Roles and "Who I am for others?"

---

From: simon
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:17 am

While "who I am for myself" has only the limits I impose - or seems to , we also live in 'society' which imposes roles on us: or so it seems to me, anyway.
People looking in 'my' direction certainly don't see what I do (although they do share the same -how shall I phrase it? - regard from the void??)
I have an ongoing question about roles - the interplay of the unclassifiable in society, and wonder if any want to explore this?
As I recall some verses touch on this subject...
Any views?
love to all
Simon

---

From: Steve Palmer
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009

Hi Simon,

On reading your post I'm not sure I got it
but Douglas's book title came to mind
" To Be AND Not To Be THAT is The Answer "

You play many roles in a day from the no-role place.
So remind yourself not just to buy into one direction
but to surrender to the no-role too.
I forget this most of the day
but the aware space doesn't leave
because unnoticed
when I'm busy playing a role.

I'm not sure if i am on the right track......over to you Jim : ))
OR any one else for that matter.

Be well,

Steve

---

From: simon
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009

Hi Steve,
Yes, I know what you mean: this had occurred to me too.
But it goes further - or seems to - I had in mind (so to speak) that subtle interplay...
Any action, or even the simple fact of 'my' presence calls a response from others, from aggressive aversion to hero worship and all the shades in between, setting off directions and actions ...
All this question is no doubt inspired by the film ( as I hadn't really considered I was a "person" for quite a while!) And now I see the play of reaction alot.
I don't have a 'problem' - as such - with it, but it is intriguing...
The roles in question are those that others set ... and while it would not be false to say they belong to those people, it is also true that they belong to me...
Well, its rather late: perhaps I will be able to formulate what I'm trying to say better tomorrow!
Roles are part of the "ten thousand things" that arise from ( space for your favoured name for the un-name-able)!
Love to All
Simon

---

From: stonymeadow
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1

since so few people ever see (or even look for) who they really are, they're often lost amonst the competing identities out there.

and for many, society rewards their ego for maintaining the identity -- prestige, importance, money, power, fame -- and keeps them striving for just a little bit more of it, and *then* they'll be satisfied. hard to give that up for the simplicity of who you really are, even if you looked and saw. i suspect that those who do give up the identities, were either disillusioned or discontent with the status quo in one way or the other to begin with.

even religion, which presumably is about who we really are, too often get's sidetracked by dogma and ceremony and power trips. seems to be the way of the ego.

--stonymeadow

---

From: simon
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009

Hi stonymeadow and all,
Wow, lot to read there!
And this helps clarify my question somewhat...
The "who I am for others" I'm on about here is the role that others decide to put me in. (of course, it is only true for them... but IS true for them)
In business situations, people try to dominate the other: as you say, religion is prey to ego trips, and while it takes two to have a confrontation.... many are caught up in a pseudo-certainty that we are all separate individuals lost in an exploded universe.
The quick answer is to stay open - of course - but I have found this openness seems to provoke almost a panic when people feel their pre-occupations slipping into the abyss.
Some people are scared by silence (as if they /we could hear anything if our nature were not silence!) so I find this 'one' plays a role of gentle good humour to put smiles on the faces included in this space...
Guess this doesn't interest anyone else? No problem!
Love to all
simon

---

From: jimclatfelter
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009

Hi Simon,

It's an interesting topic, but it's one I have ignored over the years. Somewhere Douglas wrote that I am the sum of what others make of me. I think that was the idea anyway. To me it seemed alien to everything Seeing had shown me. I know I play roles for other people. Some roles I enjoy. With some people I've learned to be cautious and not reveal too much. I don't have much insight into this, but I am enjoying reading all the thoughts on this topic. I can easily understand how having acted in a movie could give you a lot of experience and understanding about our roles in life.

Sorry to be so in the dark on this one,
Jim

---

From: simon
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009

Quote: Sorry to be so in the dark on this one.

Hi Jim
well, this is the point, this isn't a direction which gets much attention...
I wonder about this - in the terms that 'the world is exactly as we wish it to be' (and idea that Douglas dwelt on) and so what about the "funny ideas" and "roles" other people decide for me?
I don't have any brilliant gems on this, but find the interplay of big One and little one (s) rather mist-erious (and the typo is deliberate!)
All and nothing at the same time...
That verse about "all being precise and bright and I being dull" hints at one side of the situation: perhaps I'm trying to see both sides at once!
Anyway...
Love to all,
Simon

---

From: jimclatfelter
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009

'the world is exactly as we wish it to be'

I don't remember Douglas saying that. Selective memory maybe. The world is as it is, but is it as I wish it to be?

I do agree that we don't give much attention to the little one. We seem to think that his problems will be best dealt with by paying attention to the big one. Seeing who I really am lends perspective for sure. I just don't know. The little one is always going to have problems.

Love,
Jim

---

From: simon
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009

Hi Jim and all,
I agree about the "little one" not getting alot of attention, after all the time we believed that was all there was, small wonder that we find more satisfaction in the "big One"!
But like that progression from individual to All (the camera experiment - is that how its called?) the terms "little one & big One" seem a touch misleading today...
not quite as clear cut and definitive as they sound.
Feels more like lots of ... 'onion rings' and the roles or ideas others have concerning what they see when looking in 'my' direction have their (certainly limited, but existant) place in the picture.
As regards the world being exactly as "I wish it to be"... this is almost certainly a paraphrase of Douglas' idea, I make a distinction between I & me (the capital and lower case being important...)
Oh well, just an observation that is proving tricky to put into words; where does this ridiculous desire to put the 'super/non-verbal' experience into words come from?!
"With our thoughts we create the world"... the exact mechanics of this must be open to observation (if quick enough!)
love to all
Simon

---