Not being offended

[Daniel]

This is something someone sent to me, and is credited to have been written by Dr. Jodi Prinzivalli. Some of this can certainly be contested, but the message is sound, in my opinion. I'm sharing, because I think it is fantastically written.

I differ from the author mainly in perspective. I simply think we as people are responsible for ourselves, our world, and our reactions. Everything else, I see eye-to-eye with the author.

-------------

There is an ancient and well-kept secret to happiness which the Great Ones

have known for centuries. They rarely talk about it, but they use it all

the time, and it is fundamental to good mental health. This secret is

called The Fine Art of Not Being Offended. In order to truly be a master

of this art, one must be able to see that every statement, action and

reaction of another human being is the sum result of their total life

experience to date. In other words, the majority of people in our world

say and do what they do from their own set of fears, conclusions, defenses

and attempts to survive. Most of it, even when aimed directly at us, has

nothing to do with us. Usually, it has more to do with all the other

times, and in particular the first few times, that this person experienced

a similar situation, usually when they were young.

Yes, this is psychodynamic. But let's face it, we live in a world where

psychodynamics are what make the world go around. An individual who wishes

to live successfully in the world as a spiritual person really needs to

understand that psychology is as spiritual as prayer. In fact, the word

psychology literally means the study of the soul.

All of that said, almost nothing is personal. Even with our closest loved

ones, our beloved partners, our children and our friends. We are all

swimming in the projections and filters of each other's life experiences

and often we are just the stand-ins, the chess pieces of life to which our

loved ones have their own built-in reactions. This is not to dehumanize

life or take away the intimacy from our relationships, but mainly for us

to know that almost every time we get offended, we are actually just in a

misunderstanding. A true embodiment of this idea actually allows for more

intimacy and less suffering throughout all of our relationships. When we

know that we are just the one who happens to be standing in the right

place at the right psychodynamic time for someone to say or do what they

are doing, we don't have to take life personally. If it weren't us, it

would likely be someone else.

This frees us to be a little more detached from the reactions of people

around us. How often do we react to a statement of another by being

offended rather than seeing that the other might actually be hurting? In

fact, every time we get offended, it is actually an opportunity to extend

kindness to one who may be suffering -- even if they themselves do not

appear that way on the surface. All anger, all acting out, all harshness,

all criticism, is in truth a form of suffering. When we provide no Velcro

for it to stick, something changes in the world. We do not even have to

say a thing. In fact, it is usually better not to say a thing. People who

are suffering on the inside, but not showing it on the outside, are

usually not keen on someone pointing out to them that they are suffering.

We do not have to be our loved one's therapist. We need only understand

the situation and move on. In the least, we ourselves experience less

suffering and at best, we have a chance to make the world a better place.

This is also not to be confused with allowing ourselves to be hurt,

neglected or taken advantage of. True compassion does not allow harm to

ourselves either. But when we know that nothing is personal, a magical

thing happens. Many of the seeming abusers of the world start to leave our

lives. Once we are conscious, so-called abuse can only happen if we

believe what the other is saying. When we know nothing is personal, we

also do not end up feeling abused. We can say, 'Thank you for sharing,'

and move on. We are not hooked by what another does or says, since we know

it is not about us. When we know that our inherent worth is not determined

by what another says, does or believes, we can take the world a little

less seriously. And if necessary, we can just walk away without creating

more misery for ourselves or having to convince the other person that we

are good and worthy people.

The great challenge of our world is to live a life of contentment,

regardless of what other people do, say, think or believe.

[bav]

Thanks for sharing this, Daniel. I'm in agreement with the sentiments of this as well.

[Shade Everdark]

The great challenge of our world is to live a life of contentment,

regardless of what other people do, say, think or believe.

Anyone who lives a life of contentment isn't doing enough.

Yes, I am quite guilty of this.

Hello, pot. My name is kettle.

[TomCat]

Interesting article. I enjoyed reading it.

[Daniel]

Anyone who lives a life of contentment isn't doing enough.

Yes, I am quite guilty of this. 

Hello, pot.  My name is kettle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see what the problem with contentment is. Contentment doesn't imply ceasing activity.

[Fierce Critter]

It's great that some people have learned to live super-human.

I'm not one of those people.

[Vater Araignee]

I don't see what the problem with contentment is. Contentment doesn't imply ceasing activity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

contentment = complacency

complacency = stagnation

stagnation = wrongs not being righted

wrongs not being righted contentment

[Onyx]

I got a whole different impression from the article.

Some of this I've been doing already, just trying to see what might motivate someone to react in a bizarre way that totally surprises me (especially in my close relationships). Past experiences can really affect people and sometimes they don't even realize it.

argh. this isn't coming out too clearly.

