Friends Who Don't Understand Actualization?

[BeckoningCat]

It has come to my attention lately in my close friendships that people seem to simply not understand actualization.

Case in point, a best friend of mine today got quite offended when, after she detailed to me this news report that had greatly upset her, I said that I did not want to moralize it and was trying to look at it from a neutral perspective. This greatly upset her and she challenged me on whether I thought the circumstance (in this case rape) in the news story were "bad" or not. She got defensive of her world views and said she would be moralizing situations because she is a moral person. Of course, I was more than willing to offer an opinion, but she was wanting me to agree with her on the fact that people in the news story deserved extreme punishment. It just made me uncomfortable. 

What do you do with people who can't wrap their heads around self-development? I am not trying to push my views on people, but I suppose it is evident to them that I am changing. I used to be the kind of person who would go with the flow of the conversation, agree with others about topics they felt emotionally charged over. Now, I no longer have the desire for that and am trying to stay in the middle of the road. The fact is, it's hard NOT to notice (now that I am working on my own self-development) how focused on negativity the people around me are. They want to talk in charged ways about emotional events and get their feelings justified by a third party listener. But if I am looking at things from a non-moralistic perspective, then I am not going to rant and rave about how demonic someone is. I think this disappointed her.  

Many of Leo's recent videos have helped me understand how terrible I was with moralizing the world and now I want to change that. Yet some of the people closest to me seem the most offended by this personal shift. I have been trying to look at these differences through a very open, non-judgemental lens. I do not judge her for how she reacted, but I do wonder what the future of these types of relationships will be? What are your experiences with people like this and what did you realize about them? Did you have any insights that helped? 

[Mal]

@BeckoningCat

Hello, 

This is a universal problem for those of us wise enough to tread the path of self-improvement and self-actualization.

One of my personal favorites in my "interpersonal toolkit" is to take the attitude of "transcend and include".

I'll explain how I do this:

I always use these situations as an excuse for my environment to aid me in my self-actualizing process.  It would be ridiculous of me to judge them for being judgemental of others.  So I include their perspectives as part of what is, but I also know that this perspective that they cling to is not all of their authentic personality.  Every single person has the potential to also rise above their own issues, you just need to assume the position of a unassuming role model.  It's not their fault, it's just how we're all conditioned to be.

Warm Regards

Mal

 

Edited June 7, 2016 by Mal

[BeckoningCat]

8 minutes ago, Mal said:

@BeckoningCat

Hello, 

This is a universal problem for those of us wise enough to tread the path of self-improvement and self-actualization.

One of my personal favorites in my "interpersonal toolkit" is to take the attitude of "transcend and include".

I'll explain how I do this:

I always use these situations as an excuse for my environment to aid me in my self-actualizing process.  It would be ridiculous of me to judge them for being judgemental of others.  So I include their perspectives as part of what is, but I also know that this perspective that they cling to is not all of their authentic personality.  Every single person has the potential to also rise above their own issues, you just need to assume the position of a unassuming role model.  It's not their fault, it's just how we're all conditioned to be.

Warm Regards

Mal

 

Thank you for the reply!

I can understand/relate to what you are saying. I don't judge her for her judgments and I accept it is apart of her personality. I suppose my main issue is just not knowing what to say when the judgments are bounced onto me for thought. For example, I did not want to talk badly of the news story; I wanted to be impartial. But it was because I was impartial (and said I did not want to view the situation as good or bad) that she came to the conclusion that I did not think the story was "bad" in the same sense that she did.

When someone is pressing you for a certain reaction, and then gets emotional when you choose to be impartial how do you respond to them? By saying you do not want to discuss the topic? Or change the subject? I am just curious.

Sometimes I feel like I am expected to react a certain way in a conversation (which in this situation was only implied because of how she responded to me) but often times I would rather be impartial. I would prefer to respond to situations like this in a way that satisfies the other person but also is in alignment with my self-development work. 

[Mal]

1 minute ago, BeckoningCat said:

I would prefer to respond to situations like this in a way that satisfies the other person but also is in alignment with my self-development work. 

Having a perspective on a situation is not "moralizing".  You might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here in relation to this non-moralizing issue.  We cannot get away from having perspective.  Try to remain impartial about everything:  Try repressing your ego and see what happens. Impartiality is an illusion as long as we're in a human body and still breathing - no matter what certain spiritual teachers tell you.

