Why do people shoot the messenger?

[Jahmaine]

Why is it that pretty much everyone find it’s very difficult or overwhelming to just accept an individual for who they are and their work and presentation style; if they don’t present it in a particular style that they like then they supposedly aren’t able to engage or interact with the content. 

An example would be Leo, some people find his style “too monotone ”and focus on that, rather than seeing the value in the video.

or someone like Alex Jones, understandable his character can be a bit OTT, but for some people it can be an impossibility to watch him and extrapolate what’s true from the character, which again is just a particular presentation style

; this doesn’t mean that I’m either of these situations that they’re both always true and have to blindly believe; I’m more focused on the mechanism, why don’t people see the value in things? - in the abundance of water, the fool is thirsty. Smh.

[Nak Khid]

so somewhere in between a Leo and an Alex Jones might be the best delivery style

-assuming the message is valuable

[Jahmaine]

It’s doesn’t have to just be them two, I’m talking about the principal itself; someone could listen to Bob Marley but because they dislike reggae, they don’t hear the messsge of the song, their focus is more on the dislike for the genre

[Jahmaine]

Why do some people not like Dan Pena soo much, his character, that they can’t see the difference between what’s true and what’s a belief. 

Spiral dynamics yellow 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Jahmaine

[Lento]

Not everyone is an intellectual, even intellectuals themselves are not really intellectual.

All thoughts, values, truths, beliefs, models, principles, etc.. are grounded in emotions, and some people at some times happen to be less sensitive to or less aware of their emotions, so they fool themselves thinking that they're actually looking for what's important (value), where that's not necessarily the case at all.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Lento

[Preety_India]

It's a mortal fear that grips the person who is still in the stage orange womb. They need a lot of growing up to develop unconditional acceptance 

Welcome to the world of bias and prejudice. 

And also... Self righteousness 

[V-8]

All those who "shoot the messenger" are caterpillars.

"At the end of the day you're either a caterpillar or a butterfly, and the only way anyone will ever have even the slightest sense of what it means to be a butterfly is to become one. There are no butterfly experts among the caterpillars, despite innumerable claims to the contrary" - Jed McKenna

Although I don't consider Yellow (SD 7) a butterfly, but rather those in metamorphosis,...Yellow (SD 7) has been said to be open to learning at any time and from any source,  like bees that gather nectar from many flowers.  

Quotations and aphorisms can serve as a mentoring device for those who venture into the liminal zone between duality’s sciential sentience and the sapiential consciousness of authentic spirituality.

“To read quotations is to live in a planet with multiple suns!”  Mehmet Murat Ildan

The quotes I use are never OUT OF CONTEXT with the context in which I'm using them. Using  quotes both distances me from the label of being a teacher, and they often irritate narrow-minded people.  Overall I'd like to connect with those who catch the point of the message, instead of drifting off with some predispositions about the messenger.  

"Many see a quote, and immediately form judgments about the user or the author of quote, and yet for those serious about Higher Conscious awareness,  a quote is only discerned within the context the user was using it. "   Gata de Aztlán

“Focusing on a particular messenger (guru teacher) can be a major distraction on the spiritual path to self-liberation; it can take away from the importance of the message. The Message Is ‘Everything’.”  Anon I mus

Because so many have a predisposed negativity towards the messenger, I often like to separate message from the messenger; thus allowing for a more open-minded dialogue.

"Following a recent State of the Union speech by President Trump, students at John Jay College were asked their opinions to a few selected quotations.  The students responded unanimously, and reacting negatively, described them as warmongering, aggressive, and immature.  Then the pollsters revealed that the quotes were actually from a previous SOTU speech of President Obama, the participants were surprised by theie responses."    Cabot Phillips, Campus Reform

Quotes can arouse and open new ways of seeing or observing. Just because I agree with U.S. President Ulysses Grant for saying that 'church property should be supported entirely by private contributions to keep church and state forever separate,' does not mean going into a debate about the life of Mr. Grant.  Quotations should be about the message within the quotation, not the profile of the messenger.

“In the garden of literature, the highest and the most charismatic flowers are always the quotations.”  Mehmet Murat Ildan

Serious seekers don't get obsessed or anally retentive over a messenger of a quote,...serious seekers look at the quote, and note if it (not the author) has value to the conversation.

“A good quote is a beautiful bird! Wherever you meet with it, you will start flying with it!”   Mehmet Murat Ildan

"Until you spread your wings, you'll have no idea how far you can fly."  Napoleon Bonaparte

[Lento]

@V-8

Man, you're a blessing! ♥️

[Nahm]

There is tremendous value in people who do not readily see the value in things.

[Jahmaine]

@V-8 That is exactly what it is. Perfect examples.  

 

@Nahm I understand it’s useful, was just asking why it happens. 

[Nahm]

@Jahmaine Right. It’s entirely eye of the beholder. (You’re the beholder)

[Conscious life]

The messagner is the devil. He always came to destroy weak ego. 

