I have been concerned for some time by the NVC focus on "needs" and how channeling our experiences, self - understanding, and relationships into this medium may play into scarcity culture. When your full experiences become assessed and addressed according to "needs," this presumes that whatever is categorized as such is needed. Is it? If it is needed, then what can we make of our needs which are not met? How does this inform and shape our experiences and our relationships with ourselves and others? I spent years learning and practicing NVC in an intentional community, and I remain with this concern, despite also being grateful for the way NVC allowed me to deal with conflict without it being someone's fault. Still, I am now not comfortable to personally use the cultural vernacular of "needs," as, for me, it changes the heart of things enough to make them an untruth, for me at least.
Rosenberg said there was a way to give praise which is life-affirming, by connecting the gratitude with a specific action. He also said receiving such gratitude or joy is challenging for many people. It requires practice. ;)
Praise and blame are the basis for a social debit system of control. Or a guilt based presumption of existence set in drive for external validation or vindication as a 'getting mechanism' or survival strategy.
To thank or praise God, Creator or Innate and Original Nature for being is giving due to truth so as to abide in remembrance of our true being. If we mis-take the image, form, agent or principal for truth we give due unto power set in the world of imaged rather than felt reality, and receive identity in the like kind or measure of our giving.
When thanking or praising another for their willingness and witness for life, we are thanking God or the Source of life, for radiance has no strings attached to its giving and deserves appreciation by acceptance for God by the receiver.
On the contrary the use of virtue signalling as the outer forms of praise or appreciation is a manipulative leveraging of judgements by which to mask a private getting agenda in the 'acceptability' of whatever social idiom being affected.
The 'evil eye' of envy sees what it believes it lacks, in others and seeks to steal it, by flattery or self-depreciations set as invocation for sympathy.
I like the simplicity of 'it takes one to know one'.
This calls us to match the vibration of those who inspire us, or attune in compassion to those who are blinded by lack to attack truth in order to protect a pain they are not even aware of. For even if I do not join in the current set of choices or conditionings that another is enacting, I can join with their right to be and the freedom to make choices, as part of unfolding experience or consciousness in which to live and be. For I know the proclivity of the mind as a means for-getting and would release that in myself by no longer wanting to project it to others as guilt by which to claim relative 'innocence'. True innocence is looking at what is, as it is, in willingness to recognise truth. From the recognition, love spontaneously arises and blesses all involved. A limited sense of life may think one is the doer or giver and set them 'up'. This is never true but in appearances. Setting people up, can only prepare the fall guy. We set ourselves up to fail, over and over, yet look outside for the perpetrators. As a social agreement, this generates a 'blame game' or presumption of guilt and imminent retribution, that takes ever shifting forms, while power struggle for positioning such as to deal or redirect sin & blame rather than pay its demand for sacrifice.
I don't like the phrase non-violent because it takes meaning from what it is NOT.
Living relational being is already Communication on all levels and prior to the establishment of 'levels' of consciousness. Recognising weaponised language is the opportunity to choose not to use it or let it run as accepted currency in our mind and our witnessing. But not the right to accuse another of sin and attack them for it as a short circuit of our own healing into a false sense of self-righteousness set in hate given power.
How would Rosenberg categorise the expression of gratitude? It's not the content of a compliment which may be violent but the intention (when it's done to manipulate). To me, another form of violence is the pervasive all encompassing negative interpretation of a compliment by the receiver (who cam't or doesn't want to see it as an expression of gratitude or is more generally uncomfortable receiving anything ). There is a generosity and a humility required in receiving: you give the opportunity to the person giving to give. Personally this is how I react when someone I've helped points out/describes my skills: I just say thank you. Skills and other attributes are God given, they are an instrument through which God allows us to bond, be interdependant, feel enthusiastic about each other. Recognition of them can be joyful if everyone remains humble.
