safety 🔴🔷 '
in current time ~ for me ~ there r two relevant frames for defining what safety means /to me/ ~ '
the first extends from first principles about the nature of one's spirit and how karmic accumulation disrupts the nature of one's spirit and its connection to the spirits that r not directly associated with or arising from the functioning of one's physical body '
the second is probably best described as "normative" or "pragmatic" safety in current time '
as i've given ample time and space to the first frame in a prior post i'll be focusing on the second here '
for me, safety relates most commonly to the setting and re-setting of expectations between people as it pertains to interactions within containers of spiritual practice ' downstream of expectations whether we r explicitly cognizant of them or not tends to flow behavior and downstream of behavior within the limits imposed by the accuracy of our awareness comes our memory of our behavior and the behavior of others within contexts of interaction ' while it is possible to behave in ways that r agnostic to our expectations of each context i would argue that this tends to happen unconsciously ~ only in cases of extraordinary refinement do people behave in ways that r truly detached from expectations ~ and as i'll explain later i feel that arbitrating disparate perspectives of interactions where safety may have been threatened r extraordinary opportunities or can be extraordinary opportunities for us to refine '
i feel it's important to recognize that there is an indefinite "default" set of expectations around which interactions can be described as being within a container of spiritual practice ' which is to say that everybody probably has a set of expectations around spiritual practice that they consider "normative" and that there is probably a great deal of overlap between everybody's set of expectations ' but there is probably a great deal of disparity too '
in addition to a set of expectations that each person considers "normative" there is probably a set of expectations that each person might consider "desirable" which is some distance from what they consider "normative" '
having said the above i feel it's important to recognize that the goal for me is not to define and enforce a canonical set of expectations for how people interact in containers of spiritual practice (including expectations for what spiritual practice is) ' the goal for me is to hold space for and invite collaborative refinement with regard to incidents where people felt their safety was threatened due to a discrepancy between ~
either / and
a/ their understanding of normative expectations of interactions they had with another person or set of people within a container of spiritual practice or
b/ their desired expectations of interactions they had with another person or set of people within a container of spiritual practice
and their observations of how those interactions manifested in ~
a/ physical reality (basically do u have evidence of the behavior that u r commenting on ? ') and / or
b/ metaphysical reality (this includes gnosis of events that occurred which may not have left any artifacts in interpersonally verifiable physical reality or may not be /fully represented/ by artifacts in interpersonally verifiable physical reality) '
my sense is that if people can clarify what their expectations were or r of the interactions they had with other people and can clarify within their selves whether these expectations r things that they believe other people share or whether they r expectations that they wish other people shared /and then/ clarify how their observations departed from these expectations ~ in the physical and the metaphysical ~ then it creates space for people to understand that their expectations may in fact differ from the expectations of the other people in these interactions ' and if that's the case then there is perhaps an opportunity for all parties involved in a set of reported interactions to reconcile their expectations and that this process of reconciliation has a meaningful physical and or metaphysical influence on the cohesiveness of the set of "normative expectations" that is a projection of all individuals within a given collective body '
it is also my sense that there will be cases when there was no discrepancy between the expectations that each of the people in a reported interaction had yet there was still a discrepancy between expected behavior and the behavior that was observed (when there is no relevant discrepancy between the behavior that was observed between each of the people involved) ' if this is the case and people behaved in ways that did not meet those _shared_ expectations then i feel there is an opportunity for those people to make repair such that in the future they r less likely to behave in ways that stray from their own expectations of how they should behave and tho they may ~ or even probably ~ will end up having interactions in spiritual containers with people who have different expectations of those interactions there is also less likely to be rupturing of expectations in observed behavior in those interactions too ' bc it's likely that this repair will result in a more integrated spirit that is more capable of intuiting outside of explicit normative expectations what is aligned and does not rupture expectations within any given container '
finally it's also my sense that there will be cases where observations of behavior within a reported interaction within a spiritual container differ between people involved in that interaction ' it's my sense that this can occur bc people r unable to accurately remember what happened within an interaction ' where there is physical evidence of such an interaction then it is perhaps simpler for people to rectify their memory of what happened to re-member and perhaps work with the karma that obstructs or obstructed them from remembering accurately ' where there is no physical evidence of such an interaction then it is perhaps not so simple but still possible ' if it is not possible for a person to /literally/ remember their selves in that interaction with vaster aspects of selfhood then i feel it is likely that they will behave in similar ways in contexts of a similar nature and that in those contexts they r also likely to behave in ways that do not align with the expectations of other people who participate in those interactions '
