Hi Peter,

I’m glad that you’ve appreciated our conversation, including my sharing about projection. I’m grateful to you for being a safe person and open to hearing my thoughts and feelings, without making me feel judged. I truly appreciate that 🙏

The outer pursuits still have their place, but they no longer feel like the center of gravity. The second half of life, for me, seems to be about letting go but in a way that makes space for something deeper to emerge.

It does make sense to me that you don’t feel like primarily pursuing outer goals in this phase of life, but getting in touch and aligning with your deeper self, and living from that place.

I myself still have outer goals, since I’ve been a notorious procrastinator, fears dominating certain parts of my life. But I do feel that my outer pursuit is aligned with my true self and is an expression of it. So it’s kind of the inner and the outer working together… only I need to get the outer part – the manifestation in the physical – working better 🙂

I don’t experience that as passive but can understand how it might seem that way from the outside looking in.

I wonder if people in your surroundings have told you that – that you’re passive? You don’t need to answer, of course, only if you feel like it.

This has been a truly illuminating conversation, Peter. I hope we can chat some more 🙂

Hi Peter,

I’ve seen your latest post only after having submitted mine…

I think I can name the ‘loop’ I’ve sensed in the pattern of our dialogue – ‘Yet But’.
You tend to lean into the outer, objective experience of conflict – what was said, what needs to be addressed. While I tend to lean into the inner, subjective experience – what was felt, what shifted, what resisted. Both of us I think caught in the loop of – ‘yes but’ the outer experience…. ‘yes but’ inner experience…

Yes, that too might be the reason (in addition to what I suggested above 🙂 ). You’re right, I’m very focused on what happens on the outside – if the conflict is of the kind that I believe requires some outer action too. However, I don’t focus only on the outer, and have learned how important it is to actually first pay attention to the inner experience, and only then respond.

But I think that we must address both: fist the inner, then the outer (if the situation calls for an outer action).

Hi Peter,

I think Alessa gave good examples of 2 different ways to deal with the conflict (thank you, Alessa!).

One is to passively take the hits and wait till perhaps someone else intervenes. The other is to “fight” and stand your ground, rather than withdraw or detach/go numb. I guess in the first case, the person would probably have to be a little detached or desensitized, because it’s hard to take the hits without wanting to do something about it, i.e. without wanting to protect yourself from pain.

I guess the way I approach conflict is that I believe that the person who took the passive approach (endurance and possibly detachment/numbing) isn’t really doing themselves a favor, i.e. their endurance might be a defense mechanism, but it’s not the optimal way to deal with conflict.

Of course, in certain situations, when it’s about physical or sexual abuse, and the abuser is much stronger and you don’t have anywhere to go, the best is to just numb yourself and endure. And there are many victims of abuse who were forced to do that. It’s a valid survival strategy, and I absolutely don’t judge it.

What I’m talking about is another type of conflict, where emotional abuse might be involved, and it’s between two adults. I believe emotional abuse doesn’t need to be endured (unless again, there are specific situations, e.g. someone stuck in a marriage with a narcissistic partner, and not having the means to leave. So they need to endure certain things because they can’t leave, at least not for the time being).

I believe that in situations where there is emotional abuse, and where we’re not in danger to respond, the healthiest way to deal with the conflict is to be assertive. Assertive meaning using non-violent communication skills, but still – doing something, rather than sitting with the pain and enduring it.

You said:

You are correct to note I seek safety through detachment and how that impacts how I communicate. However, the intention isn’t to avoid discomforted or ‘stop’ conflict but to ‘sit’ in it… I’m ok being uncomfortable.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but it seems you prefer to sit with the pain, but also be somewhat detached from it, right? And to me, it’s not really sitting with the pain, if we numb ourselves a little. To me it’s kind of a contradiction.. please help me understand what you mean?

I wonder if my framing, that every interaction, especially online, carries some element of projection and mirroring, is part of what’s causing both of us to feel misunderstood. It’s a lens I’ve come to trust as a kind of truth, but I recognize it may not resonate in the same way for others. Perhaps we can agree to disagree here.

I see that this is possible: that every interaction carries an element of projection and mirroring. What I was trying to convey though (and maybe this is where we disagree) is that sometimes, we need to respond, rather than sit with the pain and do nothing (and only analyze ourselves while not addressing the abuse that we might be faced with).

