I got what I ordered. And occasionally, I end up with the wrong stuff or I am missing stuff. The spectrum of responses here would be to go insane aggressive on the drive through joint return to the restaurant or store to insult them, berate them, scream, yell, embarrass, humiliate, accuse and hurt people because I just like hurting people over stupid crap. Another choice would be to just not say anything, blame myself, not worry about it because probably the person was super busy or learning their job. I can go hungry, not worry about getting the wrong change and blame myself for not getting what I wanted (Submission). A reasonable choice, would be to just address the situation and get what I wanted.

Assertiveness is prioritizing one's self and doing so deliberately and shamelessly, but also sliding down the spectrum a bit to take others into consideration. In my model I would just call it moving toward the center and away from the ugly and dangerous perimeter extreme of aggression.
Last edited by Binger on Sun Jan 30, 2022 4:31 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Binger »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun Jan 30, 2022 5:14 am

But when I think about the distinction between the two, my brain goes straight to the concepts of control and boundaries. By boundaries, I mean what divides self from other. I think of aggression as a boundary problem — the self crossing the boundary and attempting to control the other. I think of that as unhealthy. And when I was LDS, it was embedded in LDS culture. That makes sense to me in the context of the model.

But it’s not my model. And I understand that the model uses some common terms as terms of art. And when I look at the complete graphic, the words control and boundary do not appear. So how close is my intuition about those terms to how they are defined in the model?
Boundaries, boundaries, boundaries. Boundaries. Boundaries effing boundaries boundaries boundaries. This word wears me out. Largely, because I have wrestled with it so damn much as a word, as a metaphor, as a literal thing. Ultimately, I have decided that it is really a thing but has multiple definitions.

Boundary (n)
  • A thing that is used as a topic to fill pages in crappy self-help books
  • A thing that people think you should set when you are not doing what they would do. "You should set some boundaries."
  • A thing that you can imagine so things you are imagining won't be imagined any more
I could really go on for a while with this rant, by the way.
  • A thing that is usually a primary color and goes around your sovereignty or county or something
  • A thing that if you touch it or cross it then the other team will get the ball, or you will start over with the ball, or nothing will happen, or you could get some numbers for your team or yourself
  • A thing that people use to describe something in a relationship or in communication that they can't really describe, but they think they understand it, but they just don't know what they are imagining or hoping to achieve.
Boundaries are not in the model. Despite a hell of a lot of time with the concept and the word. They are not in there and this is much to my wife's chagrin. She likes the term. She was very assertive about including it when we worked on this together. I was very assertive about not including boundaries. We had a lawyer cast a tiebreaker vote on the topic of boundaries in our model that we were penciling out together. The lawyer sided with her mostly but also sided with me and mediated a compromise without giving me the win that I deserved. Lawyers.

My suggestion; ditch this concept of boundaries and describe the situation better. Boundaries are imaginary lines. The concept is a metaphor for something else. When I cross into the next county, I do not cross a blue line. I just drive on the same road past a sign and keep on going. To me, imaginary boundaries are, well, imaginary.

I also find that the concept of boundaries is often used condescendingly, and that bothers me a lot. So, I clearly have my own biases on this topic and the use of the word 'boundaries', including my own confirmation biases and a negativity bias. But, I applaud self care. My wife was right that if "boundary" is a term that people use to help them achieve self care, what is the point of ****ting on the word? She ain't wrong. She definitely ain't wrong.

Moving toward the center is not a spectrum of gaining or losing control. The reality is, we can move away from aggression and toward assertiveness and our control improves. Aggression is a form of control, yes. All the perimeter moves are forms of control. But treating one's employees aggressively may ultimately make them leave, and at that point, control just went to zero. The control exists in the person's head, but not in the outcome. The control, like the imaginary boundary, may be real to the person acting aggressively, but it may or may not be real on the other side of that aggression. The aggression is felt but the actual control and the boundaries MAY be imaginary or subjective.