How did you actually feel about the news story?  This would have been your authentic response.  

Once we clear moralizing from our lives we're left with space to develop our emotions to something more than "I like / I don't like".  There is room both cognitively and emotionally for us to have more flavours and colours in our emotional landscape.  Complexity is a mark of a well developed person: the ability to hold many perspectives in relation to a vibrant and multicomplex emotional response.

Don't you love and hate somebody at the same time?  Ever felt that feeling?  

I was not there to see how you were being pressed to identify with your friend's perspective.  People who moralize tend to try to get approval for their worldview from anybody they can find.  I do know that projection plays a big part in this, if a person is projecting they will try to get others to identify with their projections because it feeds their self image.  just say "I see" and then move on.  Don't engage too much, lie, agree with them for a moment and tell them what they want to hear to get them off your back.  Turn away and give the impression that you're losing interest.  Yawn. Do anything to move away if they are being this close minded.  Use what you have in your arsenal against their energy leeching projections.  It does not make you inauthentic to play the game.

If you are strong enough in presence you can challenge them in a friendly way.  Never do it confrontationally though, bear in mind that they are not perfect and that they have just been conditioned this way.  It might serve you both to say:  "Hey, I don't agree entirely with that, but this is my perspective".  Then treat them as if you expect them to come up with something just as deep and profoundly felt.  Challenge her to look past her egoic projections for a moment and delve into her own deep identity for something real.

A long term strategy is to find new friends if you cannot cope with them.  But nobody is that bad!

 

[BeckoningCat]

7 minutes ago, Mal said:

Having a perspective on a situation is not "moralizing".  You might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater here in relation to this non-moralizing issue.  We cannot get away from having perspective.  Try to remain impartial about everything:  Try repressing your ego and see what happens. Impartiality is an illusion as long as we're in a human body and still breathing - no matter what certain spiritual teachers tell you.

How did you actually feel about the news story?  This would have been your authentic response.  

Once we clear moralizing from our lives we're left with space to develop our emotions to something more than "I like / I don't like".  There is room both cognitively and emotionally for us to have more flavours and colours in our emotional landscape.  Complexity is a mark of a well developed person: the ability to hold many perspectives in relation to a vibrant and multicomplex emotional response.

Don't you love and hate somebody at the same time?  Ever felt that feeling?  

I was not there to see how you were being pressed to identify with your friend's perspective.  People who moralize tend to try to get approval for their worldview from anybody they can find.  I do know that projection plays a big part in this, if a person is projecting they will try to get others to identify with their projections because it feeds their self image.  just say "I see" and then move on.  Don't engage too much, lie, agree with them for a moment and tell them what they want to hear to get them off your back.  Turn away and give the impression that you're losing interest.  Yawn. Do anything to move away if they are being this close minded.  Use what you have in your arsenal against their energy leeching projections.  It does not make you inauthentic to play the game.

If you are strong enough in presence you can challenge them in a friendly way.  Never do it confrontationally though, bear in mind that they are not perfect and that they have just been conditioned this way.  It might serve you both to say:  "Hey, I don't agree entirely with that, but this is my perspective".  Then treat them as if you expect them to come up with something just as deep and profoundly felt.  Challenge her to look past her egoic projections for a moment and delve into her own deep identity for something real.

A long term strategy is to find new friends if you cannot cope with them.  But nobody is thaht bad!

Thank you! I think that really helped me with clearing up this little issue. 

I suppose the insights on moralizing were perhaps sleeping on me today; I had forgotten that having a perspective does not equate to moralization. 

The news story in itself made me very uncomfortable. I suppose my authentic reaction would have been to express the discomfort and just provide my opinion on it. 

I still have quite a lot of development work to do in this area, but your post gave me a basis to go off of. I need to give my arsenal more attention because I think I've been neglecting it! At the very least, showing disinterest would be far more authentic than just talking about something I didn't want to talk about. 

Thank you again for your advice. You've clarified a lot of things for me and I think this will do wonders for my relationships as I integrate it into myself

[charlie2dogs]

1 hour ago, BeckoningCat said:

It has come to my attention lately in my close friendships that people seem to simply not understand actualization.