Thing is, I've had enough drama to last a lifetime and I don't need any more. I let a lot of things slide that used to make me pick a fight.

I still do bring up disagreements if it *matters*, but that's the key - letting the small stuff go and concentrating on things that really do matter. It's always a work in progress though.

[Daniel]

It's great that some people have learned to live super-human.

This is a far cry from super-human. Super-human is flying and seeing through wooden doors to catch the criminal. Being mindful of yourself and adhering to a simple principal is just a matter of discipline and personal responsibility, which are very human qualities.

contentment = complacency

complacency = stagnation

stagnation =  wrongs not being righted

wrongs not being righted contentment

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Contentment and complacency are not the same thing, nor do they imply one another. Contentment is more akin to satisfaction than complacency. Satisfaction also does not imply inaction. In fact, the mind that is not burdened with stresses and anxieties is more efficient.

For example... I can be content with my position in life. But, then the roof of my house gets a leak. It is possible to realize the roof needs repair and then repairing it without drive, determination, stress or worry. And again, point in fact, lacking the anxieties can make you perform more spontaniously and unencumbered. You simply do what needs to be done.

This idea that people need to be pissed or ambitious in order to bring about needed reform seems counter productive to me.

[Fierce Critter]

This is a far cry from super-human. Super-human is flying and seeing through wooden doors to catch the criminal. Being mindful of yourself and adhering to a simple principal is just a matter of discipline and personal responsibility, which are very human qualities.

For example... I can be content with my position in life. But, then the roof of my house gets a leak. It is possible to realize the roof needs repair and then repairing it without drive, determination, stress or worry. And again, point in fact, lacking the anxieties can make you perform more spontaniously and unencumbered. You simply do what needs to be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The subject was offense, not stress.

The kind of thing you describe here I definitely rise above. I don't even get stressed out when I'm in car accidents (been in a few over the past 10 years). Stress, worry & freaking-out just make things worse. This is something I'm trying to teach my husband, who has blood pressure problems & stresses very easily.

Af for the first part - by super-human, I mean beyond human in a reactionary & emotional way, not a Marvel Comics way. And taking offense or feeling hurt or upset is very, very human.

[Shade Everdark]

Contentment is more akin to satisfaction than complacency.

Our problem, then, is that we are getting into problems of semantics. I put contentment closer to complacency than I do to satisfaction, on my rainbow of shades of meaning.

Of course, there's an old saying that runs something like, "An true artist can be content with his work, but never satisfied."

I'm simply of the opinion that if you're content, you're not looking for change, either in your personal life, or in a broader context.

[torn asunder]

i tend to agree with most all of what daniel has posted - i don't have time to go into my thoughts right now, tho... :ermm:

[Daniel]

Content: Desiring no more than what one has; satisfied.

Ready to accept or acquiesce; willing:

-

com·pla·cent :

Contented to a fault; self-satisfied and unconcerned: He had become complacent after years of success.

Eager to please; complaisant.

-

It is semantical to a degree, and I can see where you are coming from. However, I think calling contentment the same thing as complacency is a slippery slope. Contentment certainly can lead to complacency, but is not the same thing.

I see contentment as being closer to a lack of ambition than complacency. You don't need ambition to do the right things at the right times. You can be content and still act and react, and as I said, likely do so more efficiently and appropriately. This is a bit less so when it becomes complacency.

[Daniel]

The subject was offense, not stress.

The kind of thing you describe here I definitely rise above. I don't even get stressed out when I'm in car accidents (been in a few over the past 10 years). Stress, worry & freaking-out just make things worse. This is something I'm trying to teach my husband, who has blood pressure problems & stresses very easily.

Being offended is a form of stress. However, what I described was a reply to someone else, and not a direct reply to your statement.

Af for the first part - by super-human, I mean beyond human in a reactionary & emotional way, not a Marvel Comics way. And taking offense or feeling hurt or upset is very, very human.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Being reasonable or disciplined is also human. Or am I missing something? No one is saying any of this is easy, but it is a method that can actually work. You can either do it, or not. But, saying you don't like it because it is super-human is fallicious.

[Daniel]

I'm simply of the opinion that if you're content, you're not looking for change, either in your personal life, or in a broader context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And one other point... not actively seeking change isn't complacency. Changing things when they need changed is admirable, but looking for things to change for the sake of doing so is pointless.

[Fierce Critter]

Never said I didn't like it.

Just basically said I don't practice it.

I already "rise above" when it comes to things like handling stressful situations, patience, etc.

