 |
 |
Dear Janet, After reading my post and your two posts not only does my brain hurt, I am thoroughly confused. Somehow, I think we share the same views through different means. I guess I have been conditioned too long that personal responsibility is a product of using your conscience as a guide in responding to difficult questions we may face. For me that would be difficult without tying in some personal experiences. It just seems as though, emotions are often interrelated and difficult to separate, at least for me. Your posts really made me think, hopefully not selfishly, but through somewhat of an open mind. (It is tough to remove the filters)(And finally on my fifth attempt to copy this from Dragon Naturally Speaking, yes it was a longer response the first time. After 5 re-writes my brain does in fact ache.) Your cyber-Bro, Greg Leeman 37/7 -----Original Message----- From: Janet313 <[log in to unmask]> To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sunday, March 29, 1998 12:10 PM Subject: Re: your work is not your worth >hi greg > >you wrote: >>Dear Janet, >>Wow! At first glance this appears to be wonderful way of eliminating >>worry that is self-inflicted. But isn't all worry self-inflicted. > >not necessarily >the problem here can be figuring out whether our worries >are based on rational concerns >or on irrational ones > >a great deal of unnecessary worry is created >by those automatic negative thoughts that >most people have running in their minds >we can be our own worst critics > >>Much of it would seem to be controlled by one's self >>and in fact how we respond to someone elses actions >>would correlate our feelings as a result. > >exactly! >the childhood saying >"sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me" >is based on a rock solid truth > >it's my re-action to the name-calling / opinion / action / whatever >that can cause me pain > >>However, let us not fool ourselves into believing that >>worth is not tangible in relation to human emotions. > >i'm not clear on your meaning here >i understand 'tangible' to mean touchable, >i.e. having three dimensions, etc >i believe that dr. burns is saying >that 'worth' is a concept, an idea, and thus is intangible > >>If we philosophize in this way we may have fewer ulcers and >>gray hairs, but society would be the loser. I can not imagine >>what the product of such rationale would be. I can agree that >>self-worth can not be measured in material worth or possessions, >>however it seems to me there are enough people out there that >>have no regard for how they feel about themselves or what impact >>they have on others. There needs to be more accountablity and >>responsibility. > >in my opinion >a lack of regard for others >is profoundly based on a lack of regard for oneself > >we are where we have been > >we perceive our world through a filter >coloured and shaded by our own past experiences >it takes a lot of hard scrubbing to clean that filter >so as to be able to perceive others and their actions clearly > >i am not responsible for the way others treat me >i am only responsible for the way i treat others > >i cannot change others' >behaviour toward me / opinions of me / reactions to me > >i can only change my own > >in "the road less traveled and beyond" >m. scott peck says: >----- >...the further we proceed in diminishing >our narcissism, our self-centredness, and sense of self-importance, >the more we discover ourselves becoming >not only less fearful of death >but also less fearful of life > >and this is the basis for learning to become more loving > >no longer burdened >by the need to constantly protect and defend ourselves, >we are able to lift our eyes off ourselves >and truly recognise others > >and we begin to experience a sustained underlying sense of happiness >that we have never experienced before as we become >progressively more self-forgetful... >----- > >>The following excerpt appears to be very >>apathetic to others not to themselves: > >i'm not clear on your meaning here > >>>your "unit of worth" >>>can't be measured >>>amd can never change >>>and it is the same for everyone >>> >>>during your lifetime >>>you can enhance your happiness and satisfaction >>>through productive living >>>or >>>you can act in a destructive manner >>>and make yourself miserable >>>but >>>your "unit of worth" is always there >>>along with your potential for self-esteem and joy >>... >>It is the destructive manner that will impact others that >>needs some attatchment to a person's own feelings about worth. >>If we don't hold ourselves accountable in some measurable way >>we will disintegrate our already fragile moral integrity. > >i don't think we disagree here >we all have a choice >between living in a productive or destructive way > >i believe that dr. burns is saying >that all human beings have their own intrinsic worth >regardless of the paths that they choose / stumble onto > >maybe we are looking at this from opposite directions? > >you seem to be saying that >people should have more regard for others > >[it would be nice if they did, but lots of them don't, >and we can't change their behaviour] > >and thus would gain regard for themselves > >[we can't earn regard or worth; we have it already in us >but our murky filters that keep