IFS Exercise
The Essene Gospel of Peace &
Love’s Breath Session
Tuesday – Friday@ 6:30 PM ET
Zoom Link :
https://MiamiNetwork.org/zoom
Open to everyone.
Empathy Circles and Open Source Empathy Café
Would you like to speak and feel fully heard? Would you like to connect to yourself and others more deeply? Do you want to work on developing your empathy skills?
An empathy circle is a simple but powerful way for people to connect through structured dialogue, speaking and active listening in small groups. It takes about 15 minutes to understand.
You don’t need any special skills or training to be involved.
It is primarily designed to offer an environment for active listening and creates a space where you can talk and feel heard to your satisfaction about a set topic or whatever is alive for you in the moment.
You will each have a role in the circle and take turns switching roles throughout the circle.
One role is the speaker who will speak to an active listener.
Everyone else takes the role of a silent listener during each turn and there is also a facilitator role who will also participate, keep time and help keep everyone in the process.
________________________
QUESTION: “When should NVC not be applied for a reason of impaired physical or mental health? ANSWER: ” I cannot think of a situation in which self-compassion, self-empathy, and self-connection is not appropriate. ~Marshall RosenbergCarl Rogers 3 core conditions:
Empathy, Congruence and Unconditional positive regard. 1) Empathic understanding: the counsellor trying to understand the client’s point of view. 2) Congruence: the counsellor being a genuine person. 3) Unconditional positive regard: the counsellor being non-judgmental.[Listening]
… means entering the private perceptual world of the other and becoming thoroughly at home in it… It involves being sensitive, moment by moment, to the changing felt meanings which flow in this other person…. To be with another in this ways means that for the time being, you lay aside your own views and values in order to enter anothers world without prejudice… In some sense it means that you lay aside yourself …. ~Carl RogersEmpathy is saying to someone:
“I’m trying to be a companion to you in your search and your exploration. I want to know, am I with you? Is this the way it seems to you? Is this the thing you’re trying to express? Is this the meaning it has for you?” So in a sense I’m saying, “I’m walking with you step by step, and I want to make sure I am with you. Am I with you? So that’s a little bit of my understanding about empathy.” ~ Carl Rogers
Carl Rogers and Leta Hollingworth
…::”Empathy is the listener’s effort to hear the other person deeply, accurately, and non-judgmentally. Empathy involves skillful reflective listening that clarifies and amplifies the person’s own experiencing and meaning, without imposing the listener’s own material.’
~ Carl Rogers (1902–1987)
..::”I used to think that the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed, and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that. ~ Gus Speth ♡
…::”The highest form of human intelligence… is to observe… without judgment. ~ Krishnamurti ♡
NVC :: OFNR :: OBSERVATION♡, Feelings, Needs and Requests
OBSERVATION♡ without evaluation consists of noticing concrete (real) things and actions around us. We learn to distinguish between judgment and what we sense in the PRESENT moment, and to simply OBSERVE what is there (right now).
…::” Violence is not merely killing another… It is violence when we use a sharp WORD… when we make a gesture to brush away a person, when we obey because there is fear… So violence isn’t merely organized butchery in the name of God… in the name of society or country… Violence is much more subtle… much deeper… and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence.” ~ Krishnamurti ♡
MRI scans show that after an eight-week course of mindfulness practice, the brain’s “fight or flight” center, the amygdala, appears to shrink. … As the amygdala shrinks, the pre-frontal cortex – associated with higher order brain functions such as awareness, concentration, and decision-making – becomes thicker (expands).
Please Note: An “Empathy Circle” facilitator / trainer can complete the training offered by Edwin Rutsch at: www.EmpathyCircle.com
Elevated Empathy in adults following childhood trauma: (science)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6169872/
How Empathy is often misunderstood.
(Holistic Psychology)
Feelings
Big Hint – Watch out for “non-feeling” words…
It is important to choose words that really are feelings. That’s the reason for the list. If you use words like “abandoned” or “misled” or “shunned” we can prevent ourselves from getting to the “REAL” feelings. These “non-feeling” words are more like accusations or judgments than feelings. SOURCE: https://www.nycnvc.org/feelingsGuidelines:
“Trauma is when your reality is neither seen nor acknowledged.”
~Bessel van der Kolk
To us, post-traumatic stress is when the shame, isolation, and pain of past trauma are too intense for us to face and process. As a result, the past trauma ‘lives’ in a sense, and continues to affect our health, relationships, jobs, bodies, and day-to-day lives.
Sharing our traumas in a supportive environment is one avenue for lessening that shame and isolation. Ideally, we can continue to lessen the impact of our past traumas on our present-day lives. Lifestyle changes can lengthen telomeres.
Group details:
Peer support groups for helping in recovering from traumatic experience(s).
All are welcome, and the safety of the group takes priority. Formal diagnosis of PTSD is not required. People with “non-traditional” causes of PTSD and/or “Complex PTSD” are also encouraged to join. The use of “I statements” is encouraged.
Please note that neither the organizers nor the other members are acting as “therapists”. This is not a substitute for therapy, and the group is intended to support one’s recovery, not serve as its sole venue. No one will force or push you to “dig deeper” into your story. The use of “I statements” is encouraged.
We ask that all members abide by these guidelines/code of conduct, linked below. Please note that these guidelines apply to meetups as well as to social media etiquette on the meetup websites:
https://empathymatters.org/now/carl-rogers/#NYC-PTSD
“One must revisit the trauma but one need not relive it.”
~Bessel van der Kolk
Friends and visitors are welcome but their presence is subject to a majority of members present agreeing to it.
