This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
This “Ask Jane” came up during a TimeLine session, with a client I’ll call Sarah. Click here to see past “Ask Jane” Q & A’s.
Sarah said her boyfriend usually gets home from work before she does. The other night he had told her he was going to make dinner for her, but when she got home from work it wasn’t even started, and he was involved in doing something else. And so she got upset about it, feeling as though it means he doesn’t value her. And then the next night she came home and he had dinner all ready for her, and he teased her, “I learned that if I don’t have dinner ready for Sarah, it’s really a big thing. And she said to him, “Well did you do it because you wanted to do it, or because you felt pressured to do it.”
Jane: This is the big trap that many people in relationships fall into. There are certain symbolic things that you (like many people) require that mean to you that you are valued or loved or respected, or whatever the symbol represents. And you feel your boyfriend doesn’t value you, love you, and so on if he doesn’t do them. And not only do you expect him to do the specific symbolic thing, but you expect him to think of it himself and do it because he wants to.
But this is an impossibility right from the start. Your boyfriend is thinking in terms of what you want. He can’t possibly want to do it originating from himself, because he’s catering to your particular symbolism. So he has to focus on what you tell him you want, rather than what’s really true for him. And what you’re asking for isn’t the real thing that matters to you any way. It can’t really give you the knowing you are valued.
Everyone inherently starts out knowing they are valuable, loveable, worthy of respect and so on. And they have experiences in life in which they feel loved, valued, and so on, because they’re open to receiving it. And it doesn’t have to come in a particular form. But when they make limiting decisions* that they aren’t valuable and so on, they close the channels for truly receiving these. Therefore they then require certain symbolic things from other people in order to feel that they are valued, loved, and so on. And when they don’t get those symbolic things, they think that other person is withholding it from them, as in your relationship with your boyfriend.
Sarah: Then how does it work with a couple? You have to compromise and push and pull to know what the other person wants. I thought in intimate relationships you just do things for each other.
Jane: It’s not about what the person wants that’s the issue, but what is motivating him wanting it. If it’s substituting for some emotional need that he doesn’t have access to receiving, because he doesn’t have the channels open, it won’t work and will conflict with you. It won’t work in terms of happiness or things really working well for both of your highest interest or joy. The only way to accommodate someone’s substitute desires is squelching and limiting yourself, and making yourself smaller, because it doesn’t leave you free to be true to yourself. It doesn’t lead forward. It contracts the relationship.
If the relationship is based on catering to each other’s substitute desires, you can get into your own little world of each other’s symbolic things. In order to do that, you have to make each other the center of your world. And if you go down that path, it doesn’t really expand the relationship. It insulates you from having to grow. You get more and more comfortable in a locked-in position, cut off from here-and-now experience. You become co-dependent on each other. Doing that insulates you from life, rather than opening up to it and growing — which I know you and your boyfriend really want. But with some couples that kind of compromise is the best they can do, because they’re not really into transformation. And they’re willing to compromise what really matters to them, because they’re more invested in feeling stable and secure, which really means stuck. And they can do that — unless or until there is something in their soul that can’t stand it. And then they end up physically or emotionally hurting each other, and/or leaving.
The part of you that is invested in the security and co-dependency is the part of you where there are limiting decisions*, resulting in you sacrificing being the divine you — as big, and as free, and as empowered, and as creative as you really are.
But you can have it all, all of it — the freedom to be true to yourself, as well as an intimate, committed relationship. This is a process. You go to where there is a conflict, where something is not working. And that alerts you. “Look over here. This is getting in the way of life working.” Compromise over something that really matters to you is never something that has to happen. When you’re in a relationship where there is a deep loving connection, and where you are connected to the divine love and truth, then certain things that used to be important to you no longer are, because they were substitute desires. And if there is a desire that either of you feels invested in that is causing a conflict between you, then one or both of you are invested in a substitute desire, resulting from an unhealed issue. And so you get to what it is and work through it, which then allows you to get more in contact with what really does matter to you.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions usually made before 6 or 7, and sometimes in adolescence. They are always some form of life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you — such as “I am bad, worthless, unlovable …. People can’t be trusted …”
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
This “Ask Jane” is a continuation of one that came out a few weeks ago called “My wife has gone off the deep end.” I’m describing the continuing journey of a client who is dealing with a very difficult situation at home. (Real names are never used.)