us from seeing / accepting it] > >>>acknowledge that everyone has one "unit of worth" >>>from the time they are born >>>until the time they die >>> >>>as an infant >>>you may achieve very little >>>and yet you are still precious and worthwhile >>> >>>when you are old or ill >>>relaxed or asleep >>>or just doing "nothing" >>>you still have "worth" >> >>At both of these stages of life >>there is often the need for help from others > >my 'neatening' of dr. burns' phrasing may have misled you >he refers to more than just two situations: > >1. infant >2. old >3. ill >4. relaxed >5. asleep > >an infant is totally dependent on others for basic survival >someone who is old or ill may be dependent to some degree >someone who is simply relaxed or asleep is probably not dependent at all >in all these cases, the individuals could be described as >'doing nothing worthwhile' or 'being unproductive' >by someone with very murky filters > >>If we throw away the concept that what we do to respond >>to people in need and relate to some value to ourselves, >>there would be even more neglect than we see today. >>There wouldn't appear to be any gain. > >i don't understand your meaning here > >>I don't accept that it would relieve stress and eventually less >>worry would lead to some better existence for all. > >i'm not clear on your meaning here either > >i don't think any of dr. burns' or scott peck's ideas >could ever be construed as resulting in less worry or more 'ease' >quite the opposite in fact > >the more we look >the more we see > >the more we see >the more we discover > >for example >here is scott peck's philosophical progression: > >[from his first book written when he was 40 >to his more recent book written when he was 60] > >1. life is difficult >2. life is complex >3. there are no easy answers > >>Self-esteem is built on a foundation of respect for ones self > >yes.... > >>in response to how they handle others problems >>or any situation that we encounter. > >aha! >this is where we diverge > >in my humble opinion >my / your / our worthiness is >intrinsic, inherent, pre-existing, built-in, a given, a standard feature, >organic, >implicit, rooted, inalienable, entrenched, tacit, innate, indigenous, natural, >and, >last but not least, >unconditional > >it took me a long time to come around to this concept >but i did >and my reaction to it now is >ain't that great!?! > >>When I think of my own self-esteem or worth, >>I admit I'm a little too harsh on myself at times. > >you or i may do stupid / hateful / insensitive things >but that does not mean we are inherently stupid / hateful / insensitive >*or of less worth* > >we are simply stumbling down the path as well as we can >with the skills that we have at the time > >>But, counter to that are my feelings of joy >>at making someone else happy. > >i don't believe that we have the capability of >making >anyone else >feel any emotion > >i could give flowers / a hug / a salary increase >to ten different people >and get ten different responses >based on their ten different filters > >in the same way that >no one else >can make >us >feel any emotion > >>And that may be narcisistic, but it certainly makes me >>feel elated and worthy when in fact there is an exchange >>or collaborative effort and two or more people can share >>their worthiness and respect for caring enough in the first >>place to elicit these emotions. > >i'm not denying the pleasure >felt in helping or collaborating with others >i just don't think it 'results' in an increase in true self-esteem or worth > >>I find when I really have caused someone elses pain or >>just said the hell with it I do have a conscience and >>that would have to be a byproduct of my self-esteem or worth. > >you seem to be measuring your worth >based on the effect of your behaviour on others > >further to my ten 'friends' above >what if i gave flowers to someone who was allergic? >what if i hugged someone who was agoraphobic [?] -or -phobic? >what if i gave a raise to someone who really wanted recognition instead? > >>Even as I write this I am feeling some pangs of unworthiness (worry). >>They are derived from not wanting to overreact and make this personal. > >you are being thoughtful and considerate of others >i.e. doing the work of pure and simple love >by writing as you have > >your struggle is your success >not my reaction to it > >your worth is not based on >the 'successful' outcome of your struggle > >the facts of your concern and your effort and your worry >to me >reflect your inherent kindness > >[no preening allowed!] > >>It is towards my feelings, but doesn't that make the world >>a better place. We should never be a perfectionist in regards >>to ourselves, because that is unrealistic > >totally and absolutely completely >we are human >the only way humans learn is by making mistakes > >> however, if we don't hold ourselves accountable in some >>tangible way it would surely have a negative impact. > >i didn't say anything about not being accountable / responsible >but we do have to know the true limits / extents >of our influence > >whew!... thanks greg... i think! > > >with love from your cyber sibling in stumbling > >janet > >janet paterson >51-10 / sinemet-selegiline-prozac >almonte-ontario-canada / [log in to unmask] >