where there is an opportunity for people to remember their selves or in other words do integrative work then as stated above it's my sense that regardless of whether expectations between those people and other people in future contexts r shared they r more likely to cleanly intuit how to behave in ways that do not depart from the expectations of any person included in that interaction ' /or/ that the ruptures that may occur from these discrepancies between expectations and observed behavior lead to greater net integration for any or all of the people involved '
where the opportunity does not exist or is not taken then as stated above it's my sense that regardless of whether expectations between those people and other people in future contexts r shared they r likely to continue to create rupture with discrepancies between their behavior and expectations '
in an ideal world as more and more people integrate then those who integrate will increasingly intuit when it is aligned or integrative to interact with others based on the integration of those other people and their capacity to integrate regardless of expectations and whether expectations r shared or one might say /in spite of/ the fact that expectations r rarely or even never /completely/ aligned between people in any given interaction '
in the mean time for me it feels aligned to dedicate some of my time and energy to holding space for reports of interactions statements of expectations and observations of how interactions departed from expectations and for the processing of these reports such that the people involved r given space to integrate what is necessary in order to come to agreement on what actually happened ~ physically and / or metaphysically ~ or agreement to disagree on what actually happened ~ physically and or metaphysically ~ and agreement on what expectations might be reasonable for people to normatively hold and or agreement to disagree on said expectations and that regardless of the level of agreement or disagreement and agreement to disagree that occurs that said integration that will make for a safer community ' and that if integration doesn't occur for any of the people involved then that artifacts of the process may be used such that people will know when people should not be included in contexts in which it is reasonable to expect that they will continue to behave in ways that do not accord with the expectations of any of the people that share that context '
in other words it feels aligned for me to dedicate some of my time and energy to letting people know which people may be unsafe for other people to interact with in general or in particular contexts 🔴🔷 '
the first extends from first principles about the nature of one's spirit and how karmic accumulation disrupts the nature of one's spirit and its connection to the spirits that r not directly associated with or arising from the functioning of one's physical body '
the second is probably best described as "normative" or "pragmatic" safety in current time '
as i've given ample time and space to the first frame in a prior post i'll be focusing on the second here '
for me, safety relates most commonly to the setting and re-setting of expectations between people as it pertains to interactions within containers of spiritual practice ' downstream of expectations whether we r explicitly cognizant of them or not tends to flow behavior and downstream of behavior within the limits imposed by the accuracy of our awareness comes our memory of our behavior and the behavior of others within contexts of interaction ' while it is possible to behave in ways that r agnostic to our expectations of each context i would argue that this tends to happen unconsciously ~ only in cases of extraordinary refinement do people behave in ways that r truly detached from expectations ~ and as i'll explain later i feel that arbitrating disparate perspectives of interactions where safety may have been threatened r extraordinary opportunities or can be extraordinary opportunities for us to refine '
i feel it's important to recognize that there is an indefinite "default" set of expectations around which interactions can be described as being within a container of spiritual practice ' which is to say that everybody probably has a set of expectations around spiritual practice that they consider "normative" and that there is probably a great deal of overlap between everybody's set of expectations ' but there is probably a great deal of disparity too '
in addition to a set of expectations that each person considers "normative" there is probably a set of expectations that each person might consider "desirable" which is some distance from what they consider "normative" '
having said the above i feel it's important to recognize that the goal for me is not to define and enforce a canonical set of expectations for how people interact in containers of spiritual practice (including expectations for what spiritual practice is) ' the goal for me is to hold space for and invite collaborative refinement with regard to incidents where people felt their safety was threatened due to a discrepancy between ~
either / and
a/ their understanding of normative expectations of interactions they had with another person or set of people within a container of spiritual practice or
b/ their desired expectations of interactions they had with another person or set of people within a container of spiritual practice
and their observations of how those interactions manifested in ~
a/ physical reality (basically do u have evidence of the behavior that u r commenting on ? ') and / or