Through updating our outdated beliefs about reality we can alter the behaviors that derive from these old beliefs and achieve deep and lasting change. https://empathymatters.org/now/transformation/
Gratitude coffee is always appreciated: 🙂 https://buymeacoffee.com/Cup.of.Empathy
1) Please keep the group discussions confidential. Although our peer led groups are NOT therapy, occasionally participants might be inspired to share vulnerable topics that no one is granted permission to share outside the safety of the group, since that would constitute a violation of group trust.
Related: Empathic Listening and recording sessions, Carl Rogers___________
2) Please do not offer others advice, unless solicited. Advice tends to be judgmental and patronizing. Sharing similar personal experiences, on the other hand, is powerful and highly encouraged.
___________
3) No one at the meeting is playing the role of a ‘therapist’, including organizers or members who may be in a related field. We are all equals, looking for support and community.
___________
4) If you are feeling triggered at any point during the meeting, please do not feel obligated to ask permission to step outside, get some water, take a walk… whatever it is you need to do. We’ve all been triggered before. No one will judge you for taking care of yourself.
___________
(Empathy Circle Example) The speaker does have the option to “pass” their turn. by simply asking for a listener, stating they wish to pass, listening to the active listener’s reflection, then the active listener becomes the new speaker.
The “active listener” also has the option to “pass”, and the speaker simply requests another “listener” to complete the reflections. Again, no one in the group is playing the role of a therapist, and no one “prescribes” the speaker’s topic.
The speaker is reminded to pause after speaking one or two thoughts (and to refrain from becoming “overly graphic”) This guideline, to “pause frequently” is built into the Empathy Circle process in order to help ease the active listener and the speaker simultaneously.
If the speaker does not experience being heard, they simply repeat themselves, without projecting any criticism onto the listener. The speaker can easily re-assemble the essence of a complex thought into parts that are easily understood, and less likely to overwhelm the listener.
True empathy is all-inclusive with no intention to “trigger” anxiety, or “power over” an equal peer. True empathy is the antidote to a culture of domination.
___________
5) While sharing, we ask that people refrain from overly graphic descriptions of events in the past. While these are certainly relevant, we are wary of triggering other attendees. Safety comes first. Someone, likely an organizer, will let the speaker know if his or her share is moving too far in that direction.
___________
6) “Cross-talk” refers to communication that is disruptive to a group’s purpose (Empathy in a safe space for people to share their experiences). “Cross-talk” generally involves: Unsolicited advice or criticism, judging and confronting another equal member who is sharing their own experience.“Cross-talk“ can feel similar to a “personal” violation when an equal member of a trusting circle of friends unknowingly projects their own personal mistaken beliefs onto another equal member in a trusting circle of friends.
Reminder: “Don’t take anything personally”. ~Don Miguel Ruiz, “The Four Agreements”
“Cross-talk” can also feel like a betrayal of the trust and connection that is already established within a trusting circle of equals.
“Cross-talk” tends to escalate tension between human beings, while empathy tends to de-escalate tension, within a willingness to see similarity rather than differences in human beings.“Be impeccable with Your Word”.
~Don Miguel Ruiz, “The Four Agreements”
___________
In “Non Violent Communication” (Empathy), the two main criteria are:
1. Are you speaking and acting from your own experience?
aka: It’s not about “fixing” someone else.
2. Is your practice contributing to well-being?
aka: Do No Harm (“Ahimsa”)
Related QUESTION: “When should NVC (empathy) not be applied for a reason of impaired health or disability?
ANSWER: ” I cannot think of a situation in which Self-compassion, Self-empathy, and Self-connection is not appropriate.
~Marshall Rosenberg
___________
Link: Empathy Circle “How-To”
Link: Guidelines (NYC-PTSD)
Current “trigger warning” research:
“Trigger Warning” critics argue that warnings both contribute to a culture of avoidance at odds with evidence-based treatment practices and instill fear about upcoming content. Recently, a body of psychological research has begun to investigate these claims empirically. We present the results of a meta-analysis of all empirical studies on the effects of these warnings. https://osf.io/qav9m/
Past research has indicated that trigger warnings are unhelpful in reducing anxiety. The results of this study are consistent with that conclusion. This study was the first to focus on how trigger warnings function in a sample of people who had survived Criterion A trauma as defined by the DSM–5 (APA, 2013). Trigger warnings did not reduce anxiety for this sample broadly. Trigger warnings also did not reduce anxiety among people who met a clinical cutoff for PTSD symptoms, reported a diagnosis of PTSD, or reported that the stimuli matched the content of their past trauma. Trigger warnings showed trivially small effects on response anxiety overall. When effects did emerge, they tended toward small increases in anxiety rather than decreases.
Bellet et al. (2018) previously found that trigger warnings increased individuals’ projections of their own vulnerability to future trauma as well as the vulnerability of others. Our results suggested substantial evidence that these effects did not replicate. Bellet et al. also reported that individuals who endorsed the belief that words are emotionally harmful showed greater anxiety in response to trigger warnings compared with individuals who did not endorse that belief. Again, we found substantial evidence that this effect did not replicate. One possibility is that these effects were unique to the trigger-warning-naïve (trauma-naïve), crowd-sourced, older sample used by Bellet et al. However, given that these effects originally had a small effect size and did not replicate in larger samples of college students (Bellet et al., 2020) or trauma survivors (present study), the original results may have been a false positive.
We found substantial evidence that giving trigger warnings to trauma survivors caused them to view trauma as more central to their life narrative. This effect is a reason for worry. Some trigger warnings explicitly suggest that trauma survivors are uniquely vulnerable (e.g., “ . . . especially in those with a history of trauma”). Even when trigger warnings mention content only, the implicit message that trauma survivors are vulnerable remains (Why else provide a warning?). These messages may reinforce the notion that trauma is invariably a watershed event that causes permanent psychological change. In reality, a majority of trauma survivors are resilient, experiencing little if any lasting psychological changes as a result of their experience (Bonanno, 2004; Bonanno & Mancini, 2008). Aggregated across various types of trauma, just 4% of potentially traumatic events result in PTSD (Liu et al., 2017).2 However, trauma survivors who view their traumatic experience as central to their life have elevated PTSD symptoms (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006; Brown et., 2010; Robinaugh & McNally, 2011). Trauma centrality prospectively predicts elevated PTSD symptoms, whereas the reverse is not true (Boals & Ruggero, 2016). Decreases in trauma centrality mediated therapy outcomes (Boals & Murrell, 2016). This suggests that increasing trauma centrality is directly countertherapeutic. In other words, trigger warnings may harm survivors by increasing trauma centrality.