I have been concerned for some time by the NVC focus on "needs" and how channeling our experiences, self - understanding, and relationships into this medium may play into scarcity culture. When your full experiences become assessed and addressed according to "needs," this presumes that whatever is categorized as such is needed. Is it? If it is needed, then what can we make of our needs which are not met? How does this inform and shape our experiences and our relationships with ourselves and others? I spent years learning and practicing NVC in an intentional community, and I remain with this concern, despite also being grateful for the way NVC allowed me to deal with conflict without it being someone's fault. Still, I am now not comfortable to personally use the cultural vernacular of "needs," as, for me, it changes the heart of things enough to make them an untruth, for me at least.
Rosenberg said there was a way to give praise which is life-affirming, by connecting the gratitude with a specific action. He also said receiving such gratitude or joy is challenging for many people. It requires practice. ;)
Originator - Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef. Max-Neef is a major contributor to universal human needs paradigm. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/fun-explained-fundamental-human-needs
Praise and blame are the basis for a social debit system of control. Or a guilt based presumption of existence set in drive for external validation or vindication as a 'getting mechanism' or survival strategy.
To thank or praise God, Creator or Innate and Original Nature for being is giving due to truth so as to abide in remembrance of our true being. If we mis-take the image, form, agent or principal for truth we give due unto power set in the world of imaged rather than felt reality, and receive identity in the like kind or measure of our giving.
When thanking or praising another for their willingness and witness for life, we are thanking God or the Source of life, for radiance has no strings attached to its giving and deserves appreciation by acceptance for God by the receiver.
On the contrary the use of virtue signalling as the outer forms of praise or appreciation is a manipulative leveraging of judgements by which to mask a private getting agenda in the 'acceptability' of whatever social idiom being affected.
The 'evil eye' of envy sees what it believes it lacks, in others and seeks to steal it, by flattery or self-depreciations set as invocation for sympathy.
I like the simplicity of 'it takes one to know one'.
This calls us to match the vibration of those who inspire us, or attune in compassion to those who are blinded by lack to attack truth in order to protect a pain they are not even aware of. For even if I do not join in the current set of choices or conditionings that another is enacting, I can join with their right to be and the freedom to make choices, as part of unfolding experience or consciousness in which to live and be. For I know the proclivity of the mind as a means for-getting and would release that in myself by no longer wanting to project it to others as guilt by which to claim relative 'innocence'. True innocence is looking at what is, as it is, in willingness to recognise truth. From the recognition, love spontaneously arises and blesses all involved. A limited sense of life may think one is the doer or giver and set them 'up'. This is never true but in appearances. Setting people up, can only prepare the fall guy. We set ourselves up to fail, over and over, yet look outside for the perpetrators. As a social agreement, this generates a 'blame game' or presumption of guilt and imminent retribution, that takes ever shifting forms, while power struggle for positioning such as to deal or redirect sin & blame rather than pay its demand for sacrifice.
I don't like the phrase non-violent because it takes meaning from what it is NOT.
Living relational being is already Communication on all levels and prior to the establishment of 'levels' of consciousness. Recognising weaponised language is the opportunity to choose not to use it or let it run as accepted currency in our mind and our witnessing. But not the right to accuse another of sin and attack them for it as a short circuit of our own healing into a false sense of self-righteousness set in hate given power.
How would Rosenberg categorise the expression of gratitude? It's not the content of a compliment which may be violent but the intention (when it's done to manipulate). To me, another form of violence is the pervasive all encompassing negative interpretation of a compliment by the receiver (who cam't or doesn't want to see it as an expression of gratitude or is more generally uncomfortable receiving anything ). There is a generosity and a humility required in receiving: you give the opportunity to the person giving to give. Personally this is how I react when someone I've helped points out/describes my skills: I just say thank you. Skills and other attributes are God given, they are an instrument through which God allows us to bond, be interdependant, feel enthusiastic about each other. Recognition of them can be joyful if everyone remains humble.