b/ metaphysical reality (this includes gnosis of events that occurred which may not have left any artifacts in interpersonally verifiable physical reality or may not be /fully represented/ by artifacts in interpersonally verifiable physical reality) '
my sense is that if people can clarify what their expectations were or r of the interactions they had with other people and can clarify within their selves whether these expectations r things that they believe other people share or whether they r expectations that they wish other people shared /and then/ clarify how their observations departed from these expectations ~ in the physical and the metaphysical ~ then it creates space for people to understand that their expectations may in fact differ from the expectations of the other people in these interactions ' and if that's the case then there is perhaps an opportunity for all parties involved in a set of reported interactions to reconcile their expectations and that this process of reconciliation has a meaningful physical and or metaphysical influence on the cohesiveness of the set of "normative expectations" that is a projection of all individuals within a given collective body '
it is also my sense that there will be cases when there was no discrepancy between the expectations that each of the people in a reported interaction had yet there was still a discrepancy between expected behavior and the behavior that was observed (when there is no relevant discrepancy between the behavior that was observed between each of the people involved) ' if this is the case and people behaved in ways that did not meet those _shared_ expectations then i feel there is an opportunity for those people to make repair such that in the future they r less likely to behave in ways that stray from their own expectations of how they should behave and tho they may ~ or even probably ~ will end up having interactions in spiritual containers with people who have different expectations of those interactions there is also less likely to be rupturing of expectations in observed behavior in those interactions too ' bc it's likely that this repair will result in a more integrated spirit that is more capable of intuiting outside of explicit normative expectations what is aligned and does not rupture expectations within any given container '
finally it's also my sense that there will be cases where observations of behavior within a reported interaction within a spiritual container differ between people involved in that interaction ' it's my sense that this can occur bc people r unable to accurately remember what happened within an interaction ' where there is physical evidence of such an interaction then it is perhaps simpler for people to rectify their memory of what happened to re-member and perhaps work with the karma that obstructs or obstructed them from remembering accurately ' where there is no physical evidence of such an interaction then it is perhaps not so simple but still possible ' if it is not possible for a person to /literally/ remember their selves in that interaction with vaster aspects of selfhood then i feel it is likely that they will behave in similar ways in contexts of a similar nature and that in those contexts they r also likely to behave in ways that do not align with the expectations of other people who participate in those interactions '
where there is an opportunity for people to remember their selves or in other words do integrative work then as stated above it's my sense that regardless of whether expectations between those people and other people in future contexts r shared they r more likely to cleanly intuit how to behave in ways that do not depart from the expectations of any person included in that interaction ' /or/ that the ruptures that may occur from these discrepancies between expectations and observed behavior lead to greater net integration for any or all of the people involved '
where the opportunity does not exist or is not taken then as stated above it's my sense that regardless of whether expectations between those people and other people in future contexts r shared they r likely to continue to create rupture with discrepancies between their behavior and expectations '
in an ideal world as more and more people integrate then those who integrate will increasingly intuit when it is aligned or integrative to interact with others based on the integration of those other people and their capacity to integrate regardless of expectations and whether expectations r shared or one might say /in spite of/ the fact that expectations r rarely or even never /completely/ aligned between people in any given interaction '
in the mean time for me it feels aligned to dedicate some of my time and energy to holding space for reports of interactions statements of expectations and observations of how interactions departed from expectations and for the processing of these reports such that the people involved r given space to integrate what is necessary in order to come to agreement on what actually happened ~ physically and / or metaphysically ~ or agreement to disagree on what actually happened ~ physically and or metaphysically ~ and agreement on what expectations might be reasonable for people to normatively hold and or agreement to disagree on said expectations and that regardless of the level of agreement or disagreement and agreement to disagree that occurs that said integration that will make for a safer community ' and that if integration doesn't occur for any of the people involved then that artifacts of the process may be used such that people will know when people should not be included in contexts in which it is reasonable to expect that they will continue to behave in ways that do not accord with the expectations of any of the people that share that context '
in other words it feels aligned for me to dedicate some of my time and energy to letting people know which people may be unsafe for other people to interact with in general or in particular contexts 🔴🔷 '