Cold Diff. cont.

[MJontheMend]

Below.

[MJontheMend]

Okay, that makes more sense. I don't know why I thought you had indicated that you were bulimic as an adult. I couldn't fit together the puzzle pieces of somebody being bulimic and happily married at the same time, or happily anything, I guess.

Although what's interesting is that I don't think you don't really work directly on being differentiated (I never really heard of that exact term for it until here); rather you work on yourself and becoming the person you want to be and owning your decisions - whether they are successful or not.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Maybe too wholeheartedly. Sometimes I think my desire to not see myself as a victim actually is not a valuable trait. As in "I freely chose to walk through a dark alley at night so I guess I can't blame anybody but myself for the fact that I was assaulted." Of course, this is a protective mechanism because if everything bad that ever happens to me can be traced back to a poor decision I made and for which I took ownership then it might be possible that I could figure out how to make only good decisions and my world will be a perfect clockwork mechanism that pops out big yummy gumballs of happiness on a regular basis.

Someone else's action should not determine your response.

I sort of agree and sort of disagree with this line of thinking. I'm sort of stuck somewhere between agreeing with this or thinking that it is better to think along the lines of "Don't react. Do respond." The notion being that you "react" to poison ivy by getting a rash and scratching until you bleed but you "respond" to poison ivy by making a wise decision to avoid it or by purchasing some cortisone cream. Therefore, a "response" is always something that requires some thought or knowledge rather than just an emotional or physical feeling or desire. The reason I might disagree with the statement of the Dalai Lama is that to my mind its logical conclusion could be nihilism. I'm going to get a bit ridiculous here but, for instance, you could smile at me and say "Would you like some ice cream?" and I could choose to spit on the floor and mutter "Wallpaper. Zebra. Electricity." and my behavior/response would be in alignment with the statement. If I have a knee-jerk reaction then I am limited to only one possible response but if nothing in your action determines my response then the possibilities for my response are infinite and many of the possible responses will be nonsense. Therefore, I think it is better to consider that there are a number of rational responses to an action and it is only natural to want to choose the "best" response but how does one determine what that "best" response would be bearing in mind that relationships are based on communication and all communication is subject to white noise.

[fearless]

Someone else's action should not determine your response. - Dalai Lama

First your statement of "Don't react. Do respond." fits in just fine with the above quote. The response that the Dalai Lama is talking about is a response based on YOUR BELIEFS versus based on the someone else's actions. The only way you can have any hope of following this advice is to really know who you are and who you want to be. Otherwise you will feel like you have to respond based on the other person's actions.

you could smile at me and say "Would you like some ice cream?" and I could choose to spit on the floor and mutter "Wallpaper. Zebra. Electricity." and my behavior/response would be in alignment with the [Dalai Lama's] statement.

Yes you could choose that and what would your response to my smile and question indicate to me about YOU? If that's how you want me to see you, then you are free to choose that response. (Of course most people that respond like this really aren't "choosing" to!!)

Think about it from this direction. Our responses in life are always about who we are. Once we decide who we are and how we want to act then we set about acting that way regardless of other's actions.

Can you imagine if Gandhi or MLK Jr. had said that they believed in non-violence but only if people were not violent with them? Their strength and power came from their conviction of standing true to their beliefs regardless of what others did to them. It's not easy and it certainly doesn't always make sense to others.

There is so much more to say about this AND about Burgbud's comments about the difference between a wife's "testing" and out and out abuse. I just don't have the time!!

[RealJourney]

Wow MJ, you are reminding me of a book I read many yrs ago by Stephen Covey where he talked about taking time to " pause" between a stimulus and a response. I guess what he was saying was that in that pause, to go and find a pair of differentiation glasses before answering. The problem is I have a tendency to misplace glasses.

[Crazy Eddie]

When my dad would say - and it was paraphrasing when I said *no one in our family chickened out* but when my dad would ask us to live up to the family values that would give us more faith in ourselves. It would make us think I can do this because I'm made of the same stuff that the others who wouldn't give in are made of. It's kind of like "believe in yourself" but if you are just a kid of 8 there's not much to believe in. Whereas you are a member of a family/tribe that are capable and can do things is a much stronger and more reinforcing statement to make.

Do normal 8 year olds really have that sense of being "made of the same stuff that the others who wouldn't give in are made of"? If so, maybe that statement is a positive, effective one. It just sounds to me like more of a "we don't want you if you're going to chicken out like that", which is pretty harsh for an 8 year old.