Case in point, a best friend of mine today got quite offended when, after she detailed to me this news report that had greatly upset her, I said that I did not want to moralize it and was trying to look at it from a neutral perspective. This greatly upset her and she challenged me on whether I thought the circumstance (in this case rape) in the news story were "bad" or not. She got defensive of her world views and said she would be moralizing situations because she is a moral person. Of course, I was more than willing to offer an opinion, but she was wanting me to agree with her on the fact that people in the news story deserved extreme punishment. It just made me uncomfortable. 

What do you do with people who can't wrap their heads around self-development? I am not trying to push my views on people, but I suppose it is evident to them that I am changing. I used to be the kind of person who would go with the flow of the conversation, agree with others about topics they felt emotionally charged over. Now, I no longer have the desire for that and am trying to stay in the middle of the road. The fact is, it's hard NOT to notice (now that I am working on my own self-development) how focused on negativity the people around me are. They want to talk in charged ways about emotional events and get their feelings justified by a third party listener. But if I am looking at things from a non-moralistic perspective, then I am not going to rant and rave about how demonic someone is. I think this disappointed her.  

Many of Leo's recent videos have helped me understand how terrible I was with moralizing the world and now I want to change that. Yet some of the people closest to me seem the most offended by this personal shift. I have been trying to look at these differences through a very open, non-judgemental lens. I do not judge her for how she reacted, but I do wonder what the future of these types of relationships will be? What are your experiences with people like this and what did you realize about them? Did you have any insights that helped? 

i never heard you address the issue of rape that she raised, why not?  recognizing a crime against women and children is not moralizing.  Should we just ignore it and pretend it doesnt exist, or that we are untouched by it,  should we just reject people who are concerned about rape of women and children because we are self actualizing?  Do you think anything should be done with people who rape women and children. 

you said: I said that I did not want to moralize it and was trying to look at it from a neutral perspective,  what is there to be neutral about after some woman or young girl was raped.  She had every right to be upset with you.  Just because people are trying to self actualize doesnt mean you stop being  compassionate, caring, and lose all sight of how horrible rape is against women and children and the effects that it leaves on them often for their lifetime.  If everyone felt neutral about every crime and no one wanted to do anything about it, what would the world look like in a few years.  There is no way to be neutral about such crimes as this or any other crime against humans or animals.  This has nothing to do with self actualization.  being neutral concerning crimes like this wont help you become self realized,

 

[Mal]

46 minutes ago, charlie2dogs said:

She had every right to be upset with you. 

@BeckoningCat @charlie2dogs

Beckoning cat.  

I feel it's an appropriate time to point out here that highly developed people (Post-conventional/pluralistic) will feel for both the victim and the rapist - because they are both victims of a larger social problem.  There are also other perspectives to take into account, if you have ever read anything on a liberal left-wing publications forum, you will have been witness to a plethora of articles and responses in regard to the multi-sided nature of rape.  To assume it is only the attacker's fault, and that the victims of rape are only women and children is a sign of a person's inability to healthily cognize and take perspectives.   

This type of highly developed post-conventional reasoning is not widely accepted in our current society because of a widely pervasive phenomena called "conformist" moral stage development.

Yes, there could be a number of reasons why your friend got upset at you, however because you mentioned she exposed her intent, it's most likely a moralizing situation where her moral development is stunted at "conformist morality".  In this particular case she was most likely projecting and getting you to identify with it using subtle or even not so subtle shaming tactics. As we develop we pass through stages of moral development, we transcend and include the content of what came before.  Unfortunately as we climb the ladder of moral development we also find there are increasingly less people able who understand our perspective.

High cognition = compassion.  One cannot develop true compassion unless one develops their cognitive capacity to step inside the shoes of all involved and see a situation through a number of lenses.

Off-loading, instant assumptions and blaming is the realm of conformist projective and introjective "moralizing".  

Warmly

Mal

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2016 by Mal

[charlie2dogs]

9 hours ago, Mal said:

@BeckoningCat @charlie2dogs

Beckoning cat.  

I feel it's an appropriate time to point out here that highly developed people (Post-conventional/pluralistic) will feel for both the victim and the rapist - because they are both victims of a larger social problem.  There are also other perspectives to take into account, if you have ever read anything on a liberal left-wing publications forum, you will have been witness to a plethora of articles and responses in regard to the multi-sided nature of rape.  To assume it is only the attacker's fault, and that the victims of rape are only women and children is a sign of a person's inability to healthily cognize and take perspectives.   