We tested whether the severity of PTSD symptoms in our sample moderated any of our tested hypotheses. In most cases, we found either evidence for no moderation or ambiguous evidence. However, we did find substantial evidence that PTSD symptoms moderated the effect of trigger warnings on response anxiety. For individuals who had more severe PTSD, trigger warnings increased anxiety. This effect is ironic in the sense that trigger warnings may be most harmful for the individuals they were designed to protect. We found no evidence that individuals’ prior exposure to trigger warnings moderated any of the previous effects.
A limitation of past research was that trigger warnings were primarily tested among individuals who were trauma-naïve or in mixed samples. That is, the possibility remained that despite being unhelpful for most who view them, trigger warnings may have been helpful for trauma survivors or individuals with PTSD. In this study, we find no evidence supporting this possibility. Trigger warnings were not helpful for trauma survivors. For individuals who met a clinical cutoff for severity of PTSD symptoms, trigger warnings slightly increased anxiety. Trigger warnings were not helpful for individuals who self-reported a diagnosis of PTSD. Perhaps most convincingly, trigger warnings were not helpful even when they warned about content that closely matched survivors’ traumas. That is, when considering only the passages that participants reported as reminding them of past trauma, trigger warnings were still unhelpful.
Although the research base on trigger warnings has grown quickly, several constraints on generality regarding trigger warnings still remain. For example, experiments thus far have tested trigger warnings before short-term stimuli, such as literature passages, film clips, and photos. Studies have tested only a limited range of negative psychological outcomes (e.g., self-report anxiety, negative affect, intrusive memory). Our study provides important information about individuals who have suffered from trauma, many of whom met the clinical threshold for PTSD symptoms. However, it does not provide information about individuals diagnosed with PTSD via clinical interview. It is unclear whether our findings (especially concerning evidence of potential harms) would apply to extended classroom discussions or other situations of greater temporal duration. In addition, whether the potentially negative effects of trigger warnings found thus far have more than short-term adverse effects remains uncertain. Nevertheless, these potential constraints on generality do not imply that trigger warnings are helpful. Rather, they imply that potential moderators remain untested.
Public arguments regarding trigger warnings have been politically charged, complex, and data-poor. Recent research on trigger warnings can importantly inform or perhaps even settle some of these debates. The research suggests that trigger warnings are unhelpful for trauma survivors, college students, trauma-naïve individuals, and mixed groups of participants (Bellet et al., 2018, 2020; Bridgland et al., 2019; Sanson et al., 2019). Given this consistent conclusion, we find no evidence-based reason for educators, administrators, or clinicians to use trigger warnings.
Whether trigger warnings are explicitly harmful is less clear. We found evidence that trigger warnings increase the narrative centrality of trauma among survivors, which is countertherapeutic (Boals & Murrell, 2016). We also found that trigger warnings increase anxiety for those with more severe symptoms of PTSD. Although these effects were preregistered and found in a large sample, the sizes of the effects were small and have not yet been rigorously tested across multiple studies. However, such knowledge is unnecessary to adjudicate whether to use trigger warnings—if there is no good reason to deploy them in the first place, we need not require strong evidence of harm before abandoning them. Trigger warnings should serve as an important caution to both clinical and nonclinical professionals who use interventions aimed to improve well-being among trauma survivors. Such practices should be thoroughly vetted via appropriate scientific techniques before they are adopted. Using unvetted interventions is irresponsible to victims of trauma.
https://empathymatters.org/now/carl-rogers?/#research
REF:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702620921341
The clinical notion of triggering dates back far as 1918, when psychologists tried to make sense of “war neurosis” in World War I, and later World War II, veterans. The term “post-traumatic stress disorder” came into use after the Vietnam War, but was not recognized as a diagnosable affliction until 1980. Then, psychologists started to work with clients to identify possible PTSD “triggers,” or a sensory input that somehow resembles the original trauma. But anticipating them is notoriously difficult. They assume disparate and unpredictable forms. An essay, or film, or other piece of media might trigger a person, as could a sound or a smell, a physical space, a specific object, or a person. https://bit.ly/3wNHxgf
“Triggers” prime the body for a physiological response of fight/flight or freeze, a response similar to the circumstances of the original distressing event. Some flashbacks are visual, as well as auditory and physical, so the person will see, hear, and feel the past abuse experience as if it was happening in the present. Sometimes the memories last a few seconds, sometimes minutes, and for one of my clients who had severe PTSD, flashbacks lasted more than an hour.
Trauma can have a long-term debilitating impact on our functioning. However, it is impossible to live a full and engaged life while simultaneously avoiding experiences that may potentially trigger flashbacks. https://psychologytoday.com/us/blog/breaking-the-silence/201910/post-traumatic-stress-disorder
https://www.andrew-kae.com/survivorresources
Psychology
Trigger warnings are ineffective for trauma survivors & those who meet the clinical cutoff for PTSD, and increase the degree to which survivors view their trauma as central to their identity (preregistered, n = 451)
REF:
RE: “Content warning” vs “trigger warning” … We probably understand the reason for using the softer term “content warning”, and current scientific research / literature, will always more accurately use the term “Trigger Warning”.
re: (“content”) … i think we might agree that at any present moment, any sensory input (content), can become a source of stimulation that becomes an opportunity to experience the present moment as awareness (observation), or as an interpretation (judgment) of that sensory input (content) as neutral, pleasant, or a potential threat to an individual’s physical or psychological egoic survival, potentially triggering an amygdala hijack, survival reflex mechanism, which is a “trigger like”, (“all or none law”) neurological reflex, resulting from a fear-based interpretation of the (content).
