--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson
<olafurpall@y...> wrote:

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Ólafur Páll Ólafsson
> <olafurpall@y...> wrote:

>> Ólafur Páll Ólafsson wrote:

>>> But speaking of honesty I would be
>>> lying if I said I was always 100% honest with people. There are
>>> times where I try avoiding the truth and don't talk completely
>>> straight out when asked about something,
>>>
>>> [It is perfectly acceptable to not volunteer information that you do
>>> not think is necessary or helpful, particularly when having necessary
>>> dealings with people who you are quite sure will not understand
>>> or are in a position of some coercive or monopoly power over
>>> you. Of course, for this same reason you will want to keep your
>>> dealings with such people to an absolute minimum. This is part
>>> of the nature of what I call a "tiny perfect" relationship.
>>> --Paul]
>>
>> I was mainly referring to cases where I don't think people will
> > understand me. In such cases I try to avoid the truth rather than
>> directly lie to them. In cases where people are in position of
>> coercive power over me on the other hand I don't hesitate to lie.
>>
>> [The value of the relationship to *you* would be the determining
>> factor in how much you want the other person to understand you. This
>> building of understanding requires some initial risk by letting things
>> be known about one's self. If there is reciprocation, the building of
>> a relationship can begin. Determining the amount of agreement on
>> foundational matters and willingness to discuss differences for
>> establishment of possible additional agreement can then proceed.
>> If the people you are referring to, Olafur, were just casual
>> acquaintances (or even semi-strangers) for whom you had no desire to
>> build a closer relationship, then giving them a detailed explanation
>> so that they could understand a complex situation in which you had
>> been involved would likely not be a good use of your time. There are
>> times when I have done similarly. **Kitty]
>
> I agree. The more I value the relationship the more I want the
> person to understand me.
>
> [This is a very reasonable way to approach relationships, but of
> course the *value* of a relationship is to what degree it promotes the
> goal of maximizing one's lifetime happiness using widest view, longest
> range thinking. It's clear to me that you understand this, but I think
> most people consider all relationships with relatively short term,
> criteria. There is for many (?most) a desire for "lots of friends" or
> to be "most popular". Quantity too often is seen as more "valuable"
> than quality. **Kitty]

This is particularly true for the younger generation. I would like to
have lots of friends, but I take quality over quantity.

[Yes, I think it's true very often in younger people, but as they get older,
those who have matured in their reasoning abilities will find that the quality
of relationships is of more long range, wide view value than purely being
acquainted with and being able to chat with large numbers of people. (Later: I
had originally used the word "knowing" and Paul suggested "being acquainted
with" since there is a wide degree of how well someone "knows" another. There's
even the archaic/biblical meaning of the word, which means to have sexual
intercourse with.... now that *ought* to mean knowing someone pretty well, but
to many young people and some men at any age, it apparently doesn't ;>)

You don't say why you would "like to have lots of friends" - why do you? And if
so, why then do you "take quality over quantity"? --Kitty]

[While reading this comment from Kitty it occured to me that perhaps it is
reasonable for young people to want more friends than older people. The reason
would be that being younger also generally implies less experience and more need
(not just desire) to observe and learn. Whereas older people have more
experience and should have made more discrimatory choices about other types of
people already, younger people are not yet experienced enough and need a wider
range of contacts to "experiment" with in order to learn such discriminatory
choices. This is a natural extention of infants wanting to touch and taste
everything they see. Thus seen, it appears to be a natural part of experience
acquisition and mental development. --Paul]


>> However there are some things I am ashamed of that are not
>> mistakes. I realise that this is not reasonable but I still find it
>> hard to eliminate the shame in some cases. And in some of the cases
>> the reason I don't want to talk about something is because I'm shy
>> about it not because I'm ashamed of it.
>>
>> [I guess I am having a hard time trying to imagine what sort of
>> incident or action is something about which you would be ashamed, but
>> is not a mistake. If it was not a mistake (of some kind), then the
>> question of why you did it arises. Perhaps we each have a different
>> idea of what constitutes a mistake. Even if you did something
>> intentional which you now consider was incorrect (not in your long
>> range best interest), then it was still a kind of mistake (in
>> judgement) when you did it. I see no reason to continue to be ashamed
>> of it, so long as you acknowledge it and clearly state that it was
>> wrong and you will endeavor never to do it again. Acknowledgement
>> (owning up to something - taking responsibility for it) is *the* very
>> first step towards removing all shame involved. --Paul]
>
> An example of a thing I might be ashamed of which I wouldn't call a
> mistake is being ashamed of the actions of a close family member at
> some times. I know this is not reasonable because I am not in control
> of the person, I can only try to influence the persons behaviour.
>
> [First, thanks for providing the needed concrete example. I
> understand this since I think that I remember feeling the same way
> when I was younger. However, this potential problem of having the
> actions of someone with whom you are associated "reflected" onto you
> is actually reasonable to a certain extent, because it is reasonable
> for others to initially think that you agree with such actions since
> you are associating with the people who are acting in such a manner.
> It could be a relative or merely a friend or even just a countryman or
> your government. In some people's view you are an "Icelander" and the
> actions of anyone they know who is from Iceland will be related to
> you. This last is clearly irrational, because you did not choose where
> you were born. In addition, you also did not choose your relatives.
> However, it is reasonable to associate someone with the actions of
> their friends, since friends are chosen. Furthermore, even though a
> person cannot choose their relatives or their country of birth, they
> *can* choose to no longer associate with those relatives or live in
> that country, and the fact that they do not *does* reflect on them
> somewhat.
>
> I see two possible methods of solving this problem.
> 1) Make it very clear to all observers that you do not agree with
> the actions taking place, whether of your friends or relatives (but
> then you have the problem of needing to "explain" why you still
> associate with such people, if you do).
> 2) Terminate your association with people who take actions with
> which you do not agree. Or at the least, associate with them only in
> ways and under circumstances with which you agree (ie. "distance"
> yourself from all their negative actions). Again, this last is part of
> the nature of a "tiny perfect" relationship. --Paul]