"You made it up, so you can make it down" strikes the right balance, to me. Now what would you say to someone who doesn't want to even start climbing up?

I definitely do believe that people that were essentially *lied* to as kids by families that were overly positive and supportive - in other words glossed over their failings and acted like everything was great - have no self esteem. I think this is because they do know their flaws and because no-one is being honest about their flaws then how do they know they're being honest about their merits?

Yep. The right message, as far as I can tell, is "you screwed up, and you're going to catch hell for it, but you'll have another chance to try again tomorrow". When my kids are about to catch hell and they cry and say "I'm sorry!", my answer is "the way to show you're sorry is to do better next time".

But walking on eggshells around them is never a good idea. (Actually, walking on eggshells around anyone isn't such a good idea, unless they're planning on killing you as soon as they find you and you're trying to make a quiet getaway)

[MJontheMend]

Babbling on..

If I don't have an emotional knee-jerk reaction to an action and instead choose my response how do I make that choice? It seems to me that the choice I make will always reflect my value system although perhaps imperfectly. Will I manifest "Do unto others" or "Turn the other cheek." or "What goes around comes around." or "An eye for an eye." or "Might makes right." or "The virtue of selfishness" or " Truth above all else." or "Show me the money." etc. etc. I think this is probably what Deida is addressing when he says that the superior man needs to make his own rules.

Given that Deida seems to be implying in his book for women that at root (or perhaps climax) a woman should/would have an emotional response, it seems to me that the "frame" or "purpose" of the superior man is truly his value system and how strongly he projects it in his life and in relationship. So if a woman is "testing" a man's masculinity she is really testing his "value system" and his ability to support it. Therefore, if I , for example, were willing to have sex with a man just because he had massive biceps, I would be in a sense signaling that the value system that I wanted to follow or respond to emotionally was "rule of the jungle".

[MJontheMend]

Lol- I think we ended up at the same place on the road although my route might have been more circuitous.

There is so much more to say about this AND about Burgbud's comments about the difference between a wife's "testing" and out and out abuse. I just don't have the time!!

Okay, I've got nothing better to do since I haven't signaled availability lately and therefore I am home on a Friday night (sigh) so let me give it a whirl. If we all buy my premise that a woman is testing a man's ability to maintain his value system then conflict may arise if she:

1) Doesn't have adequate knowledge of his value system.

2) Views him as acting in opposition to his value system.

3) Views his value system as being in opposition to her value system.

4)Views him as taking inadequate action in the direction of his value system.

So let's say a man strongly values sex as an expression of emotional connection within a marriage. Conflict may arise if:

1) He doesn't clearly state this value.

2) He does something in conflict with this value such as settle for sex lacking emotional connection.

3) His wife truly places no value on sexuality within marriage as a means of emotional connection.

4) He takes inadequate action such as retreating into fantasy.


So any action that a woman might take in alignment with these points would be "testing" and would only likely rise to the level of "abuse" if the man wasn't conscious of the fact that he was striving to manifest his value system. I suppose a severe conflict of true value systems would lead to the end of the relationship.

[fearless]

Mojo - I don't know why I thought you had indicated that you were bulimic as an adult.

Well 19 is kind of an adult, right? But I know what you mean...

I'm just anal enough to look back through and find the thread where solidmechanic and I had the exchange where I admitted to my past issue with bulimia. I think the reason you thought it might have been concurrent with my marriage was my comment that I felt my XH probably viewed my (past) bulimia issues with a bit of disgust and a lack of understanding. Of course I continued (and still continue although I believe I am making constant progress) with the body issues that led to the bulimia in the first place. I let my XH know about my past struggles with bulimia early in our dating. All of that to say I can see how you could have assumed that the bulimia was concurrent with my marriage and I am glad to straighten that out.

There is so much more to say about this AND about Burgbud's comments about the difference between a wife's "testing" and out and out abuse. I just don't have the time!!

And I still don't have adequate time! I guess I just see the behavior of the woman in Dieda's Chapter 15 examples as fairly mild. While she didn't react to hew news of making a million dollars with praise and cheers, she also didn't degrade and say anything derogatory about it either (i.e. sure you did but you'll still never be anything but a loser, etc.). Instead her reaction was a mild "that's nice dear" and then on to the question of the milk which he has forgotten the past 3 days. To me there is nothing CLOSE to abusive in her behavior.

