Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: "Painfully Shy"

  1. #1

    Default "Painfully Shy"

    "Painfully shy"
    words spoken in class, parents evening, written in reports. This phrase almost meaningless, just a label, and half the phrase describing the speaker/writer's feelings rather than anything related to the person they are describing. Sometimes, it is the reactions of others around at the time to the words, rather than the words themselves that are wounding. From people's reactions to words it is learned to fear/hate/loath/be embarrassed by the words, until it is as painful to hear/read the words about oneself, as it must have been for the speaker/writer when they were inspired to come up with them. And feeling they may be pleased with such an outcome. They were made to feel pain by someone else's social incompetence so their revenge is the reactions of others to them pointing it out. Why? all the way back to the cosmic joke. OK, perhaps funny on the right day, in the right state, yet also words come back, wrong time/state or just hearing certain words on an average day/average state can set off a negative thought process, self doubt etc. even if the words are said about someone else.
    Just a few thoughts. Finding ways to get around blanks and don't knows that come up with clean questions seems to produce a lot of new material, whether that is one of the answers for others also in making clean processes work? If all the blanks could be solved would anything work?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Glastonbury, England
    Posts
    512

    Default

    "Painfully shy" ... sometimes one could separate the adverb (painfully) from the nominalised verb (shy) ... by pulling back each, in turn. But if they came together, then maybe there is no separating and one might pull them back together, or pull back the associated pronoun with the nominalised state of being.

    Unknowing, unknown, don't know, blank, are perfectly valid answers; they can be normal layers of 'protection' for example. Varying the questions according to the content of the answer moves one closer to the old form of clean language, and away from "the faith in the algorithm" of emergence - so it depends on your clean philosophy as to whether you are re-landscaping the adjacent strangely scaled world of metaphor (SyM) or deconstructing the structures that hold the reality in place (Emergence). I do not like the "pick and mix" approach, but understand why it might be used.

  3. #3

    Default

    Hi Steven,

    Thinking of an adverb and nominalised verb actually is better. They may separate, I have considered them separately, it might take time to work through the processes, but definitely promising, thank you.
    The protection idea makes sense, though only by getting through that protection is info found and progress made. Blank/don't know may be valid as an answer, but it doesn't help me progress when i can't get beyond it. I might have found a way I can do that.
    If I can get emergence to work, there is far more to be gained by removing the structure.
    Last edited by Olive; 06 January 2011 at 02:25 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    No fixed abode.
    Posts
    99
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    "deconstructing the structures" and "removing the structure" is fine, and what emerges? Another structure. We can't exist without structures. Are some structures better than others – I hope so. Can we know which ones in advance? I doubt it. That's why inviting deconstruction and removal structure is scary. And I've never seen a structure that didn't have both advantages and disadvantages.

    Also, we are all part of larger wholes. The planet needs many diverse structures. We cannot know how our structure contributes to the large whole. And the effects of changing a part, such as ourselves, cannot be known beyond the obvious. So what we left with? Plenty of unknowns.

    Best wishes for the New Year

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Glastonbury, England
    Posts
    512

    Default

    After about forty 7-day retreats using emergence, the statistics suggest that sometimes a new structure is created, but mostly (maybe 90%+), there is no need for the structure. The beingness of the self, that always was, appears to be immutable, but just shines through more clearly.

    The kinds of structures to which I refer are the attractors inside and outside the body that are the distortions induced by defining moments. Some we keep, but others we can do without. The fewer powerful distorted attractors in the system then one is less constrained by them.

    "We can't exist without structures" - what happens after death? Do we exist without a body? Is it perhaps that we can only exist inside the matrix by accepting structures? IMO we do not need the structures induced by the dissociations and intrusions of defining moments, and that complete healing involves undoing the effects of these events.

    Happy New Year James, and looking forward to an enjoyable debate on this subject!! :-)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    No fixed abode.
    Posts
    99
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    As part of an article called Modelling The Written Word, Penny Tompkins and I show how we modelled a first-person account by 'a shy person', see:

    http://www.cleanlanguage.co.uk/artic...ord/Page3.html

    James

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •