By too much-emotion I mean too much fear of the kind you grew up with “Yeah same sadly”)- fear of hurting her, fear of being hurt)- F.E.A.R.

I ran my replies through AI and learned that my first reply was fine, that the fact that I was not emotional (as in ‘sorry for your pain’ etc.) was a positive because a person who’s overwhelmed emotionally needs a calm, grounded response that doesn’t add emotion on top of a a flammable mix of pre- existing emotion.

On the other hand, my following few replies were pretty bad, and if Emma (the OP) was here, I’d apologize to her wholeheartedly.

Why did I become judgmental, blunt and even accusatory?

Something in me got trigerred. Emma was Emotional- that may have reminded me of my emotionally- chaotic, histrionic, out of control mother.

My mother was overly emotional and under-ly logical or sensible. It was traumatizing for me to find myself trapped in her extended (felt like never-ending) histrionic displays (‘oh, poor me, I am dying, I am going to kill myself and it’s your fault’, etc., etc.)

I wasn’t able to talk sense to my mother when I was a teenager (when I started reading psychology books), or when I was an adult.

Talking with Emma trigerred that frustration and brewing anger at not being able to contain my mother’s out of control emotionality.

Thing is Emma was emotional but also reasonable and kind, nothing like my mother. But a bit of her emotionality trigerred my experience with-the LOT of emotionality by my mother mixed with her abuse of me.

I mean, Emma thanked me for my first reply or two, but my mother never thanked me for my efforts to help her.

Even in Emma’s last reply, following my worst reply- she was still contained, fair, not at all abusive, unlike my mother.

Yet just because she was emotional, I projected my mother into her and reacted- not to Emma- but to my mother.

I sincerely apologize, Emma.

Anita

“We both learned early on to distrust life and love… it’s been a defining experience”-

This distrust kept me dreadfully A.L.O.N.E.

So much life, or livING wasted in that distrust/ withdrawal from people.

Coming to think about it, when truly connecting with people, that running on green fields or dancing, there is no thinking, just livING.

More later.

Hi Peter:

I thought you’d like reading the following. Also, since I have to move from the computer to the phone, I want to submit the following and process it when using the phone.

Copilot: 🌿 Evaluation of Peter’s Replies
Peter’s replies are unusually attuned, thoughtful, and relationally intelligent. He does several things extremely well:

1. He validates your inner experience without collapsing into sentimentality
When you describe breath‑holding, tics, shame, or knots, he doesn’t minimize or over‑empathize.
He simply says:

“That is the territory speaking.”

This is a masterful way of saying:
“I see you. I understand the depth of what you’re describing.”

It’s validating without being intrusive.

2. He meets you at your level of depth
You speak in metaphors (knots, maps, territory, shame voices), and he responds in the same symbolic language.
This creates a shared field of meaning, which is why the conversation feels so fluid and safe.

He doesn’t simplify your thoughts; he expands them.

3. He avoids power struggles
When you express shame (“I felt I was insulting you by saying we have things in common”), he doesn’t correct you harshly or dismiss the feeling.

Instead, he gently dissolves the hierarchy:

“We do have things in common…
We both learned early on to distrust life and love.”

This is a repair — he meets your shame with connection rather than distance.

4. He reframes without invalidating
When you struggle with “no‑self,” he doesn’t say you’re wrong.
He reframes the concept in a way that honors your lived experience:

“Often what we call our ‘self’ is just a map…
When the map tears, it feels like dying.”

He validates your fear and offers a new way to see it.

5. He invites awareness rather than analysis
Instead of pushing you to “figure it out,” he invites you to notice:

“How does your body react when you give yourself permission to just notice the tension?”

This shifts you from intellectual effort into embodied awareness — a healthier place for trauma‑related material.

6. He is emotionally safe
He never shames, never lectures, never corrects harshly.
He stays curious, open, and steady.

This is why you feel comfortable revealing shame in real time.