I sometimes find amusement in how "control" (the word) is used in arguments and conversations. Sometimes it is a compliment, sometimes it is pejorative. Like the Self and Care axes, right? Sometimes gaining control of a situation is a welcome thing, and sometimes it is a threat. Rarely does a constant presence on the perimeter of these archetypes result in long-term control.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Searching for the missing pieces of the Bothell Codex

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Res Ipsa »

Binger wrote:
Sun Jan 30, 2022 3:33 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun Jan 30, 2022 5:14 am

But when I think about the distinction between the two, my brain goes straight to the concepts of control and boundaries. By boundaries, I mean what divides self from other. I think of aggression as a boundary problem — the self crossing the boundary and attempting to control the other. I think of that as unhealthy. And when I was LDS, it was embedded in LDS culture. That makes sense to me in the context of the model.

But it’s not my model. And I understand that the model uses some common terms as terms of art. And when I look at the complete graphic, the words control and boundary do not appear. So how close is my intuition about those terms to how they are defined in the model?
Boundaries, boundaries, boundaries. Boundaries. Boundaries effing boundaries boundaries boundaries. This word wears me out. Largely, because I have wrestled with it so damn much as a word, as a metaphor, as a literal thing. Ultimately, I have decided that it is really a thing but has multiple definitions.

Boundary (n)
  • A thing that is used as a topic to fill pages in crappy self-help books
  • A thing that people think you should set when you are not doing what they would do. "You should set some boundaries."
  • A thing that you can imagine so things you are imagining won't be imagined any more
I could really go on for a while with this rant, by the way.
  • A thing that is usually a primary color and goes around your sovereignty or county or something
  • A thing that if you touch it or cross it then the other team will get the ball, or you will start over with the ball, or nothing will happen, or you could get some numbers for your team or yourself
  • A thing that people use to describe something in a relationship or in communication that they can't really describe, but they think they understand it, but they just don't know what they are imagining or hoping to achieve.
Boundaries are not in the model. Despite a hell of a lot of time with the concept and the word. They are not in there and this is much to my wife's chagrin. She likes the term. She was very assertive about including it when we worked on this together. I was very assertive about not including boundaries. We had a lawyer cast a tiebreaker vote on the topic of boundaries in our model that we were penciling out together. The lawyer sided with her mostly but also sided with me and mediated a compromise without giving me the win that I deserved. Lawyers.

My suggestion; ditch this concept of boundaries and describe the situation better. Boundaries are imaginary lines. The concept is a metaphor for something else. When I cross into the next county, I do not cross a blue line. I just drive on the same road past a sign and keep on going. To me, imaginary boundaries are, well, imaginary.

I also find that the concept of boundaries is often used condescendingly, and that bothers me a lot. So, I clearly have my own biases on this topic and the use of the word 'boundaries', including my own confirmation biases and a negativity bias. But, I applaud self care. My wife was right that if "boundary" is a term that people use to help them achieve self care, what is the point of ****ting on the word? She ain't wrong. She definitely ain't wrong.

Moving toward the center is not a spectrum of gaining or losing control. The reality is, we can move away from aggression and toward assertiveness and our control improves. Aggression is a form of control, yes. All the perimeter moves are forms of control. But treating one's employees aggressively may ultimately make them leave, and at that point, control just went to zero. The control exists in the person's head, but not in the outcome. The control, like the imaginary boundary, may be real to the person acting aggressively, but it may or may not be real on the other side of that aggression. The aggression is felt but the actual control and the boundaries MAY be imaginary or subjective.

I sometimes find amusement in how "control" (the word) is used in arguments and conversations. Sometimes it is a compliment, sometimes it is pejorative. Like the Self and Care axes, right? Sometimes gaining control of a situation is a welcome thing, and sometimes it is a threat. Rarely does a constant presence on the perimeter of these archetypes result in long-term control.
MEDITATION ON A RANT ABOUT BOUNDARIES

I open a post, expecting information and explanation. As I begin to read, I think "this is not information and explanation. What is it?"