I do agree that we should always pause and examine ourselves, i.e. see where the pain is coming from. But if the pain is coming from the outside, then we should address it, even if our pain may be augmented by our own sensitivity.

It’s like you have a physical wound and someone is hitting you on that wound: do you ask the person the stop, or you tell to yourself: “this hurts so much because of my own wound – and I should endure it, because I should be stronger, I shouldn’t be so sensitive. I need to get stronger, I need to be less sensitive.”

Basically, that’s what I was trying to convey. I don’t know how you see this?

I also noticed a frustration, perhaps even a touch of anger… directed inward. I often feel clumsy when trying to communicate something that feels clear inside but lands differently outside. Language, especially metaphor, is how I make sense of things, but I’m learning that it doesn’t always translate well.

Yes, I think metaphors can be tricky because the same symbols can evoke a different meaning for different people, I guess. Maybe a little bit like dream interpretation (though a metaphor is more universal than a dream)?

I do notice you like to communicate via stories and metaphors… I’m sorry that I misunderstood your poem and concluded something you didn’t mean 🙁

Please don’t blame yourself. I’m glad that we could talk it through and explain what we really meant. I hope the metaphor part is not an issue any more and there are no hard feelings on your part regarding that?

If at any point you find this conversation uncomfortable, please say so. My intention isn’t to impose my beliefs on you, but to try to explain my perspective, and also to better understand where you’re coming from. I too value this conversation 🙏

Hi Peter,

I acknowledge that my invitation to pause and reflect was misunderstood as assigning equal blame. That wasn’t my aim, nor was it intended to determine who was right. This, I agree, was a failure on my part, especially given how the metaphor landed even as I found myself entangled in it. I can’t un-ring the bell, so I’ll let that be.

Please don’t think that I’m accusing you again and again for using the wrong metaphor, or a metaphor that I interpreted in a certain way. I certainly didn’t want to do that. In my previous post I was just musing about why mirror wasn’t the best metaphor, but I really don’t hold any bad feelings towards you. I’m sorry if my insisting on it made you feel judged. I do apologize if I’ve hurt your feelings by bringing it up again in my last post.

One question that hasn’t yet been addressed is: in an online forum, what is our expectation around accountability when someone has hurt us? Do we cancel them? Should they cancel themselves? I hope not.

No, no, of course not! As I said, I didn’t intend to torture you with the metaphor thing, if that’s what you’re referring to. I don’t want to cancel you, or tell you to cancel yourself.

I know you’ve shared about people being quick to cancel each other when discussing political events in the US (if I understood you well?), and how it upsets you and makes you feel sad. I understand that this is a sensitive topic for you, but I assure you, I have no such inclinations and have never been thinking in those terms.

Sometimes all we can do is accept what is and give ourselves credit for expressing our truth with clarity and care. Accountability, in this context, may not mean punishment or withdrawal, but rather a willingness to stay present, to listen, to reflect, and, when possible, to repair. Still, that’s not always easy, and it’s not always mutual. But I believe there’s value in resisting the impulse to erase or condemn and instead choosing to remain in the discomfort to see what it might reveal. That is what I’ve witnessed here, for which I’m grateful.

I completely agree with you. We’re learning in this space how to stay in dialogue with each other, even when emotions run high. We’re learning how to express our feelings and what’s bothering us, while remaining open to hearing the other side. Cancelling each other is not what we should be about.

What was “cancelled” in the July/August conflict was a specific action that was abusive to others. The person wasn’t cancelled, but the hurtful behavior was.

Lastly, in your reply I noticed a strong, even triggering, reaction to “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” I know it’s often used to express compassion, but I experience it as a kind of split… a way of loving that still divides. It feels like it keeps the heart slightly closed, even when the intention is to keep it open. That’s not a critique of your use of it, but an acknowledgment of how it landed in me. To be honest, I was horrified that what I wrote connected to that notion as anyone on the receiving end of that phrase is unlikely to experience it as being truly seen.

I see. Actually I never really use this phrase, because I don’t like the terms sinner and the Christian notion that we’re all sinners. But I’ve used it now to exemplify the difference between the person and their actions. But I see that it disturbed you… perhaps it’s because of its religious connotation and what it evokes in you? (I was horrified that what I wrote connected to that notion as anyone on the receiving end of that phrase is unlikely to experience it as being truly seen.)

Peter, it’s getting late here, and I’ll have to postpone replying to the rest of your post till tomorrow. But I’m glad you value our exchange, even if it’s stirring some strong emotions at times. I hope we can continue our conversation and maybe explore some of these topics in more depth.