“Learning to ‘drop an anchor’ in the midst of an ‘emotional storm’ can help to hold us steady in the present moment whilst the storm buffets around. An anchor is anything that is a part of the present moment other than the storm itself. A simple grounding exercise can be: Notice 5 things you can see, 4 things that you can hear, 3 things that you can feel, 2 things that you can smell or taste, and end with noticing what you’re doing right now, in the present moment. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/54937/coping-with-climate-grief-advice-from-an-environmental-psychologist/
“It’s not psychological safety if people can only voice what you want to hear. The goal is not to be comfortable. It’s to create a climate where people can speak up without fear. Psychological safety begins with admitting our own mistakes and welcoming criticism from others.” ~Adam Grant, psychologist, #1 NYT bestselling author https://www.linkedin.com/in/adammgrant/
Creating a future you really want… starting at 1:07
Please Listen Carefully from minute 27 to minute 42 …. https://youtu.be/QnsUif-CzOg?t=1799
Listening for the needs, behind a thousand no’s…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hovCrw-fD-g
Education, education, education, before it’s too late. https://empathymatters.org/now/education-before-its-too-late/
Getting well, well, well, educated 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyvi8AmxQZk
The term “Trigger Warning” became well known in the late 1990s on feminist Internet message boards, where it referred to site-sponsored cautions to readers regarding graphic depictions of rape.
A short history of Trigger Warnings”:
https://psychlopaedia.org/society/republished/whats-the-difference-between-traumatic-fear-and-moral-anger-trigger-warnings-wont-tell-you/
..::” In self-empathy, you love and accept yourself, but not because of your strengths. You feel compassion for yourself in your weaknesses. You admit where you’ve been wounded and how you’ve hurt others. You embrace the hard truth that you have failed and lost. By facing the pain of your character defects and mistakes, you honor yourself.
~Kristin Neff, Ph.D
https://www.pointloma.edu/resources/counseling-psychology/how-empathy-can-change-your-life-career
Kristin Neff Interviewed by Edwin Rutsch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hchn9KMRNM
—–
Contrast: “Cancel Culture“:: The emergence of a new “cancel culture” where digital mobs police our speech, invade our rights, and even put our physical safety at risk. They argue that cancel culture has created a society ruled by online censorship and eroded our public discourse. Cancel Culture Is Toxic.
—-
Contrast: “micromanagement” : “Micromanagement is generally considered to have a negative connotation, mainly because it shows a lack of freedom and trust. Micro-management refers to anyone in a leadership position who uses manipulation, intrusive observation, or exhaustive amounts of communication to control others. A micromanager is a person who probably has a poor self-image, so he or she doesn’t believe they deserve to be where they are, and so thinks the same about the people they supervise,” … “So the constant checking and looking over employees’ shoulders are really checks on their own ability to do the job.”
—
“It is not psychological safety if people can only voice what you want to hear. ~Adam Grant
Trigger Warnings Fail to Help and May Even Harm
New research suggests that trigger warnings have little or no benefit in cushioning the blow of potentially disturbing content and, in some cases, may make things worse.
Researchers discovered that trigger warnings seem to increase the extent to which people see trauma as central to their identity, which can worsen the impact of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the long run.
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/trigger-warnings-fail-to-help.html
“Federal law does not specifically address “Trigger Warnings”. Warnings are often reserved for common triggers such as images of violence. Opponents of trigger warnings claim trigger warnings promote censorship.
Trigger warnings are useful in some cases. But avoiding one’s triggers will not treat the underlying mental health concerns. If triggers interfere with someone’s daily life, the person may wish to see a therapist.
In therapy, people can process emotions concerning their pasts. Some may learn relaxation techniques to cope with panic attacks. Others may learn how to avoid unhealthy behaviors. With time and work, a person can face their triggers with much less distress.
Perhaps what is called for is a more neutral and humble stance. We could accept uncertainty about the psyches of individuals, disclaim the conceit of exerting control over triggers, and avoid confident assumptions about anyone’s trauma. That might help to move in a direction that attempts first to do no harm.
The results of around a dozen psychological studies, published between 2018 and 2021, are remarkably consistent, and they differ from conventional wisdom: they find that trigger warnings do not seem to lessen negative reactions to disturbing material in students, trauma survivors, or those diagnosed with P.T.S.D. Indeed, some studies suggest that the opposite may be true.
In other respects, trigger warnings seem to have less impact than their critics have feared. Some opponents of trigger warnings seem to suppose that they are a way for students to demand that they not encounter ideas that challenge their beliefs, particularly on social-justice issues. That opposition is part of broader worries about teachers “coddling” students, cultivating their fragility, or shielding them from discussions that might expand their minds.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-if-trigger-warnings-dont-work
“We found substantial evidence that giving trigger warnings to trauma survivors caused them to view trauma as more central to their life narrative. This effect is a reason for worry. Some trigger warnings explicitly suggest that trauma survivors are uniquely vulnerable (e.g., “especially in those with a history of trauma”). Even when trigger warnings mention content only, the implicit message that trauma survivors are vulnerable remains (Why else provide a warning?)
NYC “Content Warning” Poll and Feedback.
Please read options A-F, then click: POLL and Feedback (below)
Suggested “Content Warning” (A)
“To keep the group safe, we ask folk to include “content warnings” before and during shares and responses.
