Yuku free message boards

The Fool wrote:

---

Tiffany, no i'm not doing anything nor i like to stay in command of my stance, nor anything else. Just sharing. That's all.

Fool,

Having observed you interact on the forum, and having had two exchanges with you--one in the thread with the katana and now here, I would say that the stance you defend, is done so by projecting a mood of detachment and objectivity. The only part that reveals you here is your initial post, its expression that bit shiny was judging others for lack of integrity, and then the steps you took to hide your initial stance by making all your posts thereafter in the presentation of someone who is just objectivly disscussing a topic.

If you had just said that your original post here was inaccurate, I would have not detected any defense, and I would have forgotten about the whole thing. But instead you tried to make your first post not appear incorrect with all your subsequent posts. First, after I posted saying people do lack integrity, you agreed with me, but made your agreement appear like you had had this perspective all along, yet your original post was the exact opposite perspective. Then, you tried to recover your stance by asking me to agree with you on something, so as it looks like you are informing me of something I did not realize. You said:

"..But you would also agree that for someone to change, the impetus has to come from the person and that no words from another can truly do that."

And I responded that your statement didn't even apply to what I was saying to you, and I know you put it in there so as to regain your stance. Since your statement had nothing to do with my exchange with you, I told you this.

Now that I've laid everything out(in post #19), you are maintaining that you are just here sharing. However, I have felt this power struggle with you even though I am not participating in it, I am aware of it and am speaking about it to you. It does you no good to defend what you are defending. Our positions mean nothing in the end. Its about locating the truth and sometimes others help us do that, but if you refuse to acknowledge when others are correct and you were wrong, you will be stagnated by your need to defend your stance. And, no one has that kind of time on their hands to guard petty stances.

And, you may very well have not felt any strong emotion while interacting here. I know from my own experience, that maintaining a stubborn stance is not always accompanied by a strong emotional current, because it remains hidden. Its only when one finally admits another's insight had more clarity than theirs that they feel the emotional resonance as it is released from its hiding place and rises to the surface to speak to us. Maybe this current was an overbearing parent that always made us feel we were wrong, or maybe in our household we were expected to be right all the time. Whatever the cause, it will rise to the surface and you will feel it. But you may not feel it now as you are defending it by insisting upon your just "sharing" here. What you are doing is not "sharing" you are very aware you are defending your original position that I challenged. And I think others reading this are aware of this too.

bit shiny wrote:

---

Im reading whats being said here and wondering how more or less force relates. I feel like truth can stand regardless, and that to make it more or less than what it is through more force or less force, confusing.
If more force is used then I think it should be applied as pressure by"more truth" and that less force relates to more space for the person to breathe and take what is said in. I think its a fine line between more force or less in regards to our integrity , as less could lead to a compromise of our truth in regard of feeling sorry to the other persons feelings, and more may sway us towards bordering on control or placing value on the outcome, pushing our truth, like defending our righteousness. I know this might sound a little obvious, but I find a swing to compensate either way is to place myself on a ledge where balance is strained and it could tip either way sometimes.

Bit shiny,

Glad you mentioned this, the word 'force' can be clarified further.

The context it was presented to me in was, as I was relaying my experience to Lujan, I felt bad when I spoke out in class to tell the girls to stop talking. I was relating to Lujan my reasons that I may have been at fault, because I had a feeling I overreacted with too much force behind my words--the way my voice sounded and the way I felt at the time I said it (a bit angry), my sense of sureness that "this is the way it was". After I spoke, I felt the room's energy shift in surprise of what I had said. The shift made me feel "oh, what I said was inappropriate, too forceful."

So, within this context, Lujan was telling me that he felt how I responded was appropriate to the situation and that in future situations in this class environment that I should continue to take a firm, forceful stance, because I had alluded to experiencing a continuing pressure there that was occurring. To try and control one's force which, the force is like a confidence, or no nonesense approach, would make me hesitant.