William was saying his wife is more irrational than ever and it is a living hell for him, and nothing seems to help her. He has no personal space in their home. Whenever she wants to ask or tell him something, she interrupts him or just starts talking. It doesn’t matter if he’s sleeping in the middle of the night or if he’s working in his office. She just barges right in. She tries to hang up the phone when he’s talking with someone she doesn’t want him to talk with. He’s making plans to work outside of his home so he can get some work done, but he feels bad for her spending the whole day alone by herself, probably in bed. She keeps thinking she has everything wrong with her and gets into panics about it, such as thinking she has diabetes when she doesn’t; she believes she isn’t breathing, when she is. And so he tries to demonstrate to her that she is in fact breathing, and so on. At times when she gets more rational, he thinks things are getting better. And then she goes off the wall again. He’s generally a person who is unemotional and never cries, but he’s been feeling so stressed he finds himself crying frequently.
William: I don’t know what a loving person is or does now.
Jane: This is not about doing the right behavior. I make suggestions to you, but that’s not necessarily what you should do. What’s more important than taking certain actions, or changing your behavior in relation to her, is changing your insides. This situation is causing you to have to deal with your own unhealed issues, and is breaking through your own emotional defense systems. I can’t necessarily tell you what the right thing to do is, because I’m not in your situation. But I can help you find where the emotional triggers and the limiting decisions are in you. We clear them and things shift in you; and then the way forward becomes clear.
Right now you’re supporting your wife’s insanity to some degree. A good example of this is when she is convinced there is something wrong with her, when there clearly isn’t. And then you get upset and try to convince her there isn’t. When you’re trying to convince her or change her, it’s because you’re leaning on her to define what reality is. You’re triggered by her irrationality, and are trying to get her to be rational. Any place you’re emotionally triggered by her and therefore coming from that triggered place, you’re supporting her insanity. You’re supporting the reality paradigm she’s living in. She’s in a power-struggle with you, and you’re in a power-struggle back, and feeling controlled by her. But what your power-struggle actually is against are the emotions that are coming up in you that are triggered by her.
The best thing you can do to help her is to come into reality yourself, and relate to her from that place. As you clear the limiting decisions in you and come more into reality, you’re connecting from a real place, from your heart to her heart, in the real world in relation to her. You’re holding the real truth of what’s really true between you and her, despite the way she’s acting, which is outside of the reality of what is true. And then you’re not being controlled by the insanity that’s coming from her. And you’re also coming from a compassionate place, which includes compassion for you. It includes you in the picture. And so you’re no longer letting her insanity rule the situation between you.
Who knows — this could be the best thing anyone could do for your wife right now — to be actually going through the process with her, and coming into reality and relating to her more and more in reality. It could perhaps bring her into reality.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
William: “My wife has gone off the deep end. She’s become very anxious, and is not willing to do the things that would help her. She has become completely reliant on me for everything, and needs constant reassurance. She is upset if I do anything without her. I am reaching the end of my rope. What should I do? I’m afraid she might harm herself if I don’t do whatever she wants me to do that she feels reassured by. I only see two choices: Either go along with her — or don’t and feel responsible for the state she gets into as a result, including that she might harm herself.”
Jane: “The bottom-line is if your life is appearing to not work, there are one or more limiting decisions you have that are distorting your experience of reality. And when they are cleared, the way you are looking at things will shift and a way forward will become apparent. The reason you see only those two choices is because the ground you are standing on is limited and structured by limiting decisions that filter in only the information that supports the limiting decisions, and not anything that doesn’t.”
When we discussed it further it turned out that how William was experiencing his wife was virtually identical with how he felt with his mother when he was a child. His mother was very anxious about life and felt to him to be very unstable. He felt responsible for her emotional state, and that what he did or didn’t do determined whether she felt OK or not. He thought he had married someone who was strong and the opposite of her, but now it turns out that underneath that apparent strength was someone who was actually very weak, and now he is right in the middle of the very thing he thought he had escaped.
After we cleared the limiting decision “he is responsible for the existence of the woman he’s dependent on,” William said he felt a huge weight had been lifted off of his shoulders.