“So, if you plan to talk about a topic that could be a likely trigger to someone else, such as physical abuse or assault with a deadly weapon, you’d say, “Content warning, I’m going to talk about physical assault,” and leave a pause for folk to mute their audio or turn off their camera. We suggest singing the first line of a nursery rhyme such as “row, row, row your boat”.
We also ask folk not to go in too much detail, for example about what kind of weapon was used.”
“Depending on who is in attendance, “we” may also remind people that some topics which are not totally obvious may be triggers to people–such as discussing food.
Suggested “Content Warning” (B)
“We ask participants in the empathy circle to include content warnings before and during shares and responses.
“So, if you plan to talk about a topic that could be a likely trigger to someone else, you’d say, “Content warning, I’m going to talk about ______________ and leave a pause for folk to mute their audio or turn off their camera.
We also ask folk not to go into too much detail with possible trigger content.”
Suggested “Content Warning” (C)
“Anyone honestly sharing their feelings about traumatic experiences, may be perceived as triggering” to anyone listening to them. Please responsibly announce any “content warnings”, then pause 5 seconds… and refrain from any overly graphic details.
Speak for yourself, and intend no harm to self or others.
Suggested “Content Warning” (D)
” If you feel your topic may be a trigger for someone else, please voice a content warning.
Suggested “Content Warning” (E)
” We ask participants in the Empathy Circle to include Content Warnings before and during shares and to refrain from overly graphic details.”
Suggested “Content Warning” (F)
” There may be mentions of abuse. If you feel triggered at any point, please take a self-care break and return to the session as it may have moved on from the topic, or attend a different session. Kindly note that each participant is responsible for their own triggers. Please refrain from overly graphic details.”
https://empathymatters.org/now/carl-rogers?/#POLL
________________________________
Please select feedback / poll link below
Poll Ended, Thank you kindly for mutual participation.
Potentially humorous 5-minute “trigger break” after all that thinking 🙂
“Hurt people hurt people.”
… “That’s how pain patterns get passed on, generation after generation after generation. Break the chain today. Meet anger with sympathy, contempt with compassion, cruelty with kindness. Greet grimaces with smiles. Forgive and forget about finding fault. Love is the weapon of the future.” ~Yehuda Berg
The full quote expands on this idea, suggesting that to break the cycle, one should meet anger with sympathy, contempt with compassion, and cruelty with kindness.
This concept suggests that individuals who have experienced pain or trauma may unconsciously pass on that hurt to others, creating a cycle that can only be broken through a conscious choice to respond with compassion and forgiveness.
The core idea: People who are in pain tend to inflict pain on others, passing on negative patterns across generations.
The solution: The quote proposes a path to break this cycle.
Meet anger with sympathy.
Respond to contempt with compassion.
Counter cruelty with kindness.
Let go of the need to find fault and practice forgiveness.
The outcome: The quote ends with the powerful statement, “Love is the weapon of the future,” suggesting that love and compassion are the tools to stop this cycle.
Yehuda Berg: was born in Israel, is the author of many books on Kabbalah. He led the Kabbalah Centre with his mother, until 2014.
Philip Berg: Yehuda Berg’s father, who was an Israeli rabbi, founded the Kabbalah Centre in Israel and then moved to the United States.
Yehuda Berg grew up in a Jewish environment and received a kabbalistic education by his father and an orthodox rabbinic ordination from a rabbinic seminary in Israel. As an active contributor of the Kabbalah Centre since the 1990s, he has developed his own Kabbalah interpretation focusing on self-improvement and healing, and has coached many Kabbalah Centre students, including some celebrities. In 2004, Yehuda Berg became co-director of the Kabbalah Centre.
However, Yehuda Berg left the Kabbalah Teaching Centre due to a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by a young female student in 2014. Link
..::”Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of people who are oppressing them. ~Assata Shakur
On an individual level,
healing strategies include:
- Developing self-awareness: Practices like mindfulness can help individuals perceive and witness their own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, rather than being ruled by them.
- Finding safe spaces: Processing emotional pain requires a safe environment, whether through talking with a trusted person, a support group, or a mental health professional.
- Creating a new narrative: By exploring and sharing one’s trauma story, it becomes less upsetting. This can happen through writing or speaking with trusted individuals.
- Practicing self-regulation: Techniques such as deep breathing, meditation, and physical activity can help regulate the nervous system and calm the “fight, flight, or freeze” response.
- Active Choice: Individuals can choose to break the cycle by seeking healing, forgiveness, and a living relationship with Self, thereby creating a different path for their own and future generations.
Using Internal Family Systems (IFS) terminology, Matthew 6:24 illustrates the conflict of a person’s “Self” being torn between two competing “Protectors” or “Exiles”: the “God” part and the “Mammon” (MONEY/materialism) part.
A person cannot fully serve both, as each has a different agenda that creates internal conflict, forcing the Self to choose which to prioritize to avoid being overwhelmed by one’s own divided system.
This is because “Mammon/MONEY” operates as an external and potentially idolatrous “Protector” seeking security, while the “God” part represents a deeper spiritual “Witness” that can be neglected when “Mammon/MONEY” rules.
Key concepts in IFS terms
Conflicting parts:
The “God” part and the “Mammon” part are presented as two opposing managers or leaders within a person’s system. One is a part focused on spiritual and eternal things, while the other is a part focused on material wealth and security.
Protector vs. Self:
When a person tries to serve both, it’s because “Mammon/MONEY” is acting as a “Protector” part, attempting to provide a sense of safety and worth. This creates an internal conflict with the “Self,” which is the core of the person’s being that should be in charge.
Divided allegiance:
The scripture highlights that a divided heart is unsustainable. A person cannot maintain equal loyalty to two opposing “masters” because the “Protectors” demand different actions and have conflicting goals. One will be loved while the other is despised, leading to internal “hatred” or resentment.
