RE: Blackout Venezuela: Observations on the absence of electricity.

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Blackout Venezuela: Observations on the absence of electricity.

erh.germany in #venezuela • 7 years ago

Right, thanks for expanding the thought. I want to add another example:

The other day I had a client who received a notice from the authority informing her only of the amount and a small increase in her payment. Since the authorities are obliged to draw attention to the duty of the beneficiaries to cooperate, as well as to the fact that an official decision may be appealed against within one month, my client suspected that there was a knowledge behind it of what affected her personally.

She suspected that people knew about her personal plans and that she was therefore called upon to respond to this letter. She was afraid that her money could be cut or even cancelled altogether and revealed her complete ignorance of the legal situation. Many of my clients suspect a greater knowledge behind the letters they receive and take requests for cooperation as wantonness that they would be unnecessarily controlled and harassed. The additions of legal means are only a standard reference and no more.

But she expressed herself in such a way that she found it insolent that she was so pressured to reveal her personal plans. Letters are still perceived as very personal, as if there were a letter writer who would have written one in personal thought to the recipient. But this is not the case. Most official letters are automated and machine-made letters, nobody was involved. These are completely impersonal, purely factual contents.

This circumstance points to what you said: that the personal reference is basically intentional and the impersonal in an action is considered wrong. But if you confuse a purely business contract with an intimate relationship, you get the feeling that you are invisible as a human being and only visible as an object. This is not what people want.

This means that people in other places suffer from lack of personal relationship and basically their feeling is right, but placed in the wrong spot. So the client may have the right feeling - her life is too impersonal overall - and she always projects this lack exactly onto the situations she is getting into. It would be better to realize that this feeling of lack has its justification and to see how and where it can be satisfied. Also I told her, it's a good thing and an accomplishment of past efforts that citizens have certain rights and duties and that this is made clear, so it gives some certainty.

On a meta-level, the client is right insofar as a reduced personal contact between authorities and citizens is perceived as true. In fact, in the past it was possible to get a personal appointment much faster and even telephoning was associated with far fewer hurdles.

Material wealth: Yes, that was what I meant. So I exaggerated a little bit to make the point clear. I agree on that notion and explanation of yours.

As far as I got to know you you seem to be an mindful person who gets himself caught in acts of which you can change perspectives. That is a good quality and I appreciate it a lot that you have it.

7 years ago in #venezuela by erh.germany

0.00 JAHM

2 votes

Sort:

Trending

[-]

vieira 7 years ago

You have a very good psychological approach. I think that with such an approach you can cover everyone very good, although not everything.

For example, projections are not the only type of illusions, the feeling of lack is also another illusion. Because when we feel that we lack something, we are isolating ourselves from everything else, believing that we are alone and suffering for that. The human is not perfect in itself, and needing things from the outside it indicates precisely that it is part of the "outside".

The feeling of lack produces the desire, and the desire leads us to plan and search for things in a forced way, which causes the suffering.

The trick is not to look for the things we want, because we don't get them while we look them. Although for that it's need a lot of confidence, first in nature, and second in us.

That means that there is no wrong spot, because wherever we go it will be that spot, it's just about finding creative solutions to the problems ;)

The only difference between a purely business contract and an intimate relationship is the confidence of the parties, that has to do with what they say over there that everything that has to do with people has to do also with relationships.

Also, the only way to become invisible as human beings is by forgetting ourselves.

Thank you very much for the compliment, although maybe I'm not a mindful person, maybe you're just making a projection :)

0.00 JAHM

1 vote

[-]

erh.germany 7 years ago

Oh, of course, to what the self is grasping, is an illusion. I think we talked to a satisfying degree about those self illusions, didn't we?

So I think people have to work on self realization in order to come to the conclusion that there is no real self.

In my work with clients I do one step after the other. Mostly it's about creating an atmosphere of trust and letting myself not being caught on grasping:) When I can succeed in letting go of judgemental thoughts, the sessions become really light and humorous.

In how I meant it, there is "a wrong spot" as the person has not yet realized that neediness must be contemplated with oneself before it's expressed in front of others as a demand, a desire, an order, a mandate etc.

If that happened and is realized then yes, it's true what you say that there is no wrong spot.

I wonder if a reading audience gets better what is meant by this exchange of our thoughts. I hope so.

The only difference between a purely business contract and an intimate relationship is the confidence of the parties, that has to do with what they say over there that everything that has to do with people has to do also with relationships.

I don't know if I understood that. A contract is designed in order to gain clarity about the nature of the relationship and to make the conditions transparent.

The nature of the relationship between the recipient of social benefits and the paying authority as the representative of the legislature is purely business. At least that is how it is presented. However, it is also somehow clear that in reality it is not a purely business relationship and this is the reason for the discomfort of the beneficiaries and the partial moral superiority of welfare.

However, I think it is best to pretend it is a cool business relationship, because I think morality has to be kept out, because otherwise it intervenes in this relationship from both sides in a very corrosive way and does more harm than good. Nevertheless, a moral value is still important, but you have to cultivate it within yourself and not give responsibility to the other. So both, the bureaucrat and the welfare recipient were good advised to act virtuous.

No, I am not projecting, I just followed your observation about yourself reading something and then changing your perspective - So maybe I should not say that you are a mindful person but you had a mindful moment ;-)

0.00 JAHM

1 vote

[-]

vieira 7 years ago

Yeah, you're right, there is not much to add.

0.00 JAHM