He was standing on the new ground of realizing that he really didn’t have the power to determine his mother’s well-being and stability, no matter what he did or didn’t do; and so he was also now realizing that about his wife as well. He realized that he doesn’t have the power to personally solve the problem for his wife, and that nothing he can do will make any difference about it, as the source of it is only in her; and that he’s been enabling her to not find a real solution. And therefore he is no longer feeling hostage to her, or that her life depends on what he does or doesn’t do.
And so, because of this, he realized that there were, in fact, other options than the unacceptable ones he had felt locked in by. He can now relate compassionately to her, from standing on this new ground, making clear to her what he can and can’t do, and therefore no longer being co-dependent with her. He had felt imprisoned by his wife’s dysfunction, but what he had really been imprisoned by was his own.
Below is a response from RL to my invitation for dialog about the direction humanity is going in and the challenge in front of us. Underneath that is my response to RL. If you can a response to these you can send it to me using this blog’s contact form.
_________
RL: “GM foods are a fantastic idea, initially, produce mass quantity of food to feed people more quality food… Of course there are people who want to monopolize on this instantly, such as Monsato, maximizing profits by contracting deals that cannot be withdrawn. This is done without being cautious to the effects, and giving time for science to perfect the process. Hydrogenated oil… when created at first, great idea! Food shall not spoil so quick… yet 30 years down the line we find its ill effects, but to completely ban it from use is impossible, as to the multi million dollar agreements of companies like crisco and mcdonalds. But 30 years down the line we find Hydrogenation of food is useful on sugar starches, to create an indigestible sugar that is great for diabetics, and does not cause insulin spikes. Every discovery has an application, we just need to find the correct one, and the key requirement is patience. Money is the root of all evil….”
Jane: “To me, what you are saying boils down to: Because of greed, some people take advantage of, and have huge power over, other people. This perspective is that we are victims of the greed of other people.
When we look at these kinds of issues, the focus is generally on those who take advantage of other people, as if they are the problem. This is not recognizing that those other people are just as powerful as those who “take advantage of them.” The problem isn’t those who take advantage of other people; it is what causes those other people to give their power away and let themselves be manipulated. And it is not others they are being manipulated by.
What people really desire are, for example, being powerful, valuable, successful, loved, safe and so on. And having those is the true nature of people. But people make limiting decisions* as children, which cause them to believe that can’t have those things, in whatever area it is that they make limiting decisions* in. Because this feels deeply unacceptable to them, they develop emotional defense systems that cushion them against, or compensate for, not being able to access those. People then get invested in symbolic substitutes for these that they feel they can control — such as buying expensive things they don’t need; drinking excessive alcohol; and eating unhealthy comfort foods that give them a false, but immediate, sense of well-being. These kinds of symbolic substitutes give them the feeling that they are powerful, valuable, successful, lovable, safe and so on. People tend to buy into symbols of what gives them a sense of well-being.
When we go toward symbolic substitutes, we are believing that the source of our well-being is outside of ourselves. This is what addictions are all about. They are something physical that we believe we have control over that will give us a sense of having something we truly desire, but feel unable to access, such as love, emotional nourishment, power, success, significance and so on. But in reality, an addiction is something that becomes out of our control, and ends up having control over us.
And so these symbolic symbols ultimately have harmful effects on us, as well as often on other people and our common environment. This is because they not in alignment with reality. They result in excessive consumption of resources and pollution in one form or another. And they bring us into an increasingly deeper sense of hopelessness, because we’re looking in the wrong direction for solutions. They cause us to rely on those who provide these symbolic substitutes believing they are the source of our well-being. Those we believe have huge power over us, such as Monsato in your example, only have that power because we are giving it to them, believing them to be the source of what we need, as if that source could come from something outside of ourselves.”
Limiting Decisions*: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7. They are always some form of life doesn’t work and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you, such as: “I am bad, not valuable, a failure…” “People can’t be trusted.” And so on.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
Lucy is a woman in her 40′s who has never been married, although she’s been in many relationships. She has been afraid of commitment, and generally has been in relationship with men who are also afraid of commitment.
Because of the work we’ve done clearing Limiting decisions in TimeLine sessions, Lucy is now in a committed relationship with a man I’ll call Alan. They are living together and seriously talking about getting married and having a baby. But some fears are coming up for both of them. They are thinking of making a pre-nuptial agreement in case they end up divorced, as many people end up doing. Lucy recently talked with a married friend of hers who was talking about how unhappy she is in her marriage. She talked contemptuously about her husband, and said “Just wait, 10 years down the line after you are married, you’ll see what I mean.” And another woman who was there agreed that was also how she felt about her marriage. Lucy said she was afraid that will end up happening to Alan and her.
Jane’s response: Up until fairly recent times, more people stayed married than got divorced. This was because of the social stigma about getting divorced, and perhaps even more so because women depended on their husbands to support them. Now, as women have come increasingly more into their power, this is no longer such a constraint.
To many people, marriage is a kind of a fantasy about home, and stability, and being loved forever, and safety against the trials of the world. They believe that in order to make marriage work, each partner has to sacrifice and compromise themselves to whatever degree is necessary. And this is a part of what defines love. Out of fear of losing this security, people lock themselves into a particular form, rather than paying attention to and evolving whatever is really true between them, as well as growing and evolving themselves. People, in general, don’t believe life will work if they follow the truth of what it actually is.
What is holding this is place are limiting decisions. If there are limiting decisions in there that cause you to lean on the marriage as a fixed form, in order to compensate for whatever is unhealed in you, it will get in the way of a true relationship between you — unless you recognize and deal with the limiting decisions. In fact the relationship form can be used to substitute for actually relating to each other. Examples of limiting decisions that result in this are decisions you can’t take care of yourself, you’re not good enough, you aren’t safe in the world, you can’t succeed in life, emotional intimacy is weak or dangerous, people can’t be trusted, other people’s needs are more important than yours. Using your relationship to compensate for these will ultimately cause one or both of you to attach yourself to each other, put huge pressure on each other to be other than who you are, create a sense of emptiness or meaninglessness, and probably cause one or the other of you to pull away from the relationship.
As conflict or pressures come up in the relationship that seem to get in the way of being true to yourself, it’s an indication of a limiting decision* distorting your perception of how things really are. And so it’s necessary to face and deal with the limiting decisions* — or you end up forfeiting a piece of yourself. You end up compromising what matters to you. And that’s what kills relationships. But that’s what people do all of the time, because they don’t make personal transformation an essential ingredient in their relationship. It’s never the nature of life or relationships that’s the problem. It is unhealed issues distorting your experience of reality that causes life to appear not to work.
* Limiting decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
Question is from Jered in Mission Valley (real names are never used)
Jered: Recently I’ve had useful (?) feedback on business projects. This person’s viewpoint is that the glass is always half-empty. It’s a challenge to hear rain on the parade. Yet sometimes this ‘braking’ action leads me to other – less enthusiastic perspectives.
It seems to me this goes back to the core about limited decisions*. Maybe you can comment on how these negative people have a balancing effect?
Jane: I gather that this person is calling to your attention possible pitfalls to the business projects you presented him with, which may cause the projects to fail.
Here are some thoughts, from the perspective that you might have a limiting decision* that is blocking the success of your business projects: Let’s say you have a limiting decision* — for example perhaps something like “No one wants what you really have to offer.” The way it works is, once the limiting decision is made, the unconscious mind becomes invested in proving the limiting decision is true. In other words, people manifest into their lives whatever the limiting decisions are that they have made. In this case, the result might be that the way you conceive of possible business projects causes potential buyers not to be attracted to them.
People often create emotional defense systems for the purpose of buffering the pain of their limiting decisions, or compensating for them. So in this case, perhaps you tend to create an overly rosy picture of your projects to compensate for really believing that no one wants what you have to offer. And this defense system keeps you from functioning in reality.
Then this person that you have described, comes along who doesn’t follow the social norms of being polite and tactful, and being positive about your project — basically coming across to you as being negative — and he’s not giving you the expected feedback you are pushing for that overlooks the reality of what you are actually presenting him with. So this man’s behavior then punctures your emotional defense system, and you feel as though he is “raining on your parade.”
If, instead of having a knee jerk negative response to his input, you can step back and investigate whatever might be true in what he is presenting to you — beyond whatever distortions he might be bringing to the table — then yes, I agree that you can gain some positive and useful insights as a result of this.
