Re: [Meditation Society of America] do not confuse Re: Mirroring
- Hi Nina,I can only touch on this, for I am preparing for attendence at the annual stalkers rights convention ;) No, really this seems to cover enough to possible see where it is I'm speaking from.
Nina <murrkis@...> wrote:Jason, it is surreal to see you drawing relationships between your children and stalkers. Are you suggesting that by 'limiting' a stalker's ability to transgress boundaries, that the stalker comes to desire that transgression even more?Yes, what I am saying is that by allowing someone to uncover the mystery of the persuit, the solution is often presented by way of thier own admission, not by what I or any other dictates it to be. In other words I have to do nothing but be myself. If being myself includes having boundaries, then I'm binding myself to those as well as all others. Reality has boundaries that I cannot cross or manipulate, thats more then enough.Are you suggesting that perhaps this would support the thesis that one should 'allow the stalker in', as a way of mediating the stalker's desire?No, quite the opposite. By partaking fully into what it is to be a stalker or the stalked there is no mediation or manipulation required, the chase is ended once the roles get played out.All in the name of compassion and love?All in the name of being human. In the name of having the ability to choose, in awareness that it isn't going to turn out as intended if I have no clue as to what I'm doing. What I would advocate is if a stalker or any other is a problem for you, then looking into what it is to not only be the stalked, but the stalker as well, will easily confirm this understanding.Egads, perhaps, you might care to check in with your own ability to mind others' boundaries, rather than lamenting that it is so darn hard these days to transgress boundaries because
people are so concerned with their own self-protection.I'm not lamenting here at all, I have long confirmed my ability to mind others boundaries (if they need those bounderies to keep them safe, thats just fine). I have also confirmed what it means for me to be bound, which brings clearly in the 2 seemingly different perspectives, which in essesence they are not. One puts up the wall to have the other tear it down, otherwise no wall is needed, not even for protection. In almost every single case (bared what is witnessed on tv, movies and in times of war etc.) people do not go on with the intent to destroy, partially for the laws in place, but for the majority it's a risk that is unneccesary, regardless of condition.A lil story...I worked in the heart of the ghetto for nine years and to this day I still proceed into "less the safe" neighborhoods. My protection is that I have nothing that needs protecting, if I get shot stabbed mamed, killed, that is exactly what is to happen, but thus far it has not and I would imagine will not for at least the next ten minutes. I had a great deal of good people that I conversed with, got to know about thier strifes and struggles and they did just fine by me, even though they talked of beating up the next door neighbor for bringing in drugs or having weapons that threatened thier safety. To me it was just another day in the walk of reality and no one felt threatened by that ever.Ok, so you didn't say it this way, but given that most of us write our posts for our own information, "to ourselves", I can't help but put it in that context...I agree, you will take from what you know to be true, thats good for knowing, it's not so good for understanding in compassion and peace through the other, of which my world has revolved around since my birth and will until my death.Peace and Love
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search