Greetings till later!

Hi Peter,

thanks, I’m glad my reflection was helpful to you.

The reason Maya causes so much suffering is that it is very real. I would argue more real then a physical object we can see and touch. The illusion is that we do not, or our senses cannot, see or know everything about the moment, we cannot know what is in heart of another, but ego consciousness thinks it can and does, and reacts accordingly. That is the illusion. This is a point in conflict where a pause can help.

Oh I see what you mean by illusion. Indeed, we can’t know what is in someone’s mind and heart and why they’re doing something hurtful even. However, it doesn’t mean that what they’re doing isn’t hurtful. So I think we need to separate the two: hurtful actions and the reasons behind them.

People usually hurt others due to their own wounds and illusions (as the saying goes, hurt people hurt people). Still, it doesn’t change the fact that their actions may be hurtful. Those actions shouldn’t be excused, even as if have compassion for the person doing them.

This is a point in conflict where a pause can help.

Yes, I see how important that is: to separate the action from the person doing it. To judge the action, but not the person. In Christian circles, there’s a saying “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”

I think that pause is necessary for that reason too: to separate the person from the “sin”. To see that they’re reacting from their wounds. And so, to be able to keep our heart open, and engage in non-violent communication. To see the person, acknowledge their pain, and yet express how their words or actions are hurting us. And again, I think that’s what Alessa did very successfully.

What I often see when witnessing conflict from the outside in is that at some point communication breaks down partially because those involved are no longer seeing the other, perhaps seeing the other through their pain or past (ghosts).

Yes, I understand you now. And it’s true. When we can only see our own pain, and forget that the person is saying or doing hurtful things because of their own pain – that’s when communication breaks down and we go into a full-on defense mode. And there’s no dialogue any more…

The invited pause was to note the moment and create space to honor that pain and then return to dialog… having polished ones own “mirror”.

I see what your intention was: it was the invitation to return to dialogue. However, I believe that the mirror metaphor wasn’t really applicable there, because we didn’t mirror each other. One person was accusing the other of something they haven’t done, while the other person didn’t do the same. There was no symmetry. So when you were talking about mirrors that are reflecting each other, that was actually hurtful, because it implied symmetry, i.e. equal “blame”, equal responsibility.

At least that’s how I interpreted your poem…

In hindsight I should have avoided metaphor… though it is how I relate to language and in a way life

Yes, metaphors can be really useful and often say much more than words, but in this particular case, I don’t think it was the best choice of metaphor. But for you, you say you didn’t really focus on who is right and who is wrong (or perhaps better say: who is more responsible for the situation), but simply wanted the conflict to calm down and dialogue to resume. And so you called us both to polish our “mirrors”, which for you meant to stop and reflect. While for me, it meant something different…

To be candid when witnessing conflict, I’m not that interested in the notion of blame, as I lean heavily into the only person you can change is yourself. In that way I see all interactions revealing, in some way, my own reflection. To be honest the idea of blame didn’t even occur to me until you pointed it out.

Hmm sorry for correcting you, but you actually invited us not to rush to assign blame, on August 8 🙂 But I think I know what you’re talking about. You may be referring to what I said in my previous post:

And perhaps the way to numb your pain is to tell yourself that you need to turn within and examine yourself, rather than fully feel the pain and blame the other party.

Actually, it was a clumsy way to express myself. What I meant is that sometimes, people do hurt us, but we might be so afraid to feel that pain that we quickly start rationalizing and even convincing ourselves that it wasn’t really painful, or that we shouldn’t be feeling pain, or that there’s a reason why the person said what they said (and that we should actually work on ourselves because there’s some truth in what they said), etc etc.

So instead of acknowledging that something was really painful, we try to escape that pain by denying that it was painful, or by trying to change ourselves rather than simply say “this is hurtful”, or even more directly: “you’ve hurt me”.

I was talking about blame in that context: acknowledging that someone actually did something that hurt us, and that it might not necessarily be our fault. That it’s their responsibility, not ours.

It doesn’t mean that we’ll keep blaming the person for the rest of our lives, but simply to be clear with ourselves about what happened, and who is responsible for it.

as I lean heavily into the only person you can change is yourself. In that way I see all interactions revealing, in some way, my own reflection

That’s absolutely true: the only person whom we can change is ourselves. However, not all interactions reveal you, because say someone hits you while you’re sitting peacefully, minding your own business – does it reveal anything about you? Have you in any way contributed to them hitting you? Should you learn something about yourself from this interaction?