Its true that too much force can lead to a controlling manner. But force in this case often refers to when an agenda is the main operative at hand, so the applier is in a way blinded to the controlling aspect. Whereas, the person who is intent to present their truth, they will often be aware naturally of any agenda that arises within them and will correct it, because such a person's goal is to present their truth.

Lujan also told me, I said this in another thread, not sure if I said it here, that if I find I applied too much force, I can correct afterwards. In the beginning, when one is not used to speaking up for themselves, there can be a tendency to doubt one's force of delivery because one is not used to such a stance. And other people around such a person can further reinforce this doubt in such a person by saying to them, often non verbally, in body language "whoa, what's wrong with you?" As if to convince a person they are out of line, when in fact, their stance is very appropriate and they are simply doing something they needed to do a long time ago, which is reclaim their integrity by not being in compromises.

Which my situation illustrates. The reaction of some of the class seemed to convey I was out of line, but Lujan's feeling was I had done something that was needed to be done and that the fact that some people didn't like it was just too bad. He even told me later in our conversation, you can always tell them "to hell with it, I'm going shopping". This was just his way of saying that I need to stop worry about what other people think and do what I feel is right.

I want to give two examples. The first is using a direct, forceful approach. The second is to use less force.

First example,
"No, I will not participate in this character assassination of John with you!"
Other person, "Take it easy, I was just making a joke, no need to get upset."
Me "I'm not upset, and I didn't think it was funny. There was ridicule involved."

The first sentence may have the most force. Upon the other person's response, the third sentence may be presented calmer but maintaining the forceful conviction of the first sentence.

The other may continue:
"Well, lighten up will ya."
Me, "I'm light already. I just know what I will or won't do, and one thing I won't do is talk about another is a disrespectful manner, no matter if it is presented as a joke or not."

This last sentence maintain a calm force, is just summarizing all that has occurred.

Now, example two, if one had approached this interaction with using less force :

"I don't think John is like that." (referring to the character assassination occurring)
Other person, "Well, you don't know John very well do you?"
Me, "I feel I know him pretty well, and I say he is not like you are depicting him."
Other person, "Well, you are wrong, he IS like this."

Here, with less force, the pressure is not placed on the gossiper, it is rather an indirect questioning and so there is more room for the other person to maneuver because the attention was not placed on them directly because of trying to not present too forcefully, which as a result gives the gossiper too much credit than they deserve for what they are doing.

So, it is seen how applying too much force, and later is adjusted if needed is better then entering a situation with less force from the get-go.

So, force to me is directness, presented with assurance that is the certainty of one's stance. Not all situations call for force. Only situations where compromise from others is applying pressure that needs to be dealt with through one's integrity, because if one does not do this, then they will be agreeing to the compromise, and will be weakened by this as a result. Such as, if I had gone on teaching the class with those two girls chattering in the background and me not saying anything to them about it, this would have weakened me. And this memory of being powerless is what I would have taken with me to be perpetuated in future situations.

Force is used to seal oneself from the onslaught of another or others. At first I had to learn by trial and error to adjust my level of force. And even now I sometimes apply too much or too little in some situations I am unfamiliar with. But, like this thread's title, our truth can easily adapt. Through practice, truth does adapt. It's not trying to exercise one's integrity that is the only mistake one can make.

Gabrielle,

I don't care about the Chinese losing face. I no longer teach that class anymore, but when I did, I only cared that the class was professional, this included both myself and my students. It was all adults and so its even more understandable the class be professional. The girl who was talking was the youngest in the class and even in classes before the one I spoke to her, her attitude for being in the class had been immature.

Gabrielle,

Glad you pointed this out, it is misleading the way it is typed.

Here's what I meant:

**At the time, I was so concerned with how the other students reacted to what I did. The class attendance dropped significantly after that session. Eventually, I was not asked by the hotel to come back.**

I was meaning only to convey that the next class after the one I spoke out was significally smaller, so I summarized 'as a result' of what occurred. But didn't mean to suggest as a result of my concern.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention so I could clarify. I understand your confusion about it.