The choice:
The choice is not between being rich and being poor, but between which part has ultimate authority. Serving God is the way to achieve ultimate security, as it allows the “Self” to be in charge, while serving “Mammon” means the “Protector” takes over and exerts control over the person’s life.
Exile and unburdening:
Choosing “God” over “Mammon” is a path of “unburdening” the “Mammon” part, as the person’s security and worth are not dependent on material possessions. This allows the “Self” to lead and the “Mammon” part to be seen as a tool rather than the master.
If we, the people want Peace:
“So what prevents Peace Now?
Unconscious, unhealed trauma projected onto “others”.
AI REPLY:
The idea that unconscious, unhealed trauma is a key barrier to peace suggests that external conflicts often mirror internal struggles. When individuals and groups carry unresolved emotional pain, they may project that pain onto “others,” creating cycles of misunderstanding, fear, and violence. This concept can be applied to both interpersonal relationships and large-scale international conflicts.
How unconscious, unhealed trauma prevents peace:
- Creates a cycle of aggression: People “at war with themselves” often cause collateral damage to those around them. Unhealed pain can manifest as anger, insecurity, and a need for control, which can be projected onto others who then feel hurt and react defensively. In group settings, this dynamic escalates, turning shame and rage into collective cycles of violence.
- Impairs perception and communication: Unresolved trauma shapes how people see and react to the world, often triggering a “fight, flight, or freeze” response. In a state of hypervigilance, ordinary situations can be perceived as threatening, causing a breakdown in communication and a loss of control.
- Leads to demonization of the “other”: A key part of the projection process involves assigning one’s own unwanted feelings or aspects of trauma to another person or group. This “demonization” turns the other party into an enemy and is a dangerous foundation for further conflict and bloodshed.
- Creates a cycle of aggression: People “at war with themselves” often cause collateral damage to those around them. Unhealed pain can manifest as anger, insecurity, and a need for control, which can be projected onto others who then feel hurt and react defensively. In group settings, this dynamic escalates, turning shame and rage into collective cycles of violence.
- Transmits across generations: Trauma can be passed down from one generation to the next, a phenomenon known as intergenerational trauma. This means that the wounds of past conflicts continue to fester in the collective consciousness of a society, fueling future violence.
- Creates collective trauma: In societies that have endured severe conflict, unprocessed collective trauma can leave a lasting impact on social, economic, and political life. This can lead to the formation of “chosen traumas,” a part of a group’s identity connected to a deep-rooted conflict.
Moving from trauma to peace
Overcoming trauma is a necessary step toward achieving lasting peace, both personally and globally. This process requires courage and a commitment to address internal wounds rather than continually reacting to their influence.
On an individual level, healing strategies include:
- Developing self-awareness: Practices like mindfulness can help individuals perceive and witness their own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, rather than being ruled by them.
- Finding safe spaces: Processing emotional pain requires a safe environment, whether through talking with a trusted person, a support group, or a mental health professional.
- Creating a new narrative: By exploring and sharing one’s trauma story, it becomes less upsetting. This can happen through writing or speaking with trusted individuals.
- Practicing self-regulation: Techniques such as deep breathing, meditation, and physical activity can help regulate the nervous system and calm the “fight, flight, or freeze” response.
- Developing self-awareness: Practices like mindfulness can help individuals perceive and witness their own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, rather than being ruled by them.
- Active Choice: Individuals can choose to break the cycle by seeking healing, forgiveness, and a living relationship with Self, thereby creating a different path for their own and future generations.
On a collective level, healing is necessary for sustainable peacebuilding:
Trauma-informed conflict resolution:
- Peacebuilding and mediation efforts that are sensitive and responsive to trauma are more likely to achieve impactful and sustainable outcomes.
- Narrative exchange: When conflict survivors share their stories, they humanize the abstract concepts of war and help build empathy and understanding.
- Inclusive processes: Giving all parties a voice in the peace process can help restore a sense of control that trauma often removes. This is crucial for gaining their buy-in to any resolution.
Focus on the past:
Does healing trauma Focus on the past?
Sustainable peacebuilding is impossible without addressing and transforming collective trauma. This involves dealing with the past to create a different future.
Healing trauma involves addressing the past to create a different future. Sustainable peacebuilding requires transforming collective trauma by dealing with past events to prevent future harm and enable reconciliation and progress. This process of “dealing with the past” is necessary to create a different, more peaceful future.
Acknowledging the past is crucial:
To heal, both individuals and groups must acknowledge past suffering, which can involve revealing the truth about abuses and recognizing the suffering of victims. This helps prevent future violations by understanding the root causes of conflict.
Processing the trauma:
Healing trauma involves processing past pain, but it’s not just about reliving it. Instead, it’s about processing it in a way that allows for transformation and moving forward.
Connecting to the future:
The goal is to integrate the past with the future, which is only possible when the past is processed and acknowledged. This allows a society to move forward toward a just and lasting peace.
Different levels of healing:
Healing can occur on different levels, from individual self-empathy to large-scale public reconciliation efforts like truth commissions and public apologies.
Past trauma impacts the future:
Trauma that is not addressed can be passed down through generations, unconsciously impacting families and societies. Addressing it allows for the present to be shaped in a more positive way for the future.
AI Reply:
Exploring the potential parallels between the Jesus Christ story and the Self in IFS is definitely a thought-provoking endeavor.
Potential Similarities and Connections:
Compassion and Unconditional Positive Regard: Both Jesus and the Self, as understood in IFS, are often characterized by deep compassion and unconditional positive regard. Jesus’s teachings emphasized love and forgiveness, even for those who persecuted him. Similarly, the Self in IFS is believed to possess inherent wisdom, compassion, and acceptance for all parts of the system, even those that exhibit seemingly negative behaviors.
