Different ways of dealing with others

When watching YouTube videos of influential speakers, I often read through a lot of the comments too.
What I have noticed is a broad pattern.
I haven’t totally thought through this, but I was excited to present my immediate findings.

Firstly, I’ve seen the more popular/contentious you are, the more the intensity of fans and haters.
In people’s responses I see the following trends:
The speaker say Person A makes an argument, assertion or simply presents his view “X”.
Now lets say people B, C, D, E react to this.
* Person B says “X is wrong, X'(X complement) is true”.
* Person C says “X is wrong, Y is true”.
* Person D says “Not only is X true but it is also supported by Y”
* Person E says “X is true, but Z is truer than X”
The responses of B,C,D and E represent the 4 broad types I’ve noticed.

Here is a more algorithmic form of the response types:
For X then X’ = Position X’ (Oppose X) – Reactionary
For X then Y = Position Y (Invalidate/Deny X, Present Y) – Blind
For X then Xx = Position X+x (Clarify/support X with x) – Bolstering
For X then U = Position U (Transcend X and dissolve it in a larger frame U) – Transcending

Love and Fear are self-fulfilling prophecies

To fear is to expect [attack/destructive forces].
And to expect/anticipate attack is to attract attack.
One behaves like one is already guilty, and deserves punishment.
This frequency is picked up and attracts beings who punish/attack.
It is a recursively reinforcing circle/a loop/a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To love is to expect [nurture/enriching forces]
And to expect/anticipate nurture is to attract nurture.
One behaves like one is already blessed, and deserves nurture.
This frequency is picked and attracts beings who nurture/enrich.
It is a recursively reinforcing circle/a loop/a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You can only give, what you have received

In terms of childhood personality programming, I’ve had the following empirical observation:
RULE:
“You can only give, what you have received”
Whatever you have received, forms the ceiling of your compassion.
There is no absolute standard here, its all relative.

For example:
If your salary is $60000, and fulfilling all your needs takes up $30000, leaving you with an excess of $30000 for free spending.
In this situation, you can easily feel compassion for anybody earning less than $30000.
But, can you feel compassion for a person earning $100,000? – No right? – because it is much beyond your income.
Another example:
Say you score 75/100 in math. You feel compassionate towards someone who has scored 40 or 60/100.
But will you feel compassion to a person who has scored 90/100? – No right? – because it is much beyond your score.

I’ve seen the care we have received in childhood sets our standards for later life.
For instance, if your partner asks you something that is far above the care you have received, then you simply call it unreasonable/unjustified. Whereas if they ask you something that you have consistently received yourself, then you may immediately do it without any expectation because you feel it was “totally reasonable”.

What determines what is “reasonable” and “unreasonable”?
It is totally relative to what you have received.

Once deep contemplation awakens in you, you access much greater standards of compassion, than was provided to you by what you received as a child/formative years.

Algorithm for solving all problems

Personal:
Look at the emotions now (look at the contraction)
Ask – what is the cause of them? – find the mental stories and write them down.
Ask – what would be the antidote for this? – find the antidote mental stories
Transpersonal:
Ask – what is the wisdom about such a situation/event/condition happening to someone?
Ask – what is the wisdom that someone would need to process/complete/let go of this?
Final Step:
Complete the process and Let Go!

General masses vs. sociopaths vs. contemplators

GENERAL MASSES
In my experience, for most people, their emotions like desire, anger, liking, aversion etc. is all mapped to specific outer stuff.
There is a recognizable structure in their emotional mappings to the outer world.
But when you question them, they will always only point to the literal person, object, some situation happening, and attribute causation directly to the outer.
They cannot see their own structure, because they are seeing through that.
All their emotions are outward mapped onto a specific world image, projected from their structure, which is completely invisible and thereby absolutely true for them.
When you question them, they do not introspect, rather they might try to attack you/avoid you/ignore you/deny everything you say/attack the finger that points/ manipulate the finger etc.
This is because they cannot see what you are pointing at, at all.

SOCIOPATHS:
Sociopaths are on the far end of this spectrum.
They see the world through a hard integrated simplistic structure, that is opportunistic and looks to exploit everything for itself.
Their self structure is almost totally invulnerable to influence.
Nothing can change their reality orientation from outside since their eyes are always looking outward only.
So if you point to a structure they have, its as if you are pointing to something that does not exist. They would simply view that as an attack and try to attack your view.

