i don't know

i think most think i should

keep the picture of jack up

Any takers on the 'How do I land in your reality?' game???

One agreeing to the terms of the game/exercise, would openly ask participants to express their perception of how the ‘asking’ candidate ‘occurs’ (impressions) to them.

The asking candidate would have to agree not to criticize or argue with the comments of the participant providing ‘his/her’ perceptions. May ask ‘honest’ clarifying questions as long as they are not designed to get back at the participant.

The participant, on the other hand, would agree to make a ‘straight’, and as objective as possible comment of their perception. Clear communications, free of overpowering emotions, and attacks, are most effective: ‘… in my reality, you land as …’.

The gift of the whole exercise, is the opportunity to truly and sincerely open oneself and ‘hear’, ‘receive’, ‘let be’ the perceptions others have of one, for what they are, perceptions.

In the end, those perceptions are much more a part of one’s own reality, than your one's own perceptions which excludes others'.

Denying it, disagreeing with it, or attacking those perceptions we don't like, will not change the fact we all either ‘bump-up’ against, or dance more smoothly with the ‘reality’ of interconnected perceptions.

What are your thoughts? Do we think that it would be worth giving this exercise a crack on this thread?!?!?

I'll play, but I'd like to add to the rules, that posts in previous threads be the basis for comments. This way, the true projection of that person at that moment will be commented upon, rather than saying oh, yeah okay: let's play let's rate how you come across when you know its happening and can therefore be more aware of the between the lines, so to speak.

You voil, crack me up. Yes, I've seen you hound a subject more than I perhaps would, but as I've seen you get through with tongue in cheek sarcasm along with some very graphic metaphors so much more effectively than politeness, I can only sit back and applaud.

As well somtimes we can be gifted in evading such questions

In my human existence, in has become quite evident to me that even if one should have the absolute purist of intention and thought which are expressed in a non-offensive manner, the successful completion of a communicated notion(s) is also contingient upon the processing mechanisms within the receiver...

I suppose we have all witnessed, many times, a notion gone awry simply by being 'mistakenly processed'. Depending on the severity of the differences between the two indivuals' who are participating in the exchange, the intent behind any attempt of communication can often be misconstrued by the receiver, thereby rendering the original expression lost.

I used to allow others' inaccurate thoughts about me to affect me at times when they should not have made a difference. By getting to know myself better, it has enabled me to have a more accurate sense of discernment concerning the source of the image another views while looking in this direction.

We cannot possibly be held responsible for the sources of another's processing filters.

Ok...

What does that say about me?

You have a decent vocabulary and you've taken the time to look at who you are and why you act as you do and I just broke my own rule, darn it! I've only noticed you to speak in parables under extreme frustration in dealing with what appeared to be a rather politically styled intellectual dancer(aside in a whisper, I just made that phrase up).

Me? Me a politically styled intellectual dancer?


No, I am your garden variety, pole and playdough dancer...

I have found this to be very true. I feel I am being logical and standing for what I see and low and behold I have offended someone. I do apologize for offending though because it is never my intent. I just shoot from the hip. I have been told it can be quite discerning at times. This is the reason I willingly apologize. I am a caring and positive person, really I am

DKOW:

I speak in parables?

I am a firm believer in the notion of using the fewest possible words to effectively deliver the intended message...

I do not, however, get frustrated often with cyber exchanges... frustration requires emotional investment.

Sigh.....

Figuring i bash people on this site, that would be a vaild point.

Even when i post worldy topics having little to do with God, i still get the comments. You know there is common ground here, are we too prideful to not find such ground? Do we invest to much self-glorification in our posts? moreless my point

OK, so 2 questions, and a reply!

First, I would want Jess to indicate whether she gives the 'thumbs up' or 'thumpbs down' with the 'How does 'one' land in others reality?'. This is your post Jess. It's a great post, and you tell us whether this 'exercise' fits with its spririt or not.

Second, everyone else, simply watch for Jess's reply, and should Jess give us a 'thumbs up', and let us know if you're 'in play'.
Each candidate would agree to take part on both sides of the fence, making responsible comments about the 'candidate of the moment', and 'receiving' other people's comments responsibly (no negotiating, arguing, or whining).

Exchanges might follow the different simple rules:
- given what I have read on so and so, here is how you 'land' in my space:
- In 'good faith', and in a contributive spirit (not in spite, or with the intent of 'settling accont'), name clearly the colour of the perception under two categories:
WHAT WORKS! about how a cnadidate lands for you, and here is WHAT DOESN'T WORK! in one's perception.
- As long as the comments are made in good faith' and in good spirit', the candidates job is to read and 'receive' the comments as generous insights (revealing blindspots of how one lands in life).
The candidate can ask one or two clarifying questions about comments, but should refrain from arguing with the commentor.

Reply to Differentkindofwench.
- took good note of your provisional 'I'll play!'. Great sport you are!
- think your point about taking into consideration everything one (previous posts) can put together, constituting his perception of a candidate, is totally in play. Eventhough this is not about bashing anyone with 'in their face 'posting examples', basing one's perception on the general view of the candidate is of essence.
- Alaso Differentkindofwench, and though I would have some simple clarifying questions about them, I welcome the general gist of your comments, and would love to reciprocate, should 'Jess' gives us the thumbs up.

Yeyyy!

Oh! Voileazur! I apologise! I feel I can't give permission nor not give permission....

We are these threads, all of us, in our ways, and thoughts.

We can take this thread anywhere WE choose to take it.


So be it.

OK Jess, thanks.

So if I understand well then, it is up to the thread!!!

So what do you say thread?!?!?!


Who's up for it?!?!?

I’m backing off security
condoning the obscurity
of every post
from every host
and their level of maturity

My permission isn’t needed
nor would it be heeded
by anyone
who comes undone
to reveal that they're conceited

Project your soul
expose a fool
or ride a broom around your post

Life’s too short to lengthen it
with debates about a ghost

I’m eating fairy donuts
with demonic elvin tea
brewing up a potion
of a ghostly potpourri

I’m only here for pleasure
and to share the jubilee

The chatter on the forums
isn’t mine to oversee

Voile:

This is an interesting suggestion... indeed!!...

I will participate in such a well intended function of communication and good will...

I am in.

all you have to do is to read between the lines of the posts to find out the "who" of the poster...it takes an extraordinary amout of brainpower to assume a fake personality and to fake what your beliefs may actually be and an extraordinary amout of energy to keep the ruse up, eventually you have to post as yourself and reveal exactly the "who" ...

i feel i am projecting my true self on here.no e-mails..hmmmmm

Ok Cute. That quip was a little above the belt wasn't it?

I like this, Yours?