The storyteller appears and begins to flood me with a story about what I am reading, what it means, and how it fits together with the story it has told me up to now. It tries to feed me ways i could respond that help fit the new post into the existing story.

I gently let go of the storyteller, and focus on the words and how they make me feel. I feel light. The storyteller appears and begins to tell me a story about why I feel light. I gently let the storyteller go and return my focus to the words and my feelings. I read the words. I feel relaxed. I feel happy. I feel recognition. I feel open.

With each new feeling and each passage read, the storyteller appears and starts to tell me a story about the meaning of what I've read and why I am feeling each feeling. Each time, I gently release the storyteller. Each time I release the storyteller, I also feel light, happy, and unburdened.

I am curious about the words. What am I reading? What does it mean? Who is this person who wrote the words? What are they trying to tell me? The storyteller will tell me a story that explains it all. I need the storyteller to tell me a story that explains it all. But I don't need the storyteller to tell me a story just yet.

I come to end of the words. I shift my focus away from the words and just to how I feel. I notice the feelings. I label ones I recognize. I approach the feelings with curiosity. Just for a beat or two.

The storyteller appears. It looks impatient. "Now?" it asks. I smile. "I'm ready." The storyteller seems happier. "The words you read," it begins. "That was a rant." I recognize the label, and the label snugly attaches to the words. It blends seamlessly into all the stories the storyteller has ever told me about rants.

When new stories fit perfectly with older stories, I feel peaceful. "I liked the rant. I felt happy when I read it."

I nod to the storyteller. And it begins to tell me a story about the rant and about me.

CODA: EPIPHANY

I am staring at an image on a computer screen of two concentric rings: the outer one colored dark; the inner one colored light. The outer one has the word "aggressive." The inner has the word "assertive." The storyteller has told me a story about the rings and the colors and the words. "Where the dark touches the light is a boundary -- a sharp one. It's a distinction between two different things. The distinction is between unhealthy attempts to exercise control over another person and healthy attempts to control me."

The story makes sense to me. It fits nicely with many stories the storyteller has told me in the past. The storyteller's stories always make sense when it tells them.

Until they don't.

I read some words on the computer screen about the image.
Moving toward the center is not a spectrum of gaining or losing control. The reality is, we can move away from aggression and toward assertiveness and our control improves.
I notice a cluster of feelings that is familiar. I've labeled them "confusion." I don't like how they feel. I see an image of two rings of different colors with a clear boundary. I see words that describe a transition with no clear boundary.

The story teller looks uncomfortable and impatient. It repeats its story about the image, a little more forcefully. It repeats stories that the story about the image fits so neatly into, even more forcefully. But the words won't fit with the story about the image. The story teller appears agitated and frustrated. I feel agitated and frustrated.

Then something happens. I see a different version of the image. Not on the screen, but in what the storyteller tells me is my imagination. The words are still in the same place. But the two rings are one ring. The color is darkest at the outer edge of the ring and lightest at the inner edge. There is no sharp boundary between light and dark or between the two words. The shade gradually lightens as my mind's eye traces a line from the outer edge to the inner edge.

And, like a light switch, the confusion disappears. The storyteller's agitation disappears. It smiles at me and says "I'm going to tell you a better story." And it does. This is a thing the storyteller does from time to time. "There is no sharp boundary between aggression and assertion. It's a gradual change in something. And the something is not control. The something is intensity." The old story about the picture disappears and the new story snaps neatly into its place. And the picture in my mind replaces the picture on the computer screen. And both fit better with all the other stories the storyteller has told.

I feel relaxed. I feel happy. I have a bundle of feelings that I label "understanding." "What just happened?" I ask. The storyteller smiles. "The label for that is epiphany." And it begins to tell me a story about epiphany.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Binger »

Wow, Res.

