“Self Censoring” Comments, Page 1
You are currently browsing page 1 of comments on the article Self Censoring.
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Self Censoring”.
12 Responses to “Self Censoring”
-
Ron C. de Weijze
1R and S depend on cultural-historical context. You become critical when your environment has turned sick (“sociosis” – JH van den Berg). Apart from this long term dynamic there is a short term one, where R as an intuition or philosophy leads you through your daily life, while S is critical but still confirms your thoughts and actions. However, when R does something S cannot confirm, it must adapt. Reality had to correct intuition. “Strong R” may lead to groups not allowing reality to interfere (Hegel: “Schade fuer den Sachen”) and smuggle in dependent confirmation, where group members just “retweet” one another when they hear their own song and democracy, blind as it can be, still counts these as one voice or vote each. This is where democracy, but even reality, is seriously harmed. So I believe the commentator’s real job is to wake for independent confirmation turning dependent.
-
2
Hi Ron, I really like the term ‘sociosis’. I really like the way you lay out the social dynamic too. And I do think too that the commentators job is to stay awake to the turn to dependence. Thanks for a very stimulating and insightful comment.
-
Barbara
3Hi Evan
The most immediately striking thing for me personally in this article was the notion of acting/responding with more than one ‘part’ of you. You experienced no regret when you utilized multiple parts.
Now that you’ve stated it so succintly, it makes perfect sense to me. However, I don’t think I ever really thought in terms of using or not using whatever parts of me I had available, before or after I did something, especially the not best result. Maybe it intertwines with the idea of growth and wholeness?
It seems a good framing tool prior to action, especially if used purposefully as you seem to be suggesting. And I’m wondering why no one ever told me! But I guess you just did. TY.
-
4
Hi Barbara, it works as a good framing tool for me. Glad you find it useful. Feel free to check back in and let us know how you go with it. Thanks for your comment.
-
5
I don’t like the term ‘censoring’ but I like to be able to *choose* how to act or respond. I feel like I can choose when I feel whole. That is when ‘R’ and “S’ are not split off into extremes but natural compliments of each other…
-
6
Hi Sarah, I guess ‘censoring’ has negative connotations. It feels like it’s talking about a split – one part wanting to do something and another part restraining. Which is a long way from feeling whole. I like the idea of complements.
My own view is that choice is a positive part of our experience – that it is a function of wholeness. Some regard choice as a problem – it implies a lack of unity for them. My view is that wholeness can be the wholeness of an organism ie. that the parts of the whole can be in harmony and so no threat to the organism’s wholeness.
Thanks for your comment.
-
Marie
7Hi, Evan -
I also really like the idea of responding with the whole rather than a part of me. That feels congruent for me.
I appreciate what you have said here about not censoring my feelings . . . that is the biggest lesson you have taught me through the comments you have left on my blog. Giving myself permission to really feel whatever I’m feeling has been a huge component of my healing — thank you for your part in that!
- Marie
-
8
Hi Marie,
Not censoring my feelings was a big lesson for me too. I’m really enjoying following your blog. I also like it when I can respond with all of me. Thanks for your comment. -
9
Hi, Evan -
Disentangling these different parts, as you do, is another example of your uncommon wisdom. The two basic directions are pretty sharply defined in my experience. I’m mostly intuitive in my responses and experience my worst moments when I censor out the spontaneity of the action that should follow the intuitive perception. Censoring the expression of most spontaneous feeling is one of the most ingrained and disastrous traits that followed me out of childhood. So I’m well acquainted with that form of censoring. As you say, there is the other side – censoring my actions is what saves me from the pull of addictive drives and passions. It saves me from violating the boundaries others have set – something I used to do so readily.
Your summary of these tendencies is just perfect: “For attitude R there is the sense that our good experiences are achieved through relaxation (’go with the flow’); for attitude S our good experiences are hard won achievements.”
I lean far too heavily toward censoring the spontaneous flow, and my third voice, aware of the problems of clamping down on feelings, has the weakest connection to willing and changing behavior. It’s usually the wise observer that stands by powerless to intervene.
At least that’s the way it used to be. As my problems with depression have receded, there’s been a much greater balance among the three.
Thank you for this great post, Evan. I’ll be stumbling this one.
John
-
10
Hi John, thanks for the compliment. It sounds like we have been on similar paths (although I haven’t battled depression). I too am an intuitive who had to learn not to censor spontaneous feeling (I grew up in evangelical Christianity). Thanks for your heart felt comment.
The comment form is currently closed.
Newer Comments »