* Limiting decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
Below is a response Fellow Healer in New York had to a previous “Ask Jane” Q & A. For the original Ask Jane Q & A with Sally that this response is about, click here.
Fellow Healer in New York: YES.. and integrity means wholeness with self …watching the game may just be more in Integrity for this man, then following a promise he in retrospect will prob. not make again!
Jane: Being in integrity with himself is not about the action Sally’s husband (I’m calling Jake) decides to take one way or the other. It’s the process by which he gets there. People often take a stand on one particular action in order to feel in integrity with themselves, in order to hold some kind of boundary. But they only need to do that if there is an unhealed issue that results, for example, in them tending to give up their needs for the sake of the other person’s needs, if they don’t rigidly take this kind of stand. And so doing it that way is a part of an emotional defense system that ends up causing a separation with the other person in order to feel you can have your own needs met. This is the kind of dynamic that often occurs in relationships in which people believe it’s not possible to both be in integrity with yourself, and also be vulnerably and intimately connected to the other person.
The only way around that is to engage in dialog and be willing to explore your own unhealed issues (limiting decisions*), which requires letting go of control, rather than taking control, and results in transformation.
Jake had agreed to go to the event with Sally. But when he realized there was a crucial football game on TV that was really important to him that conflicted with him going to this event, his knee jerk emotional response was feeling forced to go to the event with Sally or she would probably get really upset. And so he emotionally rebelled by blurting out that he wasn’t going, before he could get his conscious mind around what he was doing. So basically his knee jerk response causes a separation, believing this to be the only way he could get to do what he really wanted to do. This is based on the very common belief that if we stay connected in reality with each other when there appears to be conflicting desires, there won’t be a solution. In other words that it’s not possible for life to work out well for all concerned. So Jake caused a separation because he believed that there inherently was a separation between his desires and Sally’s. It feels far less painful to cause a separation from an invulnerable, defended place, then to feel at the mercy of there inherently being a separation between himself and the person he loves, when he’s coming from a vulnerable place. And that is because if that would turn out to be true, it would be evidence that life doesn’t work.
But the truth is — the only thing that could create this situation not to work out well for all concerned are the limiting decisions* each person brings to the table, that causes each to respond from a defended place, rather than being open to a solution.
As it turned out, after they discussed the situation, a friend of Sally’s came to town and Sally asked her to go with her, which worked out well. What was keeping Sally stuck in having bad feelings toward Jake was a limiting decision* in her.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
Jane Ilene Cohen will be interviewed by
Kalon Women Community’s Founder, Sandra Levitin
August 4th at 6:30pm Eastern Time / 3:30pm Pacific Time
Suppose you could… Change your perspective of reality in a way that would deeply empower you to take charge of your life no matter what is going on in your outside world and no longer struggle at trying to make life work.
Intuitive & Transformational Counselor, Teacher and Author, Jane Ilene Cohen, will share the personal journey that brought her to a totally positive new thought system, based on the principle “Life is Meant to Work.” This thought system, combined with her NLP training, is what has enabled her to facilitate profound life-changing results for her clients for the past 14 years.
Other Topics include:
“Limiting Decisions: How Your Perception of Reality Gets Distorted”
“Is Life Meant to Work or Is It Not?”
“Self-Interest vs. Enlightened Self-Interest”
To hear the show and/or ask any questions call (347-884-8656)
The preview call audio for my upcoming
“Life is Meant to Work” 12-week Tele-seminar — is now here.
In this preview I share the personal journey that brought me to a totally positive new thought system, based on the principle “Life is Meant to Work.” This thought system, combined with my NLP training, is what has enabled me to facilitate profound life-changing results for my clients for the past 14 years.
I also describe some of the basic ideas from this thought system, addressing these 3 topics:
“Limiting Decisions: How Your Perception of Reality Gets Distorted”
“Is Life Meant to Work, or Is It Not?”
“Self-interest vs. Enlightened Self-Interest”
In addition you’ll get the main details of what is included in the “Life is Meant to Work” program.
I hope you enjoy the audio, and I welcome any comments, responses or questions you might have.