Nobody's perfect, and though I'm a lot better than average when it comes to not letting things bother me, well, some things bother me. :

[Shade Everdark]

Changing things when they need changed is admirable, but looking for things to change for the sake of doing so is pointless.

Simple fact: there will always be something that can be changed for the better. No one will ever convince me otherwise. This world ain't exactly a utopia.

(I'm still surprised that I'm arguing this side, since I'm such a lazyass.)

Footnote: to make things clear, I never equated contentment with complacency. I did, and do, in my mind, put contentment closer in meaning to complacency than I do to satisfaction.

[Daniel]

Simple fact: there will always be something that can be changed for the better.  No one will ever convince me otherwise.  This world ain't exactly a utopia.

This is true, but in the context of the posted article, finding contentment in your own life will likely only enable you to further aid in fascilitating change in the rest of the world. Someone not hung up on their own problems is far more capable of empathy and effective action than someone whose life is a mess.

[Shade Everdark]

Point taken.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

The power to choose your own reaction is an oft-covered and interesting subject. Is it better to be able to choose a reaction at will or react "instinctively"?

Generally my gut reaction tells me that the single most important difference, (and there's a lot of them) that separates us from the animals, is our amazing (in the context of animal life) ability to decide for ourselves our reaction. How's that for a contradiction? "My gut tells me to use my intellect" :laughing:

We can be a product of our chosen reactions, rather than be a product of those reactions. Thus , to think rationally, rather than instinctually.

From that standpoint does that mean its GOOD too choose your own reaction? It might seem a slap-your-head simple answer to some, while a puzzle to others.

Does that mean that we all can, in every situation, always be able to do so even if we've decided its good to? No.

Should we do so? Good question. Can ponder that one for a lifetime, then spend another lifetime trying to put it into action.

If we truly had complete and total control over emotion, it might be a chicken before the egg problem. "I desired to do that because i desired to desire" Where did the initial desire come from if i have total control? It sprang from nothingness? No i desired it. Why did you desire it? "Because i decided to desire" Why did you decide to desire? Because i desired to desire..... ugh.. wait a minute why did you desire it again? Becasue i desired to desire it. But why did you desire to desire it................ :doh: Welcome to Enlightenment.

I like it. It makes me feel good and/or content. So it must be good?

Im not sure about that. Often "what feels good" can turn out badly later. Other times our "gut feeling" can predict things that intellect has trouble with and might never find an answer for in the alloted time, if ever. So we are stuck with a balancing act? That's my current guess.

[Daniel]

Human beings do not behave instinctively. Instincts are behaviors that are not learned, or are not cultural, etc. The only human instinct I am aware of is sucking. Humans know how to suck coming out of the womb, and we come out looking for boobs immediately. We don't need taught that. Hunger, thirst, sleepiness and horniness are all drives, and do not automatically come with instructions on how to satiate these cravings, other than sucking.

So, we don't act instinctively. Most people simply have no discipline over their emotions. As you suggest, is this good or bad? Should people be in control of their emotions? The answer depends on what you want to do with yourself and your life. If you want to avoid needless anxiety and stress, disciplining yourself goes a long ways. It is rather up to each person if they want to live that way or not.

Of course, like I've said in other threads, you can sit around and ponder these things forever, spin your wheels and go no where, or you can put it to work. Finding a congruous way to live in the world isn't that difficult, but you will likely never find it blaming the world outside yourself for your reactions to the world.

As far as your reduction to the absurd of "desiring to desire" goes... that gets ironed out in time. What you are doing is similar to trying to not think of a pink elephant when someone tells you to not think of a pink elephant. It isn't a complicated problem, but it is meaningless and as a person at ease with themselves, and in control of your passions, you figure out how to deal with it. There is no point getting hung up on meaningless problems.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

There are layer upon layer of human instincts , and humans are heavily driven by instinctual emotional and biological impulses. Man is not totally driven by instinct, but is torn between instinct and intellect (part of that being "automatic learned behaviors"). This isn't a new concept nor is there any doubt in any psychological human anatomy textbook that man does act at least in part, instinctually.

The interplay between instinct / learned "automatic reactions" / conscious decision is the source of endless discussion in academia and elsewhere and is the core concept behind "choosing your emotional response" to X situation.

The "desire" argument is an example of a problem that is the logical conclusion of being in supposedly total control of emotion. A way to try and unravel the "is being in total control" a good or a bad (or even possible) thing. If your in total control of emotion, it gets pretty complex pretty fast as to what/why/if/how and all the implications of it. The "meaning" is fairly important at least to some.

Specifically i picked that particular emotion as its a core concept that many ideologies are based around the presence or lack of desire, and the ability or inability to control it. Eastern philosophy is very heavy on this subject.