Broadly the spectrum is:
Total self-reflection (total self-incrimination)—————– Total self-projection (total blame)
The spectrum could also be viewed as:
Sociopath ——————— Contemplator.
I would say, sociopaths are closer to animals, in the sense, their nature is unchangeable and immutable.
They cannot reflect on themselves and see ‘self’ as object.
So their whole world is their playground and they will demand everywhere and manipulate.
What are people on the other end of the spectrum called? – I would say, contemplators.
The following introspective functions are present in contemplators:
self-contemplation, self-examination, self-observation, self-questioning, self-reflection, self-scrutiny, self-searching, soul-searching, self-analysis, self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-recognition; introversion, self-absorption, self-centeredness, self-concern, self-involvement; self-actualization, self-discovery, self-exploration, self-fulfillment, self-realization; self-knowledge, self-revelation; self-concept, self-image, self-perception; contemplation, meditation, reflection, rumination

Contemplators cannot outrospect/project easily and operate from seeing all of reality as their responsibility including serving others.
Their self is likely prone to getting into ruminative thought loops, chaos, getting caught in logical paradoxes, conflicting desires, traffic jam energies…and so on.
The mindset of total self-projection, the state of the sociopath, is the state of mind one has when in a stage performance or when facing a big threat like a wild animal. One’s attention is then totally outward focused and that gives a taste of what a sociopath mind state is like to the contemplator folk.

Generally, when does inward focus happen then? – It happens in boredom, when there is 0 outer pressure, and when there is no threat OR if the threat is inescapable, then you retreat into total inward focus.
Another way to look at it is that sociopaths are like one-time programmable only chips, after that they function without being influenced. They are like clay that has hardened into rock.
The contemplators on the other hand are permanently programmable chips. They are ever malleable and changeable.
Contemplators stay permanently as clay.

I would think, sociopaths can comfortably roam around in the social world, because they are immune to all influences, and their total outward focus is the ideal state for survival and self-protection.
A contemplator on the other hand tends to avoid the social world, because he is very impressionable and malleable, and his outward focus is only when there are threats (i.e. he freezes into a structure temporarily only when there are threats), else he stays in his total malleable state.
So freezing into various forms and staying that way in social environments is ok if it is temporary, but to do that every day is burdensome for the contemplator.
That is why taking up one profession is difficult for a deep contemplator, because that is like forcing a malleable entity take up the same configuration/structure every single day for most of the day.
It is denying him the freedom he feels inside him everyday.
Contemplators are living in the meta-programming world itself.
Surviving in a world full of solid people is annoying for the contemplator, because he is exceptionally free and flexible but can never interact with others in that freedom.
The only way to interact with most people is to create quasi structures and interact with them within the acceptability zones intuited.
The contemplator is formless i.e. he has no intrinsic form and he is continuously aware of his freedom.
Whereas the sociopath is like a rock, a solid form, and he sees the entire world through this filter.

Love = Knowledge, Extent of Love

When another person understands you, it’s their love/connection that understands.
When you understand another person, it’s your love/connection that understands.
If you understand others, but they do not understand you, then that is because your love is much greater and encompasses them.
Love = Connection = Light = Knowing = Understanding.
There is no difference between love and knowledge, and love is light, and light is knowledge.

We all love the child

happy-child-680x454

We all love the child
Who dances like nobody is looking
Who sings like nobody is listening
Whose joy radiates and influences others
Who is spontaneous without a care
Who involves himself into you, giving no heed to your history
Who celebrates each moment in the mood of wonder
Who looks at the ordinary like it’s extraordinary
Who bears within him vast potentials
Whose total absence of self-consciousness is refreshing
Who invests in the moment like there is no tomorrow
Who trusts you so fully to be oblivious in your arms
We recognize the child, because that is us
The lost part of us, the treasure we have lost
Which we are seeking to reclaim

Need for Recognition and Deep Insecurity

The infinite creation pours out through me in abundance and infinity.
Another person may acknowledge my creative work(a portion of it).
In fact it would be even better if someone acknowledged my potential vs. work, after seeing all my work.
Because then I could get bolstering for the potential itself vs. a specific piece created by me.
Ideally I would want to be seen/admired/revered/loved/wanted for being an infinite god (my highest conceivable potential).
Because that would bolster that reality, and give greater security (stability, solidification) for that version of reality experience.
But what is evident here is that I am still then attached to the pole of plenitude and am seeking this as an effort to move away from emptiness.

