Transformational Teachings from Counselor Jane Ilene Cohen

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.

From Sally in Solana Beach: My husband agreed to go to an event with me that was important to me.  But a few days before the event he realized that an important football game was playing that night, which he hadn’t known about and he blurted out that he wasn’t going to the event because he wanted to stay home and watch the game.  I told him that I had thought he was a person of integrity, but because of how he acted I realized that he really isn’t, if he could just blow off his commitment to me like that.  He did realize shortly after his response that he hadn’t behaved very well, and suggested we discuss possible solutions.  But I am still seeing him as a person without integrity because of how he acted.  He obviously didn’t see me as a very high priority.  Don’t you think this shows a lack of integrity?

Jane: I’d say, clearly your husband was coming from an emotionally triggered place — at least in his initial response.  But it doesn’t mean to me that this shows he is a person basically lacking in integrity.

I think this brings up something important for you to look at in yourself.  Leaning on ridged rules, as you seem to be doing, is a way to avoid relating in the moment, where you reveal where you are at, and engage back and forth about what’s really happening, such as “I’m triggered,” “This is how I’m feeling”, “This is really important to me.”  If you avoid relating in the moment, you don’t have to be vulnerable, you don’t have to reveal anything, and you don’t have to engage.  It’s just, “This is the rule; you follow it or you’re bad.”

And that’s a place that people often fall into in areas in which they have limiting decisions*, because they don’t trust life to work the way it really is. And I’m guessing a significant limiting decision* was triggered in you by this situation, bringing up emotional responses beyond what the situation really called for.  For example, the limiting decision* could have to do with you not feeling valued or that there isn’t anyone you can count on.  And you’re projecting the pain of the limiting decision* onto your husband, which is why you are being ridged about it, and why you’re drawing a broad generalization about him.

Since — after his initial knee jerk response — your husband was open to discussing this with you to find a solution, it appears to me that he’s not creating an impossibility.  But if you take a ridged stand on a judgment about what this means about his character, you have shut the door to a way forward.  When you’re really being present — engaging, revealing, and being vulnerable, you don’t need to have ridged rules, because you are interacting in life, and life does work when you’re really participating in it.

So — you recognize that your husband had a dysfunctional response, you look at the limiting decisions being triggered in yourself and in him, and you work through it.  A way forward will become clear, when you are really able to be present with each other.

* 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.

Transcript Excerpt of Jane’s Teachings
during Lita’s NLP Timeline Session 10-22-09

(Client’s name is change to protect her privacy.)

(Lita was describing an interaction in which several of her girl friends had views about how she is living her life that bumped up against how Lita sees it, and didn’t feel good to her.  She felt judged by them.  Lita is asking who’s to say who’s truth is better?  Lita is also dealing with trust issues.)

“It’s not a matter of this person thinks this and the other thinks that, and that’s her point-of-view,  that’s her truth — from which then follows the question of:  ‘Who is to say which person’s truth is better?’

Each person comes from their own perspective, which adds richness to the truth of the whole situation.  So different people’s perspectives are a wonderful gift.  But people’s limiting decisions* cause them to be afraid of what is really true in reality, and so they develop emotional defense systems in order to control how reality is perceived in the areas of their limiting decisions*.  But blocking present moment truth also blocks a person’s real contribution.  Therefore people’s defense systems end up covering over the individual richness that people could be adding.  So it only becomes a matter of whose truth is better when there’s an avoidance of truth.  Otherwise each person’s perspective would add to a greater understanding of what is true.

The reason the issue of judgment comes up for you has to do with who is going to define reality.  You seem to think that people can define reality and make it so. So whatever they say, then becomes the reality for you, which you then struggle against.

Because you are letting other people define reality for you, the issue of if they are or aren’t trustable becomes vital, because now you’re depending on how they define reality for you. And so if they fail or are not perfect in some way, that becomes dangerous for you. By letting someone else define reality for you, you are giving them the power over your experience of reality.  So the limiting decision that people can’t be trusted easily follows from that because you’re expecting others to basically take on the responsibility of God, which no one can live up to.”

* For a definition of limiting decisions, click here.

Transcript Excerpts of Jane’s Teachings during a
“Shifting into your New Consciousness” group experience 6-11-09
(Names are changed to protect privacy)

(To Fiona) “… What you’re talking about is a structure of reality in you that is not in alignment with truth. It’s your particular structure that you’ve built based on limiting decisions about what it means to be a soft, loving person. It has to do with you not realizing that being truly loving, which is your nature, is an open channel, which goes both ways. It’s giving and receiving, the channel is open so you can receive what you need. You’re not seeing it that way, but that’s the truth of it. You’ve got structures formed that don’t allow that to happen. But the truth in reality is that’s the way it works. So when little pieces of that loving you show, it elicits a loving response from other people. It creates an open channel. But because of your internal structure, you don’t trust it.

The reason that you get taken advantage of is because you’re not consciously present in the situations in which trust is an issue. If you were present it would be obvious to you what you could trust and what you could not trust. You can be a trusting person without stepping into the middle of the street with a car coming toward you. And if you decided to not step in front of a car, you wouldn’t think, ‘Oh, I’m really bad because I didn’t trust that car to not hit me.’ But apparently you have a judgment against yourself if you don’t unquestioningly put yourself totally in the hands of others. You must feel as though you have to make yourself overly vulnerable, for some reason. You seem to think there is a conflict between seeing things as they are, and being trusting and optimistic and positive. It’s not about negatively judging other people. It’s not about being judgmental at all. People have defense systems. That doesn’t mean that that’s who they are. And so you can choose not to walk into a situation that’s dysfunctional without judging the person as being a bad person. There are a bunch of issues mixed up in there that are confusing you. One thing does not mean the other thing. It’s perfectly possible to be a completely positive and loving person, and not walk in front of a moving car. I think there is something that really is important to you, underneath this that you think you have to give up in order to have boundaries. And it’s not true. I promise you it’s not true. There’s an unhealed issue in there that is causing you to think that. It’s like you’re trying to hold in place a particular principle, by doing this. I promise it’s possible to hold the principle in place without harming yourself, and without being amorphous and lacking boundaries. You are basically inviting people to take advantage of you.”