If answering the question is "meaningful" difficult if not impossible to ever have a final answer on.

But, its meaningful at least to me, as i posted about it.

Do i think "being in control of your emotions" is a good thing? As a general statement, yes. I've spent a large part of my adult life in persiut of such control and have been a heavy proponent of others doing the same, as i think lack of emotional control is a bad thing. (along with a lack of self-examination )

But what level of control is another issue, as it can lead to other problems/issues. Total control over emotions , or even something that aproximates total control can get pretty scary dpending on how its approached.

[Daniel]

There are layer upon layer of human instincts , and humans are heavily driven by instinctual emotional and biological impulses. Man is not totally driven by instinct, but is torn between instinct and intellect (part of that being "automatic learned behaviors").  This isn't a new concept nor is there any doubt  in any psychological  human anatomy textbook that man does act at least in part, instinctually.

Instinct. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Instinct, by definition, is an unlearned behavior, not a reaction. I am speaking academically, of course. If you think humans are loaded with insincts, there is little point in us discussing further unless you provide some research to support your proposition. From my studies, psychology has rather dismissed humans as having instincts, other than, as I said, sucking. A culturally ingrained behavior is not an instinct. Nor is a biological drive instinctual. Nor is predictable reactive behavior. Instincts are a very specific thing in psychology.

The "desire" argument is an example of a problem that is the logical conclusion of being in supposedly total control of emotion.

I'm not sure it is possible to be in total control of emotions. This is not a black or white thing. It exists in varying degrees, where on one end you have Veruca Salt and on the other end, the Dalai Lama. With discipline, you can learn to control your emotional responses, and how you react to your subjective experiences. Like I said, the reduction of the absurd you provide isn't totally relevent, because it isn't a meaningful problem. It lacks meaning because it is pushing the issue to an absurd, and unreachable conclusion. Often this is good for illustration purposes, but in the context of this discussion, it isn't relevent because the goal isn't to be 100% in control, but rather to find a reasonable level of personal contentment, and personal harmony. We aren't concerned with perfection.

But what level of control is another issue, as it can lead to other problems/issues.  Total control over emotions , or even something that aproximates total control can get pretty scary dpending on how its approached.

This is a curious statement. Under what situations would being able to control your emotions, and your responses to them, have a negative effect? What problems can arise here?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Eeeks.. the "instinct" debate. You happen to have hit on something i've spent a lot of time talking about in the past. Almost as fun as debating what / when words like "religious" or "partisan" mean in a given context. (that link you have there doesnt contradict my use of the term, at least not from my biased reading of it)

Im using "instinct" as a general term, to mean "automatic behaviors" in a general colloquial sense , not a specific , textbook "instinct as innate response to stimuli , heterogeneous across species etc..." type definintion. If that was the case we could go on for days about the concept of "human instinct" and if it does or does not exist.

For instance even the baby sucking "instinct" or blinking in response to object proximity to the eyes, smiling, frowning, etc can be argued to be developed during maturation (mostly in the womb) rather than via "genetic encoding" or post-fertilization etc....

This particular "instincts or not" argument , I've had before , and is a subject that is discussed in part all across various behavioral science texts. I used to chew this subject with my friend Paul (psych major U of M now out in California working on masters) and you can find books and articles all over the net that say "yes we do" and "no we don't" (way to lazy to hunt them all down, but believe me their are strong arguments on both sides), the confusion usually boils down to what is defined as an instinct and what isn't.

I've had this discussion also in terms of the specific debate on the idea of "human instincts as specific meaning" with my (now dead) ex girlfriend (she was 6 months away from her PhD in clinical psych and we used to argue this kind of shit constantly) Back in the day, it used to be taught "humans don't have instincts" but the modern picture of what is "instinctual" and what is much more murky.

Hell there's whole series of books and even TV series that debate this subject. (again to lazy to find links but the BBC had a series recently on human instincts, guys like Stephen Pinker argue generally in favor of "instinct" while more oldschool types like BF Skinner tend to argue against)

Ok so now that im thinking yet another word is now removed from my online-vocabulary due to it causing to much trouble... (the word "mythology" in context of spiritual debates is already on my "don't use it people get irritated" list along with several other words... )

[Troy Spiral (13)]

The original subject i meant to be covering , summarized as lets say "Total Control of Automatic responses good or bad? Not as obvious as it might seem at first glance." is dealt with in my previous posts.

The "meaningless" desire example , can have the word desire removed and many other emotional or psychological (or even biological) actions/reactions inserted into it to find what problems may arise from , near total or total control over such actions/reactions.

Many of the conclusions end up as chicken before the egg-ish loops, that when applied to a human lifetime , really suck in their confusing implications.