This little poem opens more question than answer one’s, especially yours. But let assume that these question thrive us to walk new ways. Not to find but to define ourselves. In someways you answer the question your way. In case of this we should accept and desire different answers to these fundamental questions - relates to our bipolar and diverse world, which is desirable.
Observing is the key: Not only the things, more how these affected us in particularly. What happens in different situations with me? Listen to your emotions and thoughts. Then you are able to learn e.g. a lot about your judgement. Of course you aren’t able to standardised these beliefs: “Überzeugungen sind gefährlichere Feinde der Wahrheit, als Lügen.“ — Nietzsche
Let assume that this curiosity is the fundamental of human beings.
Regarding judgement: one of the best dichotomies I've made during my life is to separate "judging people" and "judging ideas", and once it's remembered that most personalities are too complex for us to understand enough to judge, then to make it very explicit that we are judging ideas, and that we, like everyone else, had (or still have) emotional attachments to ideas and that we understand that it can feel as though it's a personal attack, yet it isn't.
For only six words, your counter-question is quite a challenging one. I would say that after 18 months rigorously applying IFS to myself on a 2-3 times a week (often daily) basis, I'm far from done exploring this.
Let's take the example of anger, and why some people seem more angry or more sad than others. From an IFS perspective, various people can have variously active protectors in front of variously burdened exiles. For most people, apparently angry feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are the work of reactive protectors. Depending on how energetic or central this protector is (and how badly polarized with other, more proactive protectors), a person can be angry more of the time. For many, a more proactive part that experiences fear that others will disapprove of anger wins out, and they seem less angry (and often 'nicer') overall. Others might have less efficient or competent protectors of this sort, and often fall back on dissociative, self-harming, or addiction-using protectors. Some might just be overwhelmed frequently by exiles, and appear very sad to even casual acquaintances.
Um handeln zu können, so muss ich versteh‘n.
Stets in Gedanken gänzlich neue Wege geh‘n.
Wie ist es geschaffen, dies jenseitige Nichts?
Die Geburt kam und das Leben erlischt?
Das dazwischen liegende so ist mein Begehr.
Das Wesen des Menschen oder doch noch viel mehr?
This little poem opens more question than answer one’s, especially yours. But let assume that these question thrive us to walk new ways. Not to find but to define ourselves. In someways you answer the question your way. In case of this we should accept and desire different answers to these fundamental questions - relates to our bipolar and diverse world, which is desirable.
Observing is the key: Not only the things, more how these affected us in particularly. What happens in different situations with me? Listen to your emotions and thoughts. Then you are able to learn e.g. a lot about your judgement. Of course you aren’t able to standardised these beliefs: “Überzeugungen sind gefährlichere Feinde der Wahrheit, als Lügen.“ — Nietzsche
Let assume that this curiosity is the fundamental of human beings.
Regarding judgement: one of the best dichotomies I've made during my life is to separate "judging people" and "judging ideas", and once it's remembered that most personalities are too complex for us to understand enough to judge, then to make it very explicit that we are judging ideas, and that we, like everyone else, had (or still have) emotional attachments to ideas and that we understand that it can feel as though it's a personal attack, yet it isn't.
The exploration of many of these is enriched and enlivened by adding a lens some call "the multi-agent theory of mind" or "internal family systems".
Interesting, how so? (I know IFS)
For only six words, your counter-question is quite a challenging one. I would say that after 18 months rigorously applying IFS to myself on a 2-3 times a week (often daily) basis, I'm far from done exploring this.
Let's take the example of anger, and why some people seem more angry or more sad than others. From an IFS perspective, various people can have variously active protectors in front of variously burdened exiles. For most people, apparently angry feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are the work of reactive protectors. Depending on how energetic or central this protector is (and how badly polarized with other, more proactive protectors), a person can be angry more of the time. For many, a more proactive part that experiences fear that others will disapprove of anger wins out, and they seem less angry (and often 'nicer') overall. Others might have less efficient or competent protectors of this sort, and often fall back on dissociative, self-harming, or addiction-using protectors. Some might just be overwhelmed frequently by exiles, and appear very sad to even casual acquaintances.