I hope you get what I’m trying to say? That not every exchange is a reflection of ourselves, although many are. But sometimes it’s not about us, or it’s mostly not about us, but it’s another person’s wound, another person’s blind spot, another person’s lack of empathy etc. And that’s why they behave the way they behave. Simply speaking: it’s not our fault, it’s theirs.

I wonder how this sound to you? And Peter, if you prefer not to talk about this topic, I’ll respect that wish…

Dear Lucidity,

thank you for expressing your support and for chiming in and sharing your perspective in critical moments during the conflict. Your support is much appreciated ❤️

Dysregulation is still hard for me to navigate in real time despite having the know how going in and the endless list of experiences knowing what will happen if I just slow down versus push my way thro like a tornado.

Once my anxiety goes up to a certain point tho, that deliciousness of putting my foot in my mouth is too tempting for me to resist every single time. When I write it out in black and white I see how ridiculous it is that I would make the wrong choice but I do – way too often

I know what you’re talking about. I used to react to my mother very angrily, talking back, being in a fight mode. Sometimes I even said nasty things, which I later regretted (and which she would later use abundantly against me, to prove how bad of a daughter I am).

My reactivity was because I still wanted to prove my point to her, or rather, I still cared that she’d think well of me. So I’d fight for that recognition and validation. It still mattered to me how she sees me.

But after a lot of healing, I’ve realized I can’t change what she thinks of me, and also that her opinion of me is not reality. And that I shouldn’t be so upset about it. That helped me to be much less reactive.

I still set boundaries (and sometimes with some activation i.e. frustration in my voice), but I do it from a much calmer place. I don’t feel threatened by her all the time, so my defense response is much less pronounced. I’m not so combative, in other words 🙂

Otherwise, when someone doesn’t see you at all and doesn’t take you needs into account, and even twists the truth and makes themselves the victim (which is typical for narcissistic people), it’s no wonder that our heart closes. At least mine does. Because I don’t want to be vulnerable with such a person. I want to defend myself. And this affects how I speak with them and approach them as well.

There’s one narcissistic person in my family, who is sort of beyond the pale, i.e. there is nothing I or anyone can do to reach them. Their stubbornness and self-destructiveness are staggering.

And with them, I’m tempted to use sarcasm, because whatever you tell them, they will reject it, attack you and twist the truth so that they’re never to blame for anything. Complete lack of accountability for their own actions, self-pitying and shifting the blame onto others. And it’s a long-standing pattern.

With such a person, there isn’t much you can do. You can’t talk to them normally. You can’t reach them at all. Their defenses are so strong.

And so I sometimes use sarcasm, but mostly, I don’t communicate with them at all (though for now, I cannot sever contact because of various reasons). Sometimes, as you say, it feels good to tell them something “nasty” (something sarcastic), because their attitude is just mind-blowing.

But the best strategy for me is as little contact as possible, and not even pretending I want contact. Even if they’re family. I don’t even pretend that I like the person. I do greet them courteously and can sustain a rare family meeting. But going into anything deeper than that would be met with rejection and denial, and so it’s better to stay away.

Anyway, if you want to talk some more about those difficult situations where you enjoy talking back, although you later regret it, I’m here ❤️

Dear Dafne,

I’m sorry your internet connection got disrupted for a long time. I’m happy to hear from you again! ❤️

I understand what you’re saying, and I know many men at this stage may not be interested in marriage again. But I prefer to stay hopeful and focus on those who truly value commitment and marriage — because such men do exist, and I would be even more unhappy to just accept someone with different goals and values.

I also feel that if I focus on men who are only looking for free-spirited or easy relationships, I would feel empty. It would feel like skipping an important stage in life — being a wife — especially since they have already experienced that with someone else.

I hear you, Dafne, and it’s perfectly okay to want someone who wants to get married. I completely understand your desire to get married and to experience a deep, committed relationship with someone you love and trust.

Just to add Tee, the previous man I mentioned was dating and, as far as I know, didn’t have any financial obligations toward his ex wife’s son, but he did want to keep in touch with him, so there were more emotional obligations.

Yes, and you said back then that him talking about his stepson made you feel somewhat upset and emotionally burdened. I suggested that this reaction might have been caused by your own unmet emotional needs, where you felt a little jealous of his stepson, as if he was talking too much about him.