Sounds like a heck of an experience.

The Aggression and Assertiveness transition, to me, or for me, is one that takes a lot of practice. Being assertive requires a lot of awareness and thought sometimes. Naturally, I will fight or use aggression to reject someone's terms. I have to think about my responses and choices more to be assertive.

In various compartmentalized situations and in my life, where aggression did not serve me, I would just quit, give up, and not stay in the game. Instead of dialing it back and not being extremely selfish, or extremely shameless - I would just give up, or submit, and be extremely selfless and extremely conscientious about it.

Think of it like this - If I can't control this with my force my way, then you do it and you do it all and you do it your way. No hard feelings. Where have you seen me do this...... uh, ...... fairly obvious, right? If I can't do it my way, I am just going to delete my posts and hand it over to you. People do this in careers and families and relationships. They don't just become less aggressive, they pick another damn extreme when the extreme aggression does not work. When aggression does not work, they play the victimization card. When that does not work, they act too cool to care (Imitation). When they can't manipulate or force or fake their way in, they give up or submit.

What we should or could be experimenting with is not just to be less shameless and less selfish, if those are our orientations. We are trying to be more selfless without being extreme if our nature is to be selfish. We are trying to be more conscientious, if our nature is to be shameless. Try and imagine a brutal force of an A-hole learning to surrender to the situation and the facts, rather than break it.
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Binger »

There are several items pinned in this thread. I know conditions is one of them. I believe, hopefully correctly, that passive aggression is one of the pins too.

I am seeing from this conversation and the PG-13 version that there is still come questions about the axes, Self and Care, and also about the perimeter behaviors of the four quadrants created by this dual axis. I think we should dive a bit deeper on these quadrants before we get to the pinned items.


Surrender: Better than Submission
We surrender often, so this concept shouldn’t be new. When it’s cold outside, we surrender to the elements and find a coat. When we’re ill, we surrender to the chills and fever. We surrender to our need for food when hungry, water when thirsty, rest when tired. When it comes to nature, we respond to most limits and circumstances quite gracefully. If it is too damn cold, we surrender to that. When you’re thirsty, your body isn’t “wrong” or “bad”—it’s telling you what you need. It’s just a fact. You don’t resist or rationalize it away; you just drink something.

But when it comes to our emotional needs and limits? We shall never surrender, and never admit defeat! This is the battle cry when men conflate healthy surrender with cringey submission and decide to write off everything that isn’t obstinate resistance as a failure of manhood. BS. Surrendering doesn’t make you weak, or a loser, or any of that nonsense. That’s not what it is. Not at all.

Surrender is accepting reality.
Surrender is authentic.
Surrender is owning your stuff.

We’ve all heard that the truth will set you free, but it’s not truth itself that frees you, it’s your relationship to the truth. Surrendering to the truth will set you free. Surrender is the first step in finding out what’s real, knowing that you don’t know, that you don’t have the answers. It is a ridiculous notion that “I don’t know” is a cowardly response. If not knowing is the authentic truth, surrender to that fact.

Some confusion in distinguishing between surrender and submission is understandable. After all, the same basic motivation that leads to surrender—namely, selfless conscientiousness—is what overwhelms the submissive archetype. The selfish archetypes, and also the d-bag, on the other hand, are ruled by motivations that drive them to fight against reality, a fight they can’t win. Their path back to center will involve learning to surrender.

Surrender is not giving up or quitting before the situation requires it. It’s an interest in, and a respect for, the truth of the situation. The clarity and confidence that comes from accepting that truth can give rise to other healthy, adaptive skills, like assertiveness. For example, it can be terrifying to run out of money, but surrendering to the fact that you’re scared allows you to distinguish your fear from the other facts, which you’re then able to deal with effectively, each in turn, rather than running or hiding from them.

