wallsofsilence.com

Childhood trauma and its consequences
It is currently Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:17 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:33 pm
Posts: 14
Dennis -- What I meant was that written language is pretty clear.

Linda ? Yes, I understand that that is what you were saying. What I was saying is that ?language/written language is often not clear?. Perhaps if we are discussing a statement so simple as ?the book is on the table? ? well okay, that?s pretty clear. But we?re not dealing with such cut and dry material here.

Dennis ? ?so I concluded my observation (not accusation) that you hadn?t read it?.

Linda ? For your information, the interview is also contained on Paul?s website and I didn?t use the link that you provided to get to it. I understand now how you came to your conclusion; however, it is still an accusation (i.e. that I didn?t read the interview).

Dennis -- Now to me it seems you go in quite some effort to defend Paul again and defend yourself (by calling it personal attacks).

Linda ? Yes, I guess I have taken the time to defend Paul?s material and to defend against the personal accusations. As far as personal attacks go, you are the one who introduced personal attacks into the equation. Although you did not use the term ?personal attack? it is de facto what you did. You could have as easily stuck to the objective facts and left the personal accusations out of it.

For instance, you say that ?if you believe in contradictory truths, could that be because of a childhood full of conflicting truths?. This is an insinuation about my character and thus is an attack on my character.

Dennis ? . . . I wrote this with Primal Theory in mind. You can acknowledge that or you can deny it with arguments. You simply state that your childhood may or may not be relevant and any comment on it is interpreted as a ?judgemental attack?.

Linda ? I?m not sure why you put the words ?judgemental attack? in quotation marks, but for clarification purposes, I never used the phrase ?judgemental attack?. Also, I didn?t say that my childhood may or may not be relevant; what I intended to convey is that my childhood is not relevant to the discussion at hand ? the only thing that is relevant is the objective facts.

What does it matter what kind of a childhood I had? Either your argument is supported by the facts (i.e. the words contained in the interview) or it is not. It has nothing to do with whether my character is this way or that or the other.

Dennis ? Again, why the strong reaction? This forum is about childhood and the effects of it on adult life.

Linda ? I wouldn?t consider this to be a strong reaction ? just clearing the air where I feel that incorrect statements have been made.

Dennis -- How can you discuss human behavior without making it personal?

Linda ? By sticking to the facts! Your argument where you went into Paul?s quote and highlighted certain words was a fair argument ? it was based on the facts. However, when you get into speculating about my childhood and how it might be affecting my opinion ? that makes it personal. I could get into speculating about your childhood as well, but it serves no purpose. It doesn?t matter how I came to my current viewpoint or how you came to yours; what matters is that the conclusion you ultimately reached is supported by the facts (i.e. Paul?s actual words) or it isn?t.

I know this forum is about childhood issues and its subsequent effects on adult life. If we choose to share those kinds of insights with one another, that is wonderful, but I think it is inappropriate to speculate about someone else?s possible childhood issues if the subject has not first been introduced by the person himself/herself.

Linda S.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 486
Location: Sweden
Linda, I understand your position better but it's clear we disagree about certain things. If you talk about facts (which is a good thing), then why did you bring quantum physics into the discussion? Quantum physics only exist in theory. My opinion on Vereshack is based on what he wrote because that's the way he communicates. Your opinion on Vereshack is perhaps based on more than that.

Quote:
For instance, you say that “if you believe in contradictory truths, could that be because of a childhood full of conflicting truths”. This is an insinuation about my character and thus is an attack on my character.


I put a questionmark behind that. That means it's a question and not a personal attack on your character. Since when are questions attacks? I simply try to understand the concept of believing in conflicting truths. If you asked me something about my childhood, I would answer that. I don't see that as personal attacks. On the contrary. I would interpret it as an interest in underlying causes.

Dennis


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:33 pm
Posts: 14
Linda - As far as I know quantum physics is not just a theory; there are many aspects of quantum physics (i.e. related to particles, atoms, etc.) that are scientifically accepted as ?proven?. So, I used quantum physics as ?fact? on this basis; however, if I am incorrect in this regard then of course that particular argument doesn?t stand.

Dennis - My opinion on Vereshack is based on what he wrote because that's the way he communicates. Your opinion on Vereshack is perhaps based on more than that.

Linda ? Here?s where you make these subtle insinuations that come across more as character attacks (i.e. designed to give the impression that your opinion is unbiased while mine isn?t) than as a sincere desire to discuss human behavior matters. Instead of attempting to prove your side of the argument with facts, you speculate about ?me/my childhood/my issues?. Given the context within which you raise these issues, they come across as a personal attacks. There is no need for you to say anything about me whatsoever. Your statement existed before I came along and either you can substantiate it with the facts (i.e. Paul?s words) or you can?t. So far, in my opinion, you have not substantiated your opinion with the facts.

Dennis - .. . . . I put a questionmark behind that. That means it's a question and not a personal attack on your character. Since when are questions attacks? I simply try to understand the concept of believing in conflicting truths.

