Semantics

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by The Necromancer

I don't understand how shame is associated with loneliness and isolation.

You would need to get some books about it - maybe from a library - to understand how it works. All I can say is that Toxic Shame causes it's victims to feel not good enough and lonely. It can also make the victim feel and believe that they are better than others and so the victim becomes isolated and lonely. But that's just a snippet of what Shame does.

I can understand it when people say "I am not good enough to be with others" but not when it's "I am good enough, maybe too good for others and that's why I am totally left out of everything".

Shame comes in two forms: less than others and better than others so it makes the victim feel and BELIEVE they are either better or worse and that produces corresponding effects such as loneliness, isolation, bad communications, etc.

Maybe "shame" is one of those subconscious emotions that people are not even aware they are experiencing, because if you were to ask me "do you feel shame?", I can honestly, in my heart of hearts say 'no, I do not'.

You have hit the nail on the head! Shame is generally an unconscious, secret feeling or set of beliefs that are INSTALLED in us during our very early childhood when we do not know it's happening and have no experience to STOP IT. We are open and innocent so whatever signficant others say to or show us is accepted as TRUE and/or REAL.

Then it becomes "am I ashamed because somebody else says I am?"

As an innocent, open child, this will be our TRUTH and we will take it as a FACT and begin living a SHAME-BASED life - just like those who conditioned us to feel ASHAMED or SUPERIOR or BOTH!

and "what would they know about it anyway?"

A small, innocent child will not question the adult authority and will SWALLOW whatever the adult says or does in most cases which is why and how toxic shame is subtly slipped inside of most of us.

and "what gives them the authority to say I am 'ashamed' or 'fearful?"

Often they do not even know that they are infecting the small, innocent child with their own toxic shame so it is unwittingly passed from generation to generation without anyone even noticing what's happening.

and "Is it just what another person only believes about me, irrespective of whether it is true or not for me?" and on and on this goes.

Mostly these are unconscious beliefs and behaviors that older folks never question and simply inject into the innocent children as "natural and normal" beliefs and behaviors that very few cultures ever examine or question - like the Santa Clause myths.

In the end I go "STOP IT, I am NOT afraid, ashamed or any of these emotional labels being placed upon me".

Yes, that is one way to confront and stop toxic shame AFTER it has been injected into you from early childhood. Most folks just go on with their lives without ever questioning the stuff their parents and others injected into them as little kids.

However, if shame is an emotion I am not consciously aware of,

The main problem of toxic shame is that it's victims are rarely aware of it and it's effects in their lives. Robber just go on robbing. Politicians just go on LYING & CHEATING. Perverts just go on offending children and women. Killers just go on killing. Arsonists just go on setting fires, etc. It's the rare person who ever stops to ask: Why am I doing this stuff?

It's like trying to pass a message down the line and the 'end message' is nowhere near the original one sent, because people will only repeat what they thought they heard, or put their own little spin on it. It is called cognitive bias

.
And that is also one of the aspects of Toxic Shame.

So, if you think I am 'ashamed' you are entitled. If I think I am 'not ashamed', I am entitled...and in the end, neither of us nor anybody else out there (and I CAN use the plural in this regard) would be any the wiser as to the reason why I project my experiences or my mental state whilst doing so. *hugs*

IMO, all that matters is what I think and believe about my self and my behaviors and, if I come to recognize the negative effects of the toxic shame that my parents and some others injected into me so long ago, I can either live with it and perhaps pass it to the next generation, try to undo the damages with therapy or spirituality or commit suicide! Well there may be some other alternatives such as: enter a monastery or ashram, turn to drugs or self hypnosis or ??? Many folks, like my dad, try to deal with Shame by DRINKING, using DRUGS, over EATING or SEX.
It all begins with me seeing that I am infected with my family's Toxic Shame and then go from there. If it turns out to be some kind of genetic thing or disorder, I'd still look for a solution before killing my self or be killed by the cops.

[Shivani Devi]

Thing is, lets say I am not ashamed...just entertain that thought. Will somebody saying "you are ashamed and you should feel shame" make me feel it if I am not ashamed?

Then of course the next step will be "the reason why you do not feel shame is because you are in denial of it".

So, it has gone from one emotion I do not feel to two, shame AND denial...and on and on this goes until I am like "hey, I didn't even know I was feeling all these things...yeah, maybe that is because I am not".

However, I understand this all now anyway. What you are referring to, only applies to the neurotypical or 'normal' brain functioning and human emotion responses. I am Autistic, which means I have a huge sign across my forehead which reads "does not apply".

So, you are right and I am right, according to how the brain has been wired since birth.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jimrich

... I know this is just about semantics but I personally prefer and can HONOR statements that come from someone's own, direct experiences rather than speeches and pompous quotes, etc.

