Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 21:20:03
In reply to Re: Gabbi, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 20:30:31
> (((Gabbi)))
>
> I think you do understand...Thank you
> I know you have issues with CBT theory.
> I have issues with CBT theory too...
> I don't like their idea that thoughts CAUSE feelings.
> IMO that is far too simplistic.
> And sometimes we can't control our thoughts anymore than we can control our emotionsExactly. Though I suppose there are some Zen equivilents who can.. in the ideal like those who can transcend pain, but I don't think it's realistic, or for me, even desirable.
> The way you said it was fine.
> I'm sorry,
> I wasn't trying to get you to talk or write that way - I was just trying to make it clear the difference between
>
> Accusing / Attacking behaviour -> feeling hurt / accused etcI've been well schooled in that, and I do know the semantic difference, but as I said, most people I speak to, except those who've been in therapy, don't interpret the two any differently,long as there is and "I feel" or "I find" in front of it it's assumed it's personal, and not a generalization.
> Where the causal chain is fairly much inevitable in the sense that MOST people would feel hurt if someone posted something where they were overtly accused or attacked.
>
> And
>
> Behaviour -> some people respond by feeling accused / attacked / hurt
>
> BUT:
>
> other people do not.
>
> Here different people seem to respond differently...
>
> My thought is 'what do all the people who respond by feeling hurt have in common?'
> And 'what do all the people who respond by not feeling hurt have in common?'
>
> A lot of the difference seems to consist in the first bunch of people thinking that their response is an inevitable response to the behaviour.
>
> But it isn't inevitable - because other people do not respond in that way.Nothing is inevitable though, much of what people find *offensive* in general, and in the civility rules is societally influenced and people would be just as *offended* if society deemed the opposite to be offensive. That I find to be contradictory to "owning emotions" and that is what bothered me. The statement that somehow if you owned your emotions then this particular thing wouldn't bother you.
>
> The second bunch of people seem to have worked out some sort of story whereby Lou is attempting to better understand the civility rules.I don't think story is a good word. Some people believe that from the heart. I do. However, there have been other posters who have annoyed me, and no matter what I tried to convince myself I could not believe that they were not being rude. So I don't think it's something everyone can do. You need to believe it, otherwise it's insincere and that's no good to anyone. I think it would be more honorable to just ignore the person.
I personally simply believe in living consciously,
and that means constantly evaluating and questioning what I come in contact with.
I'll just as likely *not* be offended by the "offensive" as finding something most find acceptable to be unpalatable.Thanks for the hug
(((Alex)))
poster:Gabbi-x-2
thread:500533
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/501441.html