Linda ? Yes you put a question mark behind it, but the question was raised within a certain context. To me it comes across more as a remark that was made to support your side of the argument than as a remark that was made for the purpose of getting into a discussion on the subject of conflicting truths. What I read into it is you saying the following: ?your opinion of Paul?s quote is prejudiced by childhood issues and is therefore faulty while my opinion on the otherhand is unbiased and correct?. Even in your most recent message you seem to reinforce this interpretation of why you made the remark when you say that your own opinion is based on the facts while on the other hand mine is perhaps based on something more (i.e. childhood issues?).

Anything that is brought into the argument other than the facts comes across as personal attacks (i.e. accusations) because, given the context of the current discussion that we are having, it seems like the main reason these statements are made is to try and make it look like my side of the argument is formed on a biased basis (i.e. biased by childhood issues) while yours isn?t.

If I was going to make an observation about you, on the basis of this discussion, it would be that you seem to be a person who is good at taking one small piece of something and giving it whatever meaning you want it to have in the moment (i.e. a meaning that supports the viewpoint that you are attempting to put across in the moment and a meaning that perhaps makes sense when looking at the piece in isolation of its original context), but it conveniently ignores the fuller context (i.e. the totality of the words and the spirit within which they were said) of what was said. By the way, I recognize that this last statement is a personal observation that has nothing to do with the facts as relates to your statement about Paul?s quote.

Linda S.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:01 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 486
Location: Sweden
I wrote:

Quote:
My opinion on Vereshack is based on what he wrote because that's the way he communicates. Your opinion on Vereshack is perhaps based on more than that.


Now, why would you interpret this as yet another attack on your character? To me it seems you're shifting from my original statements of Vereshack towards a repetitive interpretation of me attacking your character. In my original statements I made accusations to Vereshack based on what he had written. You said that he hadn't written that. I provided the exact quotes. They are what they mean. If there's anything more between the lines or out of context (and I did read most of his book at the time), then it still wouldn't change my opinion. Regarding the above quote, I suggested that if you have another view of him (for example that you've talked to him or met him), it would provide another view on him then someone, like me, who has by only reading what he writes. You interpret that as an attack.

You haven't provided a single fact that would prove my original statements based on the writings of Vereshack were wrong.

Regarding your observations about me, I'll let you have that, after all it's your observation, but I DO find it strange that you mention it after all what you wrote about character analyses.

Stating conflicting truths are in my opinion abusive and misleading. According to me, there's nothing mystical or quantum physical about Primal Theory. But unfortunately there are impostors who have made such claims. John Speyrer forwarded my letter at the time to Paul. He wrote back one trivial sentence back to John (which ended up somehow in my inbox) and that says it all to me.

Dennis


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:33 pm
Posts: 14
You ask why I would interpret your statement ?Your opinion on Vereshack is perhaps based on more than that? as another attack. I assumed when you said ?more than that? that you were once again referring to childhood issues.

You indicate that I haven't provided a single fact that would prove that your original statements based on the writings of PV are incorrect.

I?ve provided a number of facts! I quoted what you said and quoted what Paul said and explained that I thought that your statement was not an accurate reflection of what Paul actually said. I?ve attempted to answer your argument that ?he said what he said? with my argument that written words are not always clear and therefore each reader interprets what has been said.

Let me put it this way. When we read something we all hear a certain voice or tone. We all have this little voice that?s going on continuously in our head ? a voice that colors the way we see the world ? a lense through which we see and interpret the world. In my opinion, you?ve interpreted Paul?s words through a lense which paints things with an egotistical blanket.

To summarize both our arguments ? I am saying that you have interpreted Paul?s words incorrectly and your are saying that you have interpreted Paul?s words exactly right. You are saying that the words ?say what they say? and, surprisingly, I am also saying that the words ?say what they say? ? and yet we each read something different. So, who?s to say who?s right? Perhaps we are at a standstill.

By the way, it looks like you have an interest in the topic of ?conflicting truths? ? maybe you will consider starting a new thread on this topic.

Linda S.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 486
Location: Sweden
You wrote:

Quote:
I’ve provided a number of facts! I quoted what you said and quoted what Paul said and explained that I thought that your statement was not an accurate reflection of what Paul actually said. I’ve attempted to answer your argument that “he said what he said” with my argument that written words are not always clear and therefore each reader interprets what has been said.


And this is what you call facts?

I could expand my critisism of Vereshack's work but there are many like him and he's not a big name in the world of therapy. However, what we discuss or try to discuss is mainly the interview he gave to John Speyrer and how we (or I) interpreted it.

I'm not particular interested in philosophical discussions about the truth. Unless it's been put in the context of child rearing. I like to see this forum focussing more on the work of Arthur Janov, Alice Miller and Ellie van Winkle. There are already enough forums on the net that deal with mysticism and philosophical debates. I personally like to explore the practical implications of these writers in connection to our own lives.