I still wonder if all of this questioning shows how hard it is for people that don't respect themselves to really be able to judge accurately how those around them react. If the husband is still feeling somewhat insecure about himself even though he made a million dollars, then relying on his wife's reaction to make himself "happy" is probably a losing battle anyway. Even if she tried to praise, she still might not praise him "enough" or the "right way." That's why Deida stresses not to look for her reactions to lead you and says "But you don't want her to settle for some bozo who depends on his woman's response to be happy." This might be a harsh sounding statement I would imagine for people that are all ready feeling unhappy. Please understand that Dieda is trying to GIVE you the power to make yourself happy instead of looking for others to do it.

On a similar subject of trying to understand why it is so important for a person to know themselves and to feel validated by themselves is that I feel if you are not able to validate yourself than truly how will anyone else be able to??

I tried to give this analogy to Raven. I know enough in my every day life to know when I am having a bad day or bad week. For whatever reason I can have a day where I wake up and nothing feels right. Intellectually I KNOW this is not reality. How could I feel fine one day and feel fat or ugly the next? Obviously this is NOT reality but feelings. SOOOO in my analogy I told Raven that I have now learned enough to know that I will NEVER get my hair cut on a day when I feel badly about my hair. Men may not get this but I think women will understand. The problem is that the hair stylist will only be able to understand that you HATE how your hair is looking and will react to that negativity. The problem is that you may not REALLY hate your hair AND also in your negative mood you will not be able to give your stylist the best POSITIVE information about what you want because you are only focused on what you don't want.

Corri made this excellent point earlier (And I think Blackfoot has mentioned it also) that using I am and I want are much better than I am not and I don't want statements and thinking. There's the obvious power in positive thinking. But it is important to know that our brains don't register the negative words as much which is why thinking "Don't trip, don't trip" will usually result in you tripping. Because your brain only registers "Trip, Trip."

Anyway... I am feeling a bit philosophical after attending my 20th HS reunion. REALLY REALLY glad I did. I have great memories of HS and there are a lot of people that I considered friends that I had not seen in a long time. I almost didn't go and now think that would have been ridiculous. The only bad thing of the evening was that so many didn't come. I think it's just the shock of hitting the 20th year. It's just hard to believe that it's been that long ago.

[MJontheMend]

I tried to give this analogy to Raven. I know enough in my every day life to know when I am having a bad day or bad week. For whatever reason I can have a day where I wake up and nothing feels right. Intellectually I KNOW this is not reality. How could I feel fine one day and feel fat or ugly the next? Obviously this is NOT reality but feelings. SOOOO in my analogy I told Raven that I have now learned enough to know that I will NEVER get my hair cut on a day when I feel badly about my hair. Men may not get this but I think women will understand. The problem is that the hair stylist will only be able to understand that you HATE how your hair is looking and will react to that negativity. The problem is that you may not REALLY hate your hair AND also in your negative mood you will not be able to give your stylist the best POSITIVE information about what you want because you are only focused on what you don't want.

This is exactly why I said that my experience thus far in my dating career has been that the men that I date give me exactly the validation that I give myself. This can be true even in an instance in which I am rejected. If I am largely self-validating in such a situation what I will hear the guy communicate is something like "you are not my type" or "close but no cigar" and instead of feeling disheartened my reaction is to be philosophical or even oddly encouraged. Kind of like if you aren't sure if you like your hair but you don't know exactly why but you keep going to different hairdressers and each one gives you a clue as to how you might improve the condition or style of your hair and you get increasingly positive feedback as you work on both your hair and finding the kind of hairdresser that best knows how to deal with it and with whom you can best communicate your desired appearance. After all, it's very validating for a hairdresser to have a well-pleased customer too, especially if you are a generous tipper - lol.

[Crazy Eddie]

The reason I might disagree with the statement of the Dalai Lama is that to my mind its logical conclusion could be nihilism. I'm going to get a bit ridiculous here but, for instance, you could smile at me and say "Would you like some ice cream?" and I could choose to spit on the floor and mutter "Wallpaper. Zebra. Electricity." and my behavior/response would be in alignment with the statement. If I have a knee-jerk reaction then I am limited to only one possible response but if nothing in your action determines my response then the possibilities for my response are infinite and many of the possible responses will be nonsense.

OK, you could do that, but it would not be very likely to serve your purpose. So you probably won't.

Of course assuming that you're being tested with that question and then coming up with what you think will be taken by them as the right answer probably won't serve your purpose either. But if your knee-jerk reaction leads you to that assumption, it's leading you astray and needs to be "re-trained". While you may not have time for reflection to give you the right answer on the spot, there will be other opportunities where a better knee-jerk response will serve your purpose. Always stay awake and pay attention, and look for ways to have better knee-jerk reactions.