fg9.memo

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Fri Dec 11 03:06:02 EST 2015


 
 
 
 
 
 
             ((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
 
                             BPC ON THE TRs
 
                                 FG - 9
                                No Date
 
                       Copyright (C) Frank Gordon
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
     I've noted something I'll bet is a common problem.  Thinking I
could do TRs fairly well, I got into an interchange with a friend, and
if there was a comm cycle, it rapidly blew up.
 
     How come?  Didn't I learn anything?  How can I transfer the ability
to communicate smoothly from a TR session to life's randomities?
 
     But am I learning to communicate by doing the TRs?
 
     The emphasis is on mechanics:  being there comfortably,
confronting, and saying something neutral.
 
     Asking "Do fish swim?" however well done, does not constitute a
meaningful social interchange.
 
     It doesn't connect with my inchoate (only partly and imperfectly
formed) need to say something significant about myself to another, and
to get in touch with what it really feels like to communicate.
 
     I sense a hidden exasperation in the developer of the TRs (which
have been continually modified) which says, "I'm going to get these
people to somehow at least give the formal appearance of communicating!
 
     He also said, "It doesn't much matter what you communicate, as long
as you communicate it."
 
     Well, for much of my sixty-four years, I have been "communicating
nothing much."
 
     I have been going through the motions of being social,
understanding, interested, intelligent, happy, active, hard-working,
alive, on top of things, busy and generally giving the impression of
having it together.
 
     Much of this, I must confess (an implant?), has been pretense.  I
get stuck in taboo areas like sex, unexpressed embarrassment, vague
anxieties; and alternate between shy dull passivity and bombastic snot-
nosed insouciant hubris.
 
     Great!  How can I, by delivering neutral yak about birds and fish,
change this situation so I feel a little more real?
 
     OK, so I have several tons of "Whatsit" in this flustrating
(flustered frustration) area of near total exaspleration (unexplored
potentially explosive splattered exasperation).
 
     "Very good, tell me about it." is the TR-4 action.
 
     But, I'm "really" a coach or student-auditor in a hurry to get back
to, not the birds and the bees; but, oh yes, the birds and the fish.
 
     AND, I'm not supposed to have a case while doing this - somehow, I
just wipe it out, disconnect from it, and get back to the birds and the
fish.
 
     At what point can this kind of thing, not Emily Post's rules of
acceptable pleasantries, but Headmaster Hubbard's crash course in the
birds and the fish, connect up with my communication difficulties?
 
     Ah, ah-ha!  Is this what is called BPC?  This flustrating
exasplerlating (something new has crept in - perhaps "Have you been
especially explosively exasperated lately?") inchoate personal
experience?
 
     Huh, I had inchoate mixed up with chaotic (characterized by a
random confused disorganized state).  I suppose an inchoate chaos would
be an imperfectly formed total confusion.  Interesting thought.
 
     Returning to "Do fish fry?"
 
     Excuse me, "Do fish try to fly?"  Possibly, it all depends.
Really?
 
     "Is there something I've failed to find out about you?"
 
     Kaaaah---BLAMMM!  Somehow you have failed to find out that I am
here, and more real than the "perfect delivery" of that question or
command of yours.
 
     "Very good.  I will check that on the meter.  Is there something
I've failed to find out about you?"
 
     Yeah, that I'm covering up a hell of a lot of by-passed charge with
my "nice PC" valence.  Well, at least I'm getting an idea of what this
BPC stuff is all about.  Kaaaah---BLAMMM!
 
     "Very good."
 
     Frank Gordon

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Dec 11 03:06:02 EST 2015 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/fgordon/fg9.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but 
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth, and Peace,  Internet, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask?   http://www.lightlink.com


More information about the Clear-L mailing list