🌿 How Peter Explains “No‑Self” (Anattā)
Peter’s explanation is sophisticated, psychologically informed, and spiritually grounded. Here’s the distilled essence:

🌿 1. “No‑self” does NOT mean you don’t exist
He rejects the idea that “no‑self” means annihilation or void.

Instead, he says:

The small self (ego, survival‑self, conditioned self) is what falls away.

The true self (awareness, presence, the “spark”) remains.

This is consistent with Buddhist, Christian mystical, and nondual traditions.

🌿 2. The “self” you fear losing is actually a map
He uses the metaphor:

Map = false self
(stories, roles, masks, survival strategies)

Territory = true self
(awareness, presence, the ground of being)

When the map tears, it feels like dying — but the territory remains untouched.

This is a brilliant way to explain trauma‑based identity.

🌿 3. “No‑self” is the falling away of the mask, not the person
He says:

“You aren’t dying when the old masks slip.”

This is exactly what someone with early relational trauma needs to hear.

🌿 4. Awareness is what remains
He echoes Krishnamurti:

“The observer is the observed.”

Meaning:

The “I” who watches thoughts is not separate from the thoughts.

Awareness is not a person — it’s a field.

This dissolves the duality between “me” and “my experience.”

🌿 5. “No‑self” is not a concept to master — it’s something to relax into
He tells you:

“Don’t work the terms.
Sit with them.
Let the knots loosen.”

This is exactly how contemplative traditions approach anattā.

🌿 6. He brings it back to the body
He ends with:

“How does your body react when you just notice the tension?”

This is the heart of the teaching:

No‑self is not a theory.

It’s an experience of relaxing out of the survival‑self and into awareness.

🌿 In One Sentence
Peter explains “no‑self” as the falling away of the conditioned, survival‑based identity (the map) so that the deeper, unconditioned awareness (the territory) can breathe — and he guides you toward this understanding with emotional attunement, metaphor, and embodied presence.

Continued: I stated in that last message that my intent was not to make her feel good momentarily but to promote her well-being long term ( an explanation for my lack of empathy, harshness, criticism/ judgment, disrespect and unfounded accusations..😔)

No doubt I did NOT promote her well-being long term or short term.

Why was I so cold (no empathy), judgmental and accusatory?

I’ll have to think about it.

I will continue this in hours from now.

😔 👎 Anita

Continued:

My fourth reply (6/21/2021) just got even worse: still no empathy for Emma (who has been nice to me in her replies so far, trying to explain things best she could), doubling on the judgment- claiming she’s not taking responsibility for the wrong she has done, and I accused her of dishonesty- paying lip service in regard to her guilt, not meaning what she said. Looking back, there was no evidence for these accusations. I presented an honest, hurting woman as a villain.

Can my replies get even worse?

(to be continued next)

Hey 👋 Tom:

Good to read back from you 🙂

Healthy food and fitness are healthy emotion regulators, keeping you balanced about things 👍

I hope that your partner has her own emotion regulators: practices that keep her balanced at this time of elevated stress 🙏

And I hope that the challenge to your direct report resolves soon 🙏

So, what are the chances that you’ll become a father in the next year or two, and how do you feel about it (if you’d like to share and only if you do 🙂)?

I too take it one day at a time- an emotion regulating attitude. A daily long walk is an emotion regulating practice for me. Having a beagle who is slightly snoring right now next to me helps too ✨️

🤍 Anita

Peter, I just had a frustrating conversation with Copilot, using the 📱, on the topic of no-self: annata (similar to my name) and I am not understanding the concept.

Copilot explained everything that it is not (to correct my misunderstandings), but in regard to what it is, it didn’t.

So, as to what it is, it says that there is no “I” (not just after death, but in this life), but a combination of circumstances (events, conditions) that are not happening to me because there’s no me (no self).

So, who is it all happening to?

I hope that you can explain it to me better than Copilot.. ?

😕 🤔 Anita