This type of highly developed post-conventional reasoning is not widely accepted in our current society because of a widely pervasive phenomena called "conformist" moral stage development.

Yes, there could be a number of reasons why your friend got upset at you, however because you mentioned she exposed her intent, it's most likely a moralizing situation where her moral development is stunted at "conformist morality".  In this particular case she was most likely projecting and getting you to identify with it using subtle or even not so subtle shaming tactics. As we develop we pass through stages of moral development, we transcend and include the content of what came before.  Unfortunately as we climb the ladder of moral development we also find there are increasingly less people able who understand our perspective.

High cognition = compassion.  One cannot develop true compassion unless one develops their cognitive capacity to step inside the shoes of all involved and see a situation through a number of lenses.

Off-loading, instant assumptions and blaming is the realm of conformist projective and introjective "moralizing".  

Warmly

Mal

 

 

 

you said:  Yes, there could be a number of reasons why your friend got upset at you, however because you mentioned she exposed her intent, it's most likely a moralizing situation where her moral development is stunted at "conformist morality".  In this particular case she was most likely projecting and getting you to identify with it using subtle or even not so subtle shaming tactics

 this could have just been an assumption,  she could have simply been responding to an act of violence committed against another human without any agenda or motive.

you said: I feel it's an appropriate time to point out here that highly developed people (Post-conventional/pluralistic) will feel for both the victim and the rapist - because they are both victims of a larger social problem.

could you define how the rapist is a victim of a larger social problem,  is the rapist a victim of a larger social problem or is the rapist creating the social problems,  how far can we take the idea that those who commit acts of violence against other human beings are just a victim of a larger social problem.

good morning mal

[Mal]

@charlie2dogs

Charlie, 

I am painting a picture of what mature self-development is.  If you desire to enter into these complex questions I suggest you develop your emotional and cognitive self, this will give you direct insight into the different systems of thinking and values in our world.

Mal

 

Edited June 8, 2016 by Mal

[Saarah]

@charlie2dogs the criminal has autonomy to act and is responsible but that exists within his level of thinking and development which is a natural part of human reality, he's working by his own will but within a framework of thinking for which he is unconscious about how to transcend, so we can't start moralising against him just because we're working at a higher level maybe 

 

[charlie2dogs]

4 hours ago, Saarah said:

@charlie2dogs the criminal has autonomy to act and is responsible but that exists within his level of thinking and development which is a natural part of human reality, he's working by his own will but within a framework of thinking for which he is unconscious about how to transcend, so we can't start moralising against him just because we're working at a higher level maybe 

 

 

4 hours ago, Saarah said:

@charlie2dogs the criminal has autonomy to act and is responsible but that exists within his level of thinking and development which is a natural part of human reality, he's working by his own will but within a framework of thinking for which he is unconscious about how to transcend, so we can't start moralising against him just because we're working at a higher level maybe 

 

I am well aware that rapist are unconscious functioning human beings,  they are part of the 99.9% of the mass of population that is functioning unconscious, most of which do not commit as serious crimes as some.  Having said that we are here in this physical world, that requires some measure of responsibility for your actions and some have to be restrained and even punished for what they do and  when humans commit horrible crimes against other humans such as the rape of women and children and worse,  it should not be looked at as moralizing  when it is spoken of.   so far in all the text here no one has voiced any thing about the real victim, the one that was raped and the trauma and possibly the lasting effects of that on that person, , but rather its about the rapist being the victim of society instead and how we should not be moralizing the rapist.   the bottom line here in this physical world, rape is a crime, and it should not be viewed as moralizing the rapist to see it and talk about it, even if there is a big picture.  if all crimes against humans are looked at this way it will only contribute to the degeneration of the civilization.  when consequences are created, it should be seen as consequences, not dressed up to look like something else.