I see all need for recognition, coming from DEEP INSECURITY.
Because when it comes to your social image self, it is entirely sustained on others’ validations of you.
The ego = social self = socially conferred identity, and most of it is the internalization of what people told you you were.
Even the so-called high self-esteem people are simply the ones who have received enough affirmations of their potential (as a formative age, and beyond), which has reified in them as high self esteem.
The point is, the whole social self/ego reality is insecure.
If you have received a lot of positive social food, you are secure and probably forwarding that reality as an independent agent, and supporting others who have not received enough social validation food and are therefore living parasitically.
But for most people, the social self/ego is their only identity.
So giving up upholding/maintaining and forwarding the social self, will cause its total collapse from lack of feedback.
This self survives on FEEDBACK.
This self is inherently maintained by – EFFORT.
The social self/ego is inherently insecure, for it relies on external validation and continual reinforcement to survive.
The counter of this reality is to live in the effortless what is, and let everything else fall away, and thereby let the EFFORT created realities fall away.

So recognition is a kind of outer initiated solidification, security – of my own work, in my own mind space.
My creations are entirely validated by me, when I create them, but without external validation, they do not become concrete but rather pass away quickly like a dream. And then I dream another dream.
In a certain sense, recognition might add limitations to my creativity, because it might create a gravity towards those kinds of works.
To be totally free is to be totally free of such forces.

Recognition might hold me back from the perspective of infinite creation, because it will crystallize those formations, and I am likely to live up to them so that I can get security of 1000 people supporting/appreciating/liking/admiring it.
If I ever start relying on external support, then I am back in the insecure reality, and this social reality will EXTRACT/EXACT its price from me for conferring this security/support/solidification/feedback in its machine.
I will be forced to BE SOMEBODY and that will be a limitation.

I see seeking recognition as an attempt to hold on.
Recognition allows you to hold on, because your creation is held onto by others.
You have replicated that formation in others and that is solidifying your own creation in your own mind.
It is all coming from your DESIRE TO BE SOMETHING/SOMEBODY.
We are always BEING without effort.
But this is coming from the desire to BEING a specific ideal/somebody/something, not just BEING.
In essence it is coming from a desire to BE A “THING”.
To give up/let go/relinquish/move beyond being a “THING” = ENLIGHTENMENT.

Enmeshment/Entanglement Issue

I am unable to maintain my preferred reality against another’s reality frequency.
For example, if the person with me says – I hate X, then it is like:
Other person ———HATE————> X
Me ———————————> X
My relationship to X is [undefined] and is [open to influence] like a mirror.
So I get influenced by the other person and this affects my perception:
Me ——————HATE—————-> X
Now I do not want to hate X, and I feel powerless/helpless to change that HATE relationship towards X, which is not my preference, and which is osmotically being transferred to me by the other’s presence.
Its as if, if I don’t already carry a strong opinion about something (which is rare), then that opinion slot is simply open and receiving, and downloads the other person’s opinion (‘imagined by me’ or ‘clearly stated by the other’).
Its as if my whole substance is like a mirror.
I mirror the other person’s opinion and it is not my inner preference.
So then, I attack the other person for HATING X, and try to convert the other person into LIKING X, so that the mirroring will allow me to like X, which is my actual preference.
In that person’s presence, it is almost impossible for me to see X in any other perspective apart from how the other sees X.
So the silliness is that, I try to change the other person into liking X, so that I can like X.
The core belief seems to be: I do not give myself permission to have a relationship with a person/thing other than what the person next to me has(really stated or imagined). I fear having a contrary view, contrary opinion, contrary world view etc. I also fear being more open than the other, and I tend to contract my viewpoint, direction of energies, energy structures to match the other’s openness. Its like I am at the mercy of the other and the only control I have is to AVOID or CONFRONT. But the confrontation is only so that, I can ultimately have my own preference back.

This sounds really silly, but this is a DEEP ENMESHMENT/Entanglement issue.

About traumatization

Traumatization is like a rigid state of unmovingly getting stuck into threat possibilities.
Its a freeze-contract response.
Until this is eased out, the energies will be stuck in that configuration and cannot move into their other states.
It cannot change until released from the traumatic freeze.
Why did I freeze in the first place? that is perfect too in response to all the circumstances you were in. It is the divine condition.
It is like, if you are put in a room full of your fear, suddenly only that would be real for you, because that possibility crystallizes into a hard reality to the exclusion of all other realities. For example, say you are put in a room full of bees, suddenly the whole outer world would vanish and only that room would become real. The same effect a horror movie has, of extreme contraction and focus.
When you are the most threatened, the most hardening/concretization of a possibility will happen.
To return to the infinite possibility space requires the dissolution of the current concretized possibility which you are holding on to.
Always ask yourself, why are you holding on to you current reality?
What is real for you right now, is exactly what you are holding on to.
It is serving you in some way to hold on to this vs. not holding on.
There is something you are trying to get from it and until you get it you will not let go back into the possibility space.
Ultimately there is only infinity, and we are the ones holding on to a finite possibility for our own deep learning/goals/desires.
When we are ready we will let go and return to higher possibility spaces.