Pride and conceit are human traits not equally prevalent in different individuals. Depending on the prevalence of these the individually preferred kinds of speech may be different.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by jimrich

Religion is for the ego. Spirituality is for the Spirit.
I'd say the use of "we" comes from being Shame-based"
For me, Religion is the Ego's path to safety
IMO, the "spiritual" person no longer carries the burdens of egoic Shame

I agree with these, very insightful, very important points if one wishes to come to an understanding of the inner motivations behind peoples' chosen belief paths. I often say, I'm not interested in peoples' beliefs -- we all have them -- I'm interested in people and what it is that motivates their thinking and beliefs.

[Jyotir]

Hi jimrich,

I get your gripe because I feel your pain - been there; done that.

Originally Posted by jimrich

I just came from a local meeting of seekers and experienced non-dualists and noticed a tendency to make speeches, quote major spiritual teachers BUT rarely ever use the 'I' word to speak of their own, direct experiences and/or understandings.

All well and good as your observation, your presumption, your conclusion, implying your preference - and by contrast, what is not. But some people do see the world and their life-experience impersonally, abstractly, generalized, through ‘broad strokes’. And in the given context, some of what you describe would seem normal as attributed to the fact that these people in question are designated - or view themselves as - presenters or teachers of some kind, and perhaps why they are there.

Induction or deduction? Personal or impersonal? Which is ‘better’? Both or either are two sides of the same non-dual coin, which exists by virtue of its own division into those two halves. iow - You are merely stating your own personal preference by assuming it to be preferable. And it may be. And that may change tomorrow...

I come from a background of sharing meetings in support groups so, using the 'I' word is both easy and also way more significant to me than listening to pompous lectures, theories or disguised advice from self appointed authorities so some "spiritual" meetings are both irritating and uninformative.

Again, a contrast based on your own experience, further derived (induced) as a preference.
You then base judgments of others upon those preferences which are based on individual personal experience, and as a result, the derision of others’ offerings as “pompous” (inferring superior attitude), “disguised” (imputing negative motive), “self-appointed” (indicating arrogance), “ “spiritual” ” (seeming to imply pretension).

Meanwhile, “irritating” (an affront to preference), and “uninformative” (a conclusion based on comparison to your own limited knowledge base) are pretty straight-forward invalidations - Yet, amazingly - you go to attend these events. Why? To search for what fulfills your own expectations? e.g. Expecting the world to reflect your own experiences, attitudes and conclusions? To report on your own shattered yet necessarily unreasonable expectations? Just asking rhetorically. But I know that's not really why, because there is something deeper at play.

What is common to the whole thing, whichever aspect is emphasized by preference, whether embodied as others’ presentation or your own preference, is the underlying and emergent spiritual aspiration, and the inspiration available within any experience that reflects it. There is always a positive ‘take-away’ available if not clouded by divisive judgment. That is what needs attention, concentration, and commitment. The inspiration of the emerging aspiration, not the divisive judgment...just so we're clear about why you posted this in the non-dual forum!

And that helps to facilitate discrimination of what you choose to utilize in a practical sense, for yourself. Therefore it is possible to find inspiration even in what you cannot use personally, even if in oneness with others who do utilize 'it' or 'whatever'. To appreciate what is not your preference. To celebrate and be grateful for others’ preferences within the general aspiration of humanity. It is literally the presentation of options for your own use and benefit. So use what works - don‘t use what doesn’t work - that’s a double negative and that ain‘t no positive.

If others could or would just talk about their own direct, personal and ACTUAL experiences with awakening, realizing, knowing, doing, feeling, understanding, I could learn a lot from that and take away a lot more from such simple HONESTY.

But they are - its just not in a particular form you wish to be emphasized.

The pompous though emotionally safer use of words like: we, you, they, them, us, others, all, everyone, etc. rather than the more honest and authoritative terms such as: I, me, my, mine, my self, for me, etc. work a lot better for me and gives the speaker some credibility.

See how the former bolded is the basis for the latter? Meanwhile in a larger perspective - it all works for somebody, and really - it’s therefore all credible.

I'd much rather hear or read of someone's own, personal awakening than have them tell me how it's going to be or feel for me, us, them, we or you.

Then keep exploring or write it yourself, which is basically the same thing. However…

There is also a way in which those same preferences (bolded) of yours - negated by contrast - are honest from another viewpoint - as simply inductive vs. deductive conclusions, and essentially transitory anyway. As long as we are in the non-dual forum…both could be seen as fallacies. In that case, why argue over which preference is the so-called ‘more real’ fallacy?

"I am that" carries way more authority and meaning for me than to be told "YOU ARE THAT! ...or We are that, etc." by some self made authority figure. I know this is just about semantics but I personally prefer and can HONOR statements that come from someone's own, direct experiences rather than speeches and pompous quotes, etc.

Its about semantics and more. People do choose words that are approximations of attitudes, orientations and intentions. Therefore it is possible that these generalities voiced by others are actual subjective conclusions they have reached or intuited.

This sentiment about honoring (one’s own preference) is echoed on many threads here at SF. Accordingly, people seem to have a demonstrated preference for endless discussion and argument over what amounts to posturing their personal preference as The Truth, while incredibly, at the same time, often finding the need to assert that ‘there is no truth’, etc., OR more incredibly, negating and invalidating others’ same or equivalent - what amounts to a battle of mutually ignorant opinion.