[remember]

this title or you could say phenomenon triggers an observation i made on a more personal level. so to say i sometimes realize that i destroy peoples mood when i make them aware about a basic problem in their concepts, or tell them that something won`t work that way because of physical reason, or tell them a relative behaved less nice than their picture of them, or in general destroy a rose colored idea, even though it might just be a small one. these situations are not biased situations just situations where i hand some information over, i`m sometimes even extra careful because i already know - difficult topic. still they get mad at me, some more some less. these people don`t prefer running blindly into a bad situation, but they make the messanger responsible for removing their blindfold. i had a similar scene for that in my imagination: why does the messenger get stoned? i always pictured some emperor nero or so, who gets furious because he got disturbed by a bad message (about loosing war or so) and then letting the poor messenger get stoned - maybe like in an asterix cartoon. throw her to the lions!

[V-8]

1 hour ago, remember said:

 they make the messanger responsible for removing their blindfold. i had a similar scene for that in my imagination: why does the messenger get stoned? i always pictured some emperor nero or so, who gets furious because he got disturbed by a bad message (about loosing war or so) and then letting the poor messenger get stoned - maybe like in an asterix cartoon. throw her to the lions!

Yes,...sentient beings insist on exposing the messenger,...but why?   Most messengers are fully unlightened,...so what.  

For example, I find the high functioning T.S. Eliot to be pathetic,...yet like his quote, "Human kind cannot bear very much reality."  I'm quite certain that T. S. Eliot didn't have the slightest notion of what that pointed to in a Spiral Dynamics context,...only his own Absolutist point of view.

As for Nero,....the claim by devotional Christians as to Jesus Christ’s historicity in Tacitus’ Annals 15.44,  comment on how Emperor Nero persecuted Christians,...however, the Christians who were persecuted after Rome’s fire of 64 CE were actually Gnostic Christians, worshipers of Sarapis, not followers of Jesus or Paul. It was these Christians, the original Christians, whom the author of the second-century Gospel of Matthew called false Christians.  What are known as today's Christians appropriated the name Christianity in the 2nd Century CE, as they lifted terms from most of the cultures that they absorbed.

As you can read, in his letter to the Consul Servianus, Hadrian (71–138 CE),  who was the governor of Syria under Trajan, he called the Sarapian leaders “bishops of Christ.”   Up until the beginning of the Second Century, the Egypto-Greek Sarapians, including those in Syria, called themselves Christians and bishops of Christ.  There was no reason for Rome to kill the followers of Paul and the Gospels which arose from Mark.

Paul's Christianity is a pro-Roman religion. Did not Paul say that Roman magistrates were only a threat to evildoers or that the man who rebels against his master is opposing God’s will? What Roman would want to persecute the philosophy that said that tax collectors are God’s ministers (Romans 13:6)? It was the Jewish zealots and Gnostic Christians who threatened Rome, not the anti-Gnostic Paulines and later invented Christians.

[remember]

@V-8 well, that`s really outside my field of expertise - maybe you could find someone who is willing to stone you for that.

[Jahmaine]

On 18/12/2019 at 6:05 PM, remember said:

these situations are not biased situations just situations where i hand some information over, i`m sometimes even extra careful because i already know - difficult topic. still they get mad at me, some more some less. these people don`t prefer running blindly into a bad situation, but they make the messanger responsible for removing their blindfold.

I know exactly the feeling, I understand where they’re coming from but to dismiss valuable information because you don’t like the character, it’s astonishing. Just take what’s helpful and move on. 

Dan Pena can be difficult for some people, but he does speak a lot of valid points.

[Dan502]

People shoot the messenger because they've thus far been able to survive "successfully" enough (or haven't yet realised otherwise) while working with a blunt axe.

"My axe is blunt? No it isn't! YOUR axe is blunt! Look how many trees I chopped down. Obviously some of them had animals in them; nobody's perfect. Well how many trees did YOU chop down?  You'll never chop down as many trees as me. Besides mine's bigger anyway. I don't care, I know I'm right. It doesn't matter anyway. Plus I'm too busy to think about this right now. Let's agree to disagree... ~walks away~ ... stupid messenger..."

Edited December 22, 2019 by Dan502

[remember]

mhhh in most cases it`s probably self bias and i guess our egos don`t like critique, more or less, that is as long as we refer everything to our self evaluation - one of the most difficult behaviour to learn is sometimes to let people do their thing the way they want to and are used to do even though we see it`s going the wrong direction. and i`m much better in it since i learn to let go. one of my problems is that i can handle a discussion about how to do something different in a sense of evaluating which way is maybe the more progressive in a situation, or which perspective enriches mine even though there are minor differences in worldview. but it gets unrelatively complicated if people take critique about the case personally. it then seems as if it`s the whole person who stands to disposition and every new perspective is a critique and attack rather than a new perspective. i guess this is like most of the live and let live problems, a survival issue and can be solved in some diplomatic sense not until at least dipping the pinky into yellow.

but more importantly is how do we learn to handle these situations - how do we get less triggered and learn to solve these topics? how to talk to people who like to throw with stones, even while sitting in a house of glass? in the past i liked to resolve it with using the same spiral colour they are at - but sometimes now i am to lazy for that. despite that it`s also not always the best approach.

although i also see that when talking about stoning people who are more speaking in the public, maybe there needs to be again a completely different approach and deeper analysis about what the topics are that stand to disposition. i guess there is a lot of red and blue and orange in these kind of phenomenons whatever spiral colour the messenger has. so how to integrate major differences in worldview?

Edited December 22, 2019 by remember