Healing and Integration: Jesus’s ministry often involved healing the sick and offering solace to the suffering. In a similar vein, the Self in IFS aims to heal and integrate the wounded parts of the internal system. By connecting with the Self, individuals can offer compassion and understanding to their parts, allowing them to release burdens and find healthier roles.
Inner Authority and Wisdom: Jesus spoke with authority and wisdom, often challenging societal norms and offering a new perspective. The Self in IFS is also considered to be a source of inner wisdom and guidance. When individuals are Self-led, they can access their innate capacity for clarity, creativity, and effective action.
Sacrifice and Redemption: The concept of sacrifice is central to the Jesus Christ story, particularly his willingness to suffer for the sake of humanity. While IFS doesn’t necessarily emphasize sacrifice in the same way, it does involve a willingness to acknowledge and understand the pain of one’s parts, even if it’s uncomfortable. This act of witnessing and validating can be seen as a form of “redemption” for those parts, allowing them to release their burdens and find healing.
Important Distinctions and Considerations:
There are diverse theological interpretations of the Jesus Christ story. Some interpretations may align more closely with IFS principles than others.
The Nature of the Self: In IFS, the Self is considered an inherent aspect of every individual,
In summary:
There are indeed potential similarities and connections between the Jesus Christ story and the Self in IFS, particularly in terms of compassion, healing, inner wisdom, and the potential for redemption. However, it’s essential to approach this comparison with nuance and awareness of the distinct frameworks within which they operate.
After we stop burning fossil fuels, how long will it take for the environment to return to the pre-industrial normal/stabile Co2 levels?
AI:
Factors, like melting glaciers and ice sheets, could further increase CO2 release and slow down the return to pre-industrial levels.
It is likely that it would take centuries, if not millennia, (Thousand), of years for the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial CO2 levels, even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today.
Q: Why do the wealthy world leaders, want to own and control everything, while they are in denial of climate change, is it just to keep the stock market economy growing?
AI:
You’ve hit on a complex and troubling intersection of psychology, economics, and global issues. Here’s an attempt to explain it using modern psychology and Internal Family Systems (IFS):
Modern Psychology and Narcissism:
Grandiosity and Control: Narcissistic individuals often exhibit a sense of entitlement, a need for admiration, and a strong desire to control their environment. They may believe they are superior and that rules don’t apply to them.
Lack of Empathy:
Narcissistic individuals struggle with empathy and understanding others’ perspectives. They are often focused on their own needs and goals, making it difficult to consider the broader consequences of their actions.
Denial and Projection:
To maintain their self-image, narcissistic individuals may engage in denial, minimizing or dismissing evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They may also project their own negative qualities onto others, blaming them for their own shortcomings.
Internal Family Systems (IFS) and Denial:
Protective Parts:
IFS suggests that everyone has different “parts” of themselves, each with its own motivations and beliefs. Some parts may be protective, trying to shield us from perceived threats. These protective parts can lead to denial, minimizing or avoiding painful realities.
Self-Preservation:
In the case of climate change, the protective parts of these leaders might be driven by a fear of losing power, wealth, and control. Denying the severity of the issue might feel like a way to protect their position and maintain a sense of security.
Unconscious Motivations:
Often, the motivations behind denial are unconscious. These leaders might not be consciously aware of the psychological mechanisms driving their actions.
The Stock Market and Economic Growth:
Short-Term Gains: The stock market thrives on continuous growth. Focusing on short-term profits can create an incentive to prioritize economic expansion, even at the expense of long-term environmental sustainability.
Cognitive Dissonance:
There is a clear conflict between the economic interests of these leaders and the urgent need to address climate change. Denying the severity of the issue allows them to maintain a less psychologically uncomfortable position.
Why This Matters:
Global Consequences:
The actions of powerful individuals can have a profound impact on the planet. Denial and inaction on climate change have devastating consequences for the environment and future generations.
Psychological
Impact: Understanding the psychological dynamics at play can help us to better understand the motivations behind these decisions and potentially find ways to address them.
Key Points to Remember:
Complexity:
This issue is incredibly complex, involving a mix of psychological, economic, and political factors.
Not All Leaders:
It’s important not to generalize or stereotype. There are many leaders who are committed to addressing climate change, and many individuals who are actively working to create a sustainable future.
Hope and Action:
Despite the challenges, there is still hope for change. By understanding the forces at play, we can better challenge denial, demand action, and work towards a more sustainable world.
It’s essential to continue the dialogue about these complex issues, to challenge harmful narratives, and to advocate for policies that protect our planet for future generations.
quote via Sameer D. ..::” Many years ago, someone I consider a good friend tried to corner me on this issue. Referring to the far-right in Israel I had used the term “Nazi”. He violently disagreed with the use of the term, even though he conceded that these particular people were genocidal – they were calling for the extermination of Palestinians. “The term “Nazi” should be a synonym for “Jew killer”” was what his argument boiled down to (in fact I think that’s a direct quote from that discussion).
–
The problem here is one of history as well as theory. From a historical perspective it’s not clear to me that the killing of as many as 7 million people (mostly, but not exclusively, of the Jewish faith) is more worthy of recognition than the killing of 10 million people in the Congo or the killing of 100 million people in India. The common thread is that all of these atrocities were committed by Europeans – Germans, Belgians and British Europeans to be precise. The Holocaust is one of many terrible atrocities that one could cite by way of analogy when faced with a current example of a militarised population murdering civilians.
–
Out of all of these examples, only the Holocaust has been universally recognised in our culture as an act of unspeakable evil. If I write a science fiction book about a guy who comes to power and starts killing people, I don’t compare my character to King Leopold or Winston Churchill (though those would be perfectly reasonable analogies). If I want to explain to someone in an instant that my character is a very bad person, I compare him to Hitler.