Warmly,
Jane Ilene Cohen
(760) 753-0733
Excerpts from the Preview Call
“When I took a stand on life is meant to work, it’s like I walked through a portal or a gateway in which a whole other landscape was now visible or available to me.And I started tapping into a whole body of knowledge that I had no idea of before.”
____________
“The reason ‘The Secret’ and the Law of Attraction has become so popular is it is about being able to manifest into our lives what we desire, rather than feeling at the mercy of forces outside of ourselves. But many people have difficulty in making this work for themselves, or have success with it only in specific and limited areas of their lives. Really understanding how to effectively use the Law of Attraction requires much more than what is generally taught, and represents a step forward in the human evolutionary process. The meaning of this goes way beyond being able to manifest a certain number of dollars per month, or buying the fancy new sports car. It is a shift in where we understand our source of safety and well-being comes from.”
____________
“From the very individual perspective to the larger global perspective, many people experience life as not working. But they don’t understand how we are participating in creating this, just believing it to be the nature of how life is. And therefore we are looking in the wrong direction for solutions.”
________
“We experience reality as something objective that is external to us, and that imposes itself on us. But our perception of reality is, in fact, very subjective and changeable, because we are never experiencing reality directly. We are only experiencing a model of reality. There are thousands of bits of information that are bombarding our senses every moment, and it would be impossible to take all of it in. So we filter in a very small percentage of it, and filter out most of it. What we decide to filter in or out is very subjective and changeable. This means, to a large degree, we are choosing our experience of reality, as opposed to reality imposing itself on us.”
______
“Our internal state is caused by our interpretation of what is happening out in the world, rather than something objective that is happening to us. And we don’t realize that our interpretations are very often a result of projecting our limiting decisions onto something or someone outside of ourselves.”
“It’s crucial to understand how subjective, changeable and effectible our experience or perception of reality is, in order to have a choice about what to do about it. Most people believe this instability has to do the nature of reality, and don’t realize that it’s actually internal to themselves. And since the internal process causing it is generally very unconscious, what we end up doing about it is also an unconscious process, which often doesn’t end up serving us.”
This is a part of the “Ask Jane” Series,
in which Jane answers questions
you email to her that of concern to you.
(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)
Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.
This question is from Jered in San Diego, CA (Real names are never used.)
Jered: As we all know, the head of BP Oil is being crucified in the press. From my perspective, his personal comments to the public and Congress are the sincere truth. His people are working around the clock to solve the problem. He goes home to the UK for personal family time and to get a few hours of fresh air. Certainly, his mind is preoccupied. Yet no matter what he does or says that is truthful – the public is unsatisfied. How does one handle these situations? It’s as though the truth is insufficient as compared to a carefully postured response.
Jane: We don’t really know the character of Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, or really what responsibility he does or doesn’t hold for what occurred. But I agree that he may very well be saying the sincere truth, but that many people want a scapegoat. They want someone to emotionally pay for their suffering, as if that would make them feel better.
The whole idea of sharing the suffering seems to be very strong in people. If I am suffering, then you ought to be suffering also — or you don’t care, you are selfish, you are a bad person. But this has nothing to do with any real solutions, or any easing of human pain.
This is a triggered kind of emotional response, and not reality-based. Whether Mr. Hayward is outwardly suffering or not, has no actual benefit to anyone who is suffering because of the oil spill. It won’t have any effect on solutions being found any faster, or people getting compensated any faster.
People who are invested in finding scapegoats for their suffering are looking in the wrong direction for any real solutions, and are invested in holding in place vibrations of misery, hatred and pain. As a result, I would guess, this is only one of many sources of misery in their lives, as this is what they would attract.
To answer your question more directly, about how to handle this kind of situation: Rather than the focus being on how other people might respond to us, as if that is the source of our well-being, and trying to cater to them, the real dialog is between oneself and a larger perspective, beyond the limited human scope of things. In other words, specifically in relation to Mr. Hayward, I’m sure there are lessons for him to learn, or he wouldn’t have found himself in this kind of situation in the first place. For example it is possible that he might have an emotional defense system of keeping himself at a distance from getting emotionally or personally involved in general, believing that that will keep him safe. This experience could rock that defense system, and be a huge wake-up call for him. Perhaps if he had been more personally involved, he may have prevented what happened.
* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.” “People can’t be trusted.” They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.