He was also talking about his previous marriage and how he realized he was working too much and neglected his health. And so he was quite keen on keeping fit and was talking about that. All that seemed to have disturbed you, and you told him you don’t want to talk about the past but focus on the future, if I remember well.

It seemed to me that you reacted overly sensitive, and that there weren’t really red flags in what he was sharing. And I suspected that it might have to do with your own past wounds, i.e. unmet emotional needs.

You also mentioned that it hurt you that he was so caring about his stepson, which was in contrast with how your own father treated you. So there was also a certain sadness and hurt that got triggered in you, and you had a hard time coping with it.

In short, it seems that his legitimate emotional obligations and feelings towards his stepson caused quite a bit of a stirring in you. And my assessment was that it wasn’t a completely balanced reaction, and that you would need to work on yourself, so you wouldn’t be so sensitive in the future.

I believe that you would still need to work on those things, i.e. on your own healing, because otherwise chances are that you reject a potentially good candidate, even someone who is marriage minded and trustworthy.

So this would be my gentle invitation to you, Dafne: to start working on those childhood issues, so you can be more emotionally resilient, and more capable to recognize and keep a good, honest man.

Otherwise, Anita and Copilot gave you really good tips on where to look for men with similar values, as well as what books you could read.

I would also recommend therapy, if you can afford it, because it would be crucial not only for finding a good, honest partner, but also for you and your happiness – independent of any man.

I believe the best scenario would be to find a measure of emotional healing first, which would then give you a better chance of meeting a good, honest and trustworthy man. Because your “dating radar” would work properly and you could better recognize good guys. And you wouldn’t be so suspicious of those who are actually trustworthy.

I know it’s not necessarily something you want to hear, because you’re really focused on meeting a man. But this is my honest opinion, and what I believe would be the best for you.

I hope you do find what you’re looking for, Dafne. I wish you all the happiness in the world. And I hope you can start working on it, one step at a time, little by little, being more resilient, more self-confident and more self-loving every single day ❤️

Hi Peter and everyone,

I’ve reread parts of the recent conversation on this thread, and I want to say I really appreciate Peter for stepping in and sort of asking everyone to pause and stay with the discomfort, with the goal for the tension to calm down and for people to stay, rather than leave the conversation:

Peter said to Alessa:

I see Tiny Buddha as a kind of yoga… a place to practice presence, compassion, and the art of staying with what’s hard. That’s what makes it brave. That’s what makes it safe, and you’re a important part of that. … I hope you don’t leave.

That was beautiful, Peter. You trying to encourage Alessa to stay with the discomfort, so she wouldn’t leave.

And it occurs to me that pausing and “feeling the tension”, which Peter was talking about, should actually be the first step whenever we feel bothered by something someone said or did. Instead of reacting automatically, from fight-or-flight, we should examine why we’re feeling hurt: whether it is really something offensive and hurtful coming from the outside, or we’re being triggered and our own wound is being reactivated.

And then, after the pause and self-examination, when we’ve calmed down, we can decide how to respond and if we even want to respond. But it’s wise to do it after we’ve paused and examined ourselves.

What I don’t agree with (and I’m not claiming this is what you suggested, Peter) is that we should always, or most of the times, “stay with what’s hard” and do nothing. That we should be stoic about our pain. That we should always, or most of the times, endure, without confronting the person.

It’s okay and necessary to look at our own triggers and examine ourselves. However, there are times when someone is poking us with a stick metaphorically, and we don’t need to endure that. And we shouldn’t leave either (which would be the flight reaction). Rather, something needs to be done, so that abusive behavior wouldn’t continue, either with us or with other people. Because if not challenged, abuse tends to continue and spread.

And so sometimes we need to stay and confront the person. But I agree, ideally it should be done after we’ve calmed down and examined ourselves, and not from the fight reaction, where there’s a high chance to escalate the conflict.

So to sum up, I think that “feel the tension”, or “stay with what’s hard” is a really good advice for the beginning of the conflict, when we should pause and examine ourselves. But it’s not necessarily a good advice for the rest of the conflict, because sometimes we need to take action and set boundaries, so that the abuse wouldn’t continue unchecked.

And Peter, I’m not claiming that you suggested we should always endure abuse. I’m just trying to clarify those things for myself because I truly want to learn how to handle conflict optimally.