It's difficult to discuss something when we both see a different reality, especially in a limited medium like an internet forum.

Dennis


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:33 pm
Posts: 14
First of all, I totally agree with you that this is a difficult discussion to be having over such a limited forum. A face to face discussion is likely the only forum that would be beneficial for this type of discussion.

However, for now this is what we have to work with.

As far as "facts" go, in my opinion the only actual facts we have to work with here are the following:

1) the exact words that you said (i.e. your original message in which you paraphrased Paul's words); and,

2) the exact words that Paul said (i.e. the PV quotes).

You said what you said and Paul said what he said; those are the "facts". So, when I talk about referring to the facts, I am talking about referring to either your statement or Paul's statement -- that's it!

The question arises as to whether your statement is an accurate reflection or paraphrase of Paul's statement. Let's use a simple example to demonstrate the point -- perhaps something back from gradeschool when we first learned how to paraphrase. Let's say you are asked the following question on an exam:

Following are two sentences. Please read each sentence and state yes or no whether the second sentence is an accurate paraphrase of the first sentence.

Sentence #1: "The boy in the brown shirt ran to the store".
Sentence #2: "The boy ran to the store while wearing a brown shirt".

I would say, yes, this is an accurate paraphrase. I don't need to look beyond the two statements that were made to come to this conclusion.

Here is a second example:

Sentence #1: "She heard a loud sound and became frightened".
Sentence #2: "She was nervous and fidgity and there was a loud noise".

I would say, no, sentence #2 is not an accurate paraphrase of sentence #1. If the teacher asked me why, I would say that to me "nervous and fidgity" is not the same as being "frightened". I would say that in sentence #1 it is clear that she became frightened as a direct cause of the loud noise and in sentence #2 it just says that there is a loud noise -- it does not say it was the cause of her distress.

In making my case for "yes or no" I only ever have to go back to the two sentences that I am comparing. There is no other relevant information.

So, this is what I am doing when I am looking at your statement and then looking at Paul's statement. When I put the two of them side by side, I come to the conclusion that, no, one is not an accurate paraphrase (or reflection) of the other. I realize we are not dealing with such simple material as that contained in the examples above, but when I look at your statement and look at Paul's statement, I conclude that you've changed the meaning too extensively to say that it captures the meaning or essence of what Paul said.

Linda S.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 486
Location: Sweden
Besides you getting more pedagogical in your arguments, I'm going to quote Vereshack one more time and leave it with that.

Quote:
So, to tell you the truth, John, I expect this book to be very very significant - I sound a bit meglomanic, trying to offer a way of raising the consciousness of our species over many years, as people begin to use it (the book - D.). I want to see the book out there. I want people to give it (the book - D.) a careful try if they have no one to help them. I have very strong feelings about wanting this (the book - D.) to be a major turning point for the human race, in that, just as Freud put dreams in our heads a hundred years ago, I think this book can put feeling skills in our heads now, today, and for the next century, Let people try the book, and with professional help if possible.


Quote:
Anyone who really perfects any kind of doing or skill, knows that at some point they have to let go, get out of their own way, and enjoy the fact that their mind will function. It will always function for them. And so if I was going to suggest any ultimate directive of development for humankind it would be let go and get out of your own way. Please note: This is not a license for undisciplined behavior.


This is not a statement out of context. His book is full of falsehoods and manipulations and I don't see it as a priority of mine to expose more than I already did, as Vereshack is a small name in the big world of therapy.

You wrote:
Quote:
So, this is what I am doing when I am looking at your statement and then looking at Paul's statement. When I put the two of them side by side, I come to the conclusion that, no, one is not an accurate paraphrase (or reflection) of the other.


This is not a fact, it's your opinion. I'll stop discussing this now as there's no new information coming forward and I doubt if anyone else finds this interesting to read.

Dennis


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:33 pm
Posts: 14
Dennis ? Besides you getting more pedagogical in your arguments.

Linda ? I wasn?t trying to be pedagogical; I was just trying to get us on the same page so that we can have a reasonable discussion. It seems like when I don?t set things out simply and explicitly then you misinterpret them.

Dennis ? ?.. This is not a fact, it's your opinion.

Linda ? Yes, of course it?s opinion; it?s a conclusion that I drew on the basis of the facts. As I mentioned previously, as far as I?m concerned the only ?facts? here are the quote(s) by PV and the statement(s) made by you in response.

Dennis ? ?.. This is not a statement out of context.

Linda ? Ahhh, so you do know how to make a sound argument on the basis of the facts. This type of argument comes across as much more of an adult-level way of making your point. Not everyone is capable of putting across a good logical argument on the basis of the facts (and as such generally resort to a more childish type of argument). However, seeing as you are quite capable of putting your argument into a logical, progressive form of argument, I don?t know why you would ever bother to resort to including all that other junk (i.e. what came across to me as personal attacks).

Let?s leave it at that for now and everyone can form their own opinion of Paul?s interview as they wish.

Linda S.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group