I agree with all this and I've been trying to practice both the
methods you suggested as a solution to this kind of problems.

>> [There are other practices that can more readily be unhealthy to an
>> individual, but for which the tactics often used are ones to frighten
>> (typically with misinformation) or threaten (punishment) rather than
>> simply providing truthful information - tobacco, alcohol and
>> recreational drug usage and homosexual relationships are common ones.
>> Whether any of these are "wrong" can be determined only by the
>> individual using wide view, long range thinking and not in a blanket
>> manner for everyone in all circumstances.
>>
>> Another area of human interactions that many people find difficult
>> to actually discuss is romantic relationships. All sorts of images
>> have been painted of what is desirable in books, songs, movies, TV
>> programming and advertising, and much of it is very distorted from
>> what is in the best interest of any widest viewing, longest range
>> thinking human being. This alone could be the subject for numerous
>> posts. **Kitty]
>
> Romantic relationships are an area which I do find hard to talk about
> with people and more so with some people than others. These are just
> things I'm shy about and avoid talking about for that reason. A
> situation similar to this is when parents have to explain sex to their
> kids when they reach a certain age. Some people don't find that hard
> to do but others find that very difficult and uncomfortable to do.
>
> [I certainly know and agree that there are such differences between
> people in their degree of "comfort" in discussing such things.
> However, I think it is important to examine just why one feels
> uncomfortable, since I do not see any good reason for such
> feelings. --Paul]

I don't see any good reason either. But I still find it hard to
eliminate the uncomfortable feeling even after thinking about how
illogical it is.

[Then it is just an old habit that you can break and be rid of in time.
Acknowledged bad habits are learned reactions which you are trying to unlearn.
In this case, you need to note its occurence, recall that you do not agree with
it anymore, and say strongly to your emotion: "Go away! I don't agree with you
anymore and I don't need you!". In this regard, if you haven't read it, see:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/935 --Paul]


> [Well, you started to "talk" about romantic relationships here, now.
> That's a good start. It often takes just getting started, easier with
> someone with whom you have confidence that s/he will not belittle you
> in any way. **Kitty]

Yes, often all that is needed is breaking the ice. It wasn't the
easiest thing for me to start discussing this with you but I'm taking
steps in the right direction. I think a part of the reason why I find
romantic relationships uncomfortable to talk about is caused by the
way I was raised up. Everyone in the family (me my two brothers and
my parents) is a bit shy about romantic relationships.

[I give you credit for doing something that was difficult for you, even though
you knew there was no "danger" involved. When so many people currently keep
vital portions of themselves concealed, it is a pleasure to interact with the
relatively few who recognize how much they have to gain by not maintaining
emotional walls around themselves. I think it comes from the fact that those of
us who do *not* view life as a zero sum game (someone must always lose in order
that another wins) therefore recognize that "playing one's cards close to the
chest" - so that no one else can see them - is, in fact, of negative value.

Are "romantic relationships" the only emotionally related subject that those in
your family are "shy" about discussing? What about other areas that ellicit
emotional response? How easily do your parents and you fellows discuss how you
feel as well as what you think? Say in areas related to observing extraordinary
architectural structures, spectacular natural vistas, devastating destruction
both natural and man-made, the death of someone close, personal accomplishments,
and the potential for a well ordered society of more freedom. These are just
some subjects about which many people are not initially able to really express
their emotions, while still being able to intellectually analyze them. (There
are also individuals - maybe more in number - who can go on at length
emotionally about the above items I listed, but not be able to engage in any
intellectual discussion about them.) But these areas are a good place to start
because they are often perceived as less personal than one's romantic
thoughts/emotions.
Learning to verbally express one's thoughts and relating them to the physical
sensations that are experienced is the best way that I know to bring the
connection to the forefront of one's thinking. Most often though, the process is
started in the reverse order - finding the explanation intellectually for why
certain emotions are felt (or were felt, if one is reviewing the past). And the
more a person practices expressing hirself in ways that others can understand
and that ellicits substantive response, the easier it becomes. **Kitty]