Triggers
hit in a variety of ways. That’s life. As humans, our first response to emotional pain, discomfort, and uncertainty is to resist them. But as the psychiatrist Carl Jung famously said, “What we resist not only persists, but will grow in size.”

I’m not saying surrendering is simple, especially in relationships. It’s sometimes easier to label another person “wrong” than to listen to them, hear what they’re actually saying, and deal with reality. Instead of surrendering, we too often lay this on people:

· Don’t take it that way.
· You’re crazy.
· What’s wrong with you?
· Are you still caught up in that fight we had last week?
· Why don’t you just change?
· Hand wave/eye roll/exasperated sigh
· Meme, derail, distraction

In real life, not just on an online forum, this rejection or dismissal of someone else’s feelings is cruel. In real life, we all want to be seen and accepted in what we’re feeling. This applies to everyone—and I mean everyone. If I’m upset and you tell me that “there’s no reason to be upset,” what the hell can I do with that?

Without surrender, resentment builds up, and distance creeps in. Unproductive fights happen. Or things get suppressed, nothing is ever resolved, and the connection weakens.

But I can’t just surrender, you may be thinking, because:

· If I surrender, I’ll look weak.
· If I surrender, I’ll seem stupid.
· If I surrender, I’m _______________.

Nope. If you surrender, life will get a great deal easier. As Byron Katie famously said, “When I argue with reality I lose—but only 100% of the time.” When the alternative is another pointless argument with yourself, surrendering to the facts is the better choice.

Here is another fallacy. "If I surrender to the way things are, it means accepting that they’ll always be this way." This is one of the biggest, most consistent misunderstandings. Surrendering isn’t a fatalistic excuse for complacency; it doesn’t mean resigning yourself to a bad world situation. Surrendering means acknowledging, and feeling the impact of, the facts and the truth. Submitting to something means being subjected to it; surrendering to something means truly seeing and accepting it. Once you see it, you can change it. You can’t change what you deny exists.
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Binger »

Hey Res. I am going to try speaking vulnerably here.

This feels like a very fragile topic with you; you Res in red ink, you Res in black ink, and you Res the person with a real name and a real life and a real family. I have to own that in case it feels like my posts on this topic are formal and lack the raw nature of other posts. And, maybe, this should not be a public conversation. Oh well, here goes...

This sub-topic feels personal with me, and my conversations or connections with you, because to me it felt like one or the other or both of us were speaking past each other and failing to see what was the reality of the forum. On the one hand, you saw it as a living room of your people and your favorite characters. I saw it as a silo of democrats, including one with right-wing friends, with conditions put on anyone that dared to invade their insiders club. Reality was probably somewhere in the middle. And as long as we were not surrendering to ANY other experience than our own, there could be, and would be, nothing but metaphorical pain or conflict.

Our conversations and interactions moved into two cross sections rather than intersections. When you sought to care for your self (black ink) and the board (red ink), I hit you and the board with a rejection that was ugly and inflammatory. I was triggered, successfully. I was triggering, successfully. When I sought to address my issues or interests in a variety of ways, I was met by revived rule applications, new moderators, more rule changes, new forums, more editing and chopping and bans. Nothing was ever wrong with the reactions I got, really. They were mostly predictable, really. It is a forum of avatars, it can't really be wrong. But clearly, there was/is almost zero connection happening.

It may be that connections will not happen. Some relationships expire. Some forms of entertainment get exhausted. I think surrendering to those facts matter too.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Searching for the missing pieces of the Bothell Codex

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Res Ipsa »

Binger wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:58 pm
Hey Res. I am going to try speaking vulnerably here.

This feels like a very fragile topic with you; you Res in red ink, you Res in black ink, and you Res the person with a real name and a real life and a real family. I have to own that in case it feels like my posts on this topic are formal and lack the raw nature of other posts. And, maybe, this should not be a public conversation. Oh well, here goes...