–
If you ask anyone – even someone as thick as Konstantin Kisin seems to be in this interview – what was bad about the Nazis, they’ll have the right answer. The Nazi engaged in the systemic oppression and murder of entire categories of people (Jews, Socialists, Romani, queer people, etc). They not only committed those atrocities, they declared their intent to “rid Europe of its Jews” to paraphrase some of the language of the “Final Solution”. So when we have similar language from Israeli officials – “We will eliminate everything”, “Erase them, their families, mothers and children. These animals can no longer live.” – not to mention the killing of tens of thousands of women and children, is it not time to make the obvious analogy without fear?
–
Ultimately those who argue for the sacrosanct status of the Holocaust are guilty of creating the circumstances by which the Holocaust can be repeated. Is the lesson from the Holocaust a particular lesson or a universal one? Does it only apply to European Jews who were living in Europe in the 1930s and 40s? If so, then there is no lesson of the Holocaust. The exact circumstances of 1930s Europe will never be repeated; therefore there’s nothing to learn from the holocaust if you believe that all of those circumstances must be in place in order to justify an analogy.
–
The only way in which there is anything to learn from the Holocaust is if we take it as a universal principle – no group should be targeted and killed just because they are members of that group. The universality of the Holocaust underlies the entire human rights framework (which was largely written in response to the Holocaust). The group in question doesn’t matter – those who have devoted their lives to human rights often cite atrocities committed against Armenians and people from East Timor as some of the worst atrocities ever. Both of those groups happen to be Christians who were persecuted by Muslims. So the cries of antisemitism make no sense either – those who are fighting against genocide fight against all of them, especially those that their own government is complicit in.
–
..::” If we do not universalise the lessons from the Holocaust, if we accept that there’s something that’s sacrosanct about it, what is that thing that is sacrosanct? It’s not the number of people killed – those numbers have been exceeded in Africa and in Asia. Is it the religion of those who were murdered? Given the long history of antisemitism in Europe that seems unlikely. So what is it that gives the Holocaust this unique status?
–
I don’t have an answer to this question, but I do have a guess. I fear that what makes the Holocaust against European Jews sacrosanct is the fact that they were European. African and Asian genocides don’t have the right sort of victims. Black people dying we can live with, but white people dying? Never Again (repeated over and over, and repeated by the exact same people who are simultaneously justifying the murder of thousands of Palestinian children).
–
The preoccupation with one particular genocide above all others may or may not be due to racism. But it is a preoccupation that does exist. We make (mediocre) movies about escaping the Nazis, we write (and read) novels about the Nazis, and so on. It’s the one example of genocide that firmly ensconced in the public imagination. Those of us who are actually in favour of universal human rights have an obligation to use this example – the only example that the public really gets – as part of our effort to end the current genocide.
–
Bassem Youssef was essentially asked what he would do if he was put in the situation of being in charge of an ongoing genocidal occupation. His answer is absolutely the right one – he would end that occupation and the genocide. But in order to get this point through the thick heads of those who seem intent on insisting that this war is like any other, we should not shy away from historical analogies, including the analogy to World War 2 when appropriate.
***
Sameer Dossani is co-director of Peace Vigil, an organisation dedicated to Peace Education. They are online at: PeaceVigil.net
User:
please explain with modern psychology and IFS, why the super wealthy narcissistic world leaders, want to own and control everything, while they are actually in denial of the danger of climate change, in order to keep the stock market economy growing?
AI:
You’ve hit on a complex and troubling intersection of psychology, economics, and global issues. Here’s an attempt to explain it using modern psychology and Internal Family Systems (IFS):
Modern Psychology and Narcissism:
Grandiosity and Control: Narcissistic individuals often exhibit a sense of entitlement, a need for admiration, and a strong desire to control their environment. They may believe they are superior and that rules don’t apply to them.
Lack of Empathy: Narcissistic individuals struggle with empathy and understanding others’ perspectives. They are often focused on their own needs and goals, making it difficult to consider the broader consequences of their actions.
Denial and Projection: To maintain their self-image, narcissistic individuals may engage in denial, minimizing or dismissing evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They may also project their own negative qualities onto others, blaming them for their own shortcomings.
Internal Family Systems (IFS) and Denial:
Protective Parts: IFS suggests that everyone has different “parts” of themselves, each with its own motivations and beliefs. Some parts may be protective, trying to shield us from perceived threats. These protective parts can lead to denial, minimizing or avoiding painful realities.
Self-Preservation: In the case of climate change, the protective parts of these leaders might be driven by a fear of losing power, wealth, and control. Denying the severity of the issue might feel like a way to protect their position and maintain a sense of security.
Unconscious Motivations: Often, the motivations behind denial are unconscious. These leaders might not be consciously aware of the psychological mechanisms driving their actions.
The Stock Market and Economic Growth:
Short-Term Gains: The stock market thrives on continuous growth. Focusing on short-term profits can create an incentive to prioritize economic expansion, even at the expense of long-term environmental sustainability.
Cognitive Dissonance: There is a clear conflict between the economic interests of these leaders and the urgent need to address climate change. Denying the severity of the issue allows them to maintain a less psychologically uncomfortable position.
Why This Matters:
Global Consequences: The actions of powerful individuals can have a profound impact on the planet. Denial and inaction on climate change have devastating consequences for the environment and future generations.
Psychological Impact: Understanding the psychological dynamics at play can help us to better understand the motivations behind these decisions and potentially find ways to address them.
Key Points to Remember:
Complexity: This issue is incredibly complex, involving a mix of psychological, economic, and political factors.
Not All Leaders: It’s important not to generalize or stereotype. There are many leaders who are committed to addressing climate change, and many individuals who are actively working to create a sustainable future.
Hope and Action: Despite the challenges, there is still hope for change. By understanding the forces at play, we can better challenge denial, demand action, and work towards a more sustainable world.
It’s essential to continue the dialogue about these complex issues, to challenge harmful narratives, and to advocate for policies that protect our planet for future generations.