[Saarah]

@charlie2dogs the victim will continue to suffer for as long as they are stuck with their moralising, telling themself "that shouldn't be" but it did and until they can learn to accept what happened they can never release themselves and move on from it, as difficult and painful as the process can be 

one of my lecturers involved in psychological trauma mentioned how people who had a family member murdered didn't feel better when they witnessed the murderer receive punishment, death,  they just felt worse, because they're functioning from the same place as the murderer, it takes a different kind of thinking to release hatred and judgment for your own sanity 

[charlie2dogs]

34 minutes ago, Saarah said:

@charlie2dogs the victim will continue to suffer for as long as they are stuck with their moralising, telling themself "that shouldn't be" but it did and until they can learn to accept what happened they can never release themselves and move on from it, as difficult and painful as the process can be 

one of my lecturers involved in psychological trauma mentioned how people who had a family member murdered didn't feel better when they witnessed the murderer receive punishment, death,  they just felt worse, because they're functioning from the same place as the murderer, it takes a different kind of thinking to release hatred and judgment for your own sanity 

its apparent you missed my whole point

[Mal]

@Saarah Theres no point arguing with blue cognition. It's black vs white, right vs. wrong. There is no emotional nuance. 

Great example though of what we were talking about earlier though!

Transcend and include, this thinking is part of your own well developed being 

Mal

Edited June 9, 2016 by Mal

[abrakamowse]

Been there done that, in your first stages when you begin to accept that we have no free will is common to tend to forgive the one that most of the people see as "the attacker". And we see him like he's not conscious, it wasn't his free will, he didnt choose to do it, etc.

I think Sam Harris in his youtube video about Free Will explain it better. It's not about punishing the attacker, but it needs to be separated from society because he's harmful for the society and for himself.

But I didn't understand the side of the victim, I thought that the victim in some way was creating the crime subconsciously. I realized it was a weird way to see it, but it was like I didn't understand, now when @charlie2dogs posted the reasons, it make sense to me.

It is not bad that we, because we "feel more advanced seekers" (or a little bit more hehehe... ) condemn the act and separate the guy from the rest of the society and instead of punish him, as it is done now it would be good to try to make him see the consequences of his actions.

It's about trying to bring more awareness, not about "consoling" the victims or making them feel better because there is a punishment or revenge.

I don't know if I am making myself clear.

 

Edited June 9, 2016 by abrakamowse

[Saarah]

@charlie2dogs ok I'm not going to attempt to persuade you, ultimately both our thinking and reasons are valid 

[charlie2dogs]

5 minutes ago, Saarah said:

@charlie2dogs ok I'm not going to attempt to persuade you, ultimately both our thinking and reasons are valid 

just out of curiosity what is it that you would persuade me of?

[charlie2dogs]

30 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

Been there done that, in your first stages when you begin to accept that we have no free will is common to tend to forgive the one that most of the people see as "the attacker". And we see him like he's not conscious, it wasn't his free will, he didnt choose to do it, etc.

I think Sam Harris in his youtube video about Free Will explain it better. It's not about punishing the attacker, but it needs to be separated from society because he's harmful for the society and for himself.

But I didn't understand the side of the victim, I thought that the victim in some way was creating the crime subconsciously. I realized it was a weird way to see it, but it was like I didn't understand, now when @charlie2dogs posted the reasons, it make sense to me.

It is not bad that we, because we "feel more advanced seekers" (or a little bit more hehehe... ) condemn the act and separate the guy from the rest of the society and instead of punish him, as it is done now it would be good to try to make him see the consequences of his actions.

It's about trying to bring more awareness, not about "consoling" the victims or making them feel better because there is a punishment or revenge.

I don't know if I am making myself clear.

 

this thing about free will, it has never existed and wont exist for this world.  Anyone who has been programed all their life and longer and have formed a belief system,  is not exercising free will, any choices made by them are made by the programing and belief. the human identity has never seen nor touched reality, so how can the human identity exercise free will.

[abrakamowse]

1 minute ago, charlie2dogs said:

this thing about free will, it has never existed and wont exist for this world.  Anyone who has been programed all their life and longer and have formed a belief system,  is not exercising free will, any choices made by them are made by the programing and belief. the human identity has never seen nor touched reality, so how can the human identity exercise free will.

But after enlightenment we can say we do have free will. We have no free will while we identify with the ego identity, right?

[Atom]

54 minutes ago, charlie2dogs said:

this thing about free will, it has never existed and wont exist for this world.  

In a way i can yet not explain, Im starting to think there really isnt free will as Charlie says..

I mean there is but?

I dont know really?

As much as i thought i knew i really just dont know

I think god has a plan for us all 

Edited June 9, 2016 by Atom
Typed before the thought was complete