Meanwhile, simple acceptance of others’ position as-it-is, in-the-moment relieves the necessity of reaction, which is a dualistic separative impulse.

In general, the acceptance of others’ benign preference does not intrinsically negate one’s own. Just sayin…

~ J

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

[indent][color="Navy"]Hi jimrich,
I get your gripe because I feel your pain - been there; done that.

Been where and done what?.
jim

[Baile]

Originally Posted by jimrich

Been where and done what?

Irritation with pompous people who use emotionally safe words and expressions, instead of simple honesty. Honestly, it's pretty simple as I see it.

[jimrich]

I just came from a Grief Recovery meeting where once again the problem of words and semantics reared it's ugly head although we did not get into a fight over the words but misunderstanding and misinterpretations were all over the place. I refrained from trying to help others understand my words since it didn't seem all that important. It still feels hurtful to have someone misuse my words but, since we are not married, I did not feel a need to CORRECT those who misused my words and phrases and they were obviously not out to hurt me as often happens in forums. I once read a book where each and every word was carefully examined, explained and defined to make the entire text as clear as possible. This deeply impressed me and I could see that, unless someone can or will go very deeply into a topic or thought, all kinds of misunderstanding and hurt feelings can happen. My late wife and I got very good at being clear and real with each other due to us being in therapy and our "reality checks" paid off over and over as we learned how to honestly say what we really mean in clear and functional terms while staying with good will in the process. I have found it very difficult if not impossible to go that deeply with strangers since most folks cannot say what they really mean and will become very defensive and hostile if questioned beyond a certain point. Small talk is the norm and asking questions usually invites defenses and hostility.

[shiningstars]

Originally Posted by Starman

I have often thought about this and came to the conclusion that most people live their lives vicariously through other people. They identify with the characteristics of others, that person is their role model, their hero, their savior. It would be wonderful though if we could all speak in an original voice, our own, about our own experiences.

I have used the experiences of others which have stood the test of time as a reference, or template, for my own experiences. We pass on knowledge by sharing our experience as related to the experiences of others. This is how we come up with the term "normal." Normal is what the majority of people are doing or how they function; normal is what we see the most in our environment; normal is what gives us "abnormal." It is based on the experience of others, and then most people compare and contrast their own experience with that designation of "normal."

I believe that we are all inter, and intra, related and part of my learning and growing is dependent on the experiences of others; they are as one possible example of what I might, or have, encountered. My story of life is interwoven with the story of others, but they are not the authority on my life. I am my own authority even to the extent that I turn my authority over to others, a higher power, etc., or refer to some noted person as an authority; for even in giving it away I have exercised my authority to make a choice.

You are so beautiful, Starman.

Ever your fan.

[Joe Mc]

Originally Posted by jimrich

I just came from a Grief Recovery meeting where once again the problem of words and semantics reared it's ugly head although we did not get into a fight over the words but misunderstanding and misinterpretations were all over the place. I refrained from trying to help others understand my words since it didn't seem all that important. It still feels hurtful to have someone misuse my words but, since we are not married, I did not feel a need to CORRECT those who misused my words and phrases and they were obviously not out to hurt me as often happens in forums. I once read a book where each and every word was carefully examined, explained and defined to make the entire text as clear as possible. This deeply impressed me and I could see that, unless someone can or will go very deeply into a topic or thought, all kinds of misunderstanding and hurt feelings can happen. My late wife and I got very good at being clear and real with each other due to us being in therapy and our "reality checks" paid off over and over as we learned how to honestly say what we really mean in clear and functional terms while staying with good will in the process. I have found it very difficult if not impossible to go that deeply with strangers since most folks cannot say what they really mean and will become very defensive and hostile if questioned beyond a certain point. Small talk is the norm and asking questions usually invites defenses and hostility.

I get the feeling from what you say Jim, that your reliance on the use of words in a particular format, therefore, observation, analysis, argumentation is part of your conditioning that you haven't come to terms with yet. Do you sing ? Perhaps you need to walk into the middle of the street and start singing for awhile. This too involves the use of words too ?

I think you have been conditioned somewhere in your past to over rely on language to get to the bottom of things ? For example, someone can be brought up in legalistic environment, both parents are lawyers etc. and this could impinge on how they relate to language in a good or bad way. Probably a silly example I know but nevertheless, the amount of people I have run across so far in my life who reckon they are smart, educated, worded, around language is incredible and they usually are never the Charles ****ens -D ickens ( lol the obscene language detector doesn't approve )of the world or the Mark Twains. But there is really a pride there isn't there.

As for people dropping personal pronouns as if it brought them closer to something we term non duality. Well as has been stated already, it's just downright silly that one. So yes your post there got me thinking really that you have faith in language to solve arguments which I myself don't. This sounds like a rift which existed, a dichotomy of Plato/ Aristotle.. one a believer in poetry and the other a believer in logic. A bit of an over simplification I know but that divide lets say has always been there within human education.

Anyway bye for now Jim.