This sub-topic feels personal with me, and my conversations or connections with you, because to me it felt like one or the other or both of us were speaking past each other and failing to see what was the reality of the forum. On the one hand, you saw it as a living room of your people and your favorite characters. I saw it as a silo of democrats, including one with right-wing friends, with conditions put on anyone that dared to invade their insiders club. Reality was probably somewhere in the middle. And as long as we were not surrendering to ANY other experience than our own, there could be, and would be, nothing but metaphorical pain or conflict.

Our conversations and interactions moved into two cross sections rather than intersections. When you sought to care for your self (black ink) and the board (red ink), I hit you and the board with a rejection that was ugly and inflammatory. I was triggered, successfully. I was triggering, successfully. When I sought to address my issues or interests in a variety of ways, I was met by revived rule applications, new moderators, more rule changes, new forums, more editing and chopping and bans. Nothing was ever wrong with the reactions I got, really. They were mostly predictable, really. It is a forum of avatars, it can't really be wrong. But clearly, there was/is almost zero connection happening.

It may be that connections will not happen. Some relationships expire. Some forms of entertainment get exhausted. I think surrendering to those facts matter too.
Thanks for that, Binger. Your description of our interactions outside of this thread resonates with me. I think we both entered this thread with the understanding that it was an experiment that had more to do with process than endpoints. One of the stories my brain tells me is that each and every interaction with another person changes me in ways i'm not consciously aware. In real life, I make a conscious effort to spend time and interact with people where the interaction helps me like myself. This conversation is like that. The other interactions have the opposite feeling.

I have no expectation as to whether this interaction will change the nature of our interactions outside of this thread. It will or it won't. I think surrenduring to the facts you described makes perfect sense.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5612
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Searching for the missing pieces of the Bothell Codex

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Res Ipsa »

Binger, reading over the Paradise split, I have a couple of thoughts. You and I have been referring to the image as the model. But, really, the model is a a simplified description of human interactions. The image is a visual depiction of model intended to help illustrate how the model works. I think the distinction hasn't been important in our discussions, because referring to the image as the model rather than the visual depiction of the model is convenient, and we both understand the differences.

But the distinction can sometimes be important. As I wrote in the Meditation and Coda, the image led me to misunderstand part of how the model works. Looking at the image, I thought of aggressive-assertive as a distinction, separated by a boundary. But that's not consistent with the model, which portrays aggressive and assertive as existing along a continuum where what is changing is intensity. In that context, the image led me a wrong conclusion. But that doesn't mean the image is wrong or bad -- just that part of it was not helpful to me in understanding the model. So, sometimes the distinction between the model and the image is important.

Also, if I understand it correctly, the model is generally descriptive and not judgmental. It describes the four pairs of reaction-responses in terms of the two axes. Then it uses the archetypes as examples of what each reaction/response pair looks like in everyday interactions. I suppose one could choose to characterize the extreme reactions as "negative" and the more balanced "responses" as "positive," but I don't understand the model as applying those kinds of judgments.

I see these kinds of analytical models as tools. Keeping in mind the saying that no models are accurate but some models are useful, the important question when evaluating the model is whether it is useful -- helps some folks understand their interactions with others better. I can see how it could potentially do that. First, experiencing how you react to someone else as a choice could help a person covid extreme reactions that impede communications. Second, in choosing how to respond, the model provides a kind of road map of choices. Third, if two people who interact frequently decide the model is helpful to them, it gives them a common set of concepts and vocabulary they can use as a scaffolding to discuss communications between them. I think you and are already doing that a little, and I think it helps me understand more clearly some of your comments to me.

It's too early for me to say anything other than I see the potential for the model to be helpful. Until I see the finished product and road test it a little, I don't think I have the basis to draw any firm conclusion.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 4802
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: Heart is in Ukraine

Re: Memes and stuff

Post by Jersey Girl »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:34 pm
But, really, the model is a a simplified description of human interactions.
Do you think that the "model" is complete?
Slava Ukraini!
Post Reply