Confidence is simply a gage of our own opinion on ourselves!
- Thread starter charlieHungerford
- Start date
charlieHungerford
Well-known member
Interesting post littlemissmuffet.
This will be my last post on this, I don't want to sound tiresome and like a broken record which I probably am now, I just feel some people feel I am talking a load of rubbish and am a bit clueless when I am not. I totally accept SA is different for everyone, we have arrived where we are for different reasons so the way to overcome it is unique to each other.
I totally agree that you can only worry about someone thinking in a negative way about yourself and being self conscious if you are already aware of thinking that negative way of yourself. Its not possible to worry about someone thinking about a negative thing about part of you if you are not thinking that way of yourself.
And it doesn't just apply to how you see yourself as a person but on your abilities too - i.e. if you are insecure about speaking and have no confidence in speaking fluently around certain people or in groups, that is why you fear speaking in those situations. If you have huge confidence about speaking and not aware that you struggle with speaking then how would you be fearful of speaking?
Littlemissmuffet - the example you gave about god is both alpha and omega, will you explain in a more simplistic way please. What you say got me really thinking about something really important but because I got a little bit lost in what you were demonstrating I couldn't quite determine what I was thinking. Its like something only matters if you believe it matters. i.e. there are loads of people who are far from good looking physically, but a lot are still very confident - and those who are like that usually don't think it matters how they look, they are not insecure or self conscious by it and therefore are not placing negative value on themselves. But what is to say a flaw is a flaw? We believe it is, but what is to say that view is right. What is to say something we think is a negative thing is actually negative? How come I can see people all day in the street, on tv, at work, in shops, etc, etc and not think negatives of anything I see? Does that mean everyone else is flawless? No way! But it would appear that what I believe are negatives are not really a big deal at all and I need to change my beliefs of the importance of such things. That would appear one very effective way to no longer feel inadequate for such qualities, but in order to achieve that I have to absolutely believe it.
I am not sure if what you were trying to demonstrate is exactly that or not, but thanks for making me think about another method for overcoming my perceived flaws which is what makes me feel so inadequate, inferior, self conscious, self aware and anxious.
This will be my last post on this, I don't want to sound tiresome and like a broken record which I probably am now, I just feel some people feel I am talking a load of rubbish and am a bit clueless when I am not. I totally accept SA is different for everyone, we have arrived where we are for different reasons so the way to overcome it is unique to each other.
I totally agree that you can only worry about someone thinking in a negative way about yourself and being self conscious if you are already aware of thinking that negative way of yourself. Its not possible to worry about someone thinking about a negative thing about part of you if you are not thinking that way of yourself.
And it doesn't just apply to how you see yourself as a person but on your abilities too - i.e. if you are insecure about speaking and have no confidence in speaking fluently around certain people or in groups, that is why you fear speaking in those situations. If you have huge confidence about speaking and not aware that you struggle with speaking then how would you be fearful of speaking?
Littlemissmuffet - the example you gave about god is both alpha and omega, will you explain in a more simplistic way please. What you say got me really thinking about something really important but because I got a little bit lost in what you were demonstrating I couldn't quite determine what I was thinking. Its like something only matters if you believe it matters. i.e. there are loads of people who are far from good looking physically, but a lot are still very confident - and those who are like that usually don't think it matters how they look, they are not insecure or self conscious by it and therefore are not placing negative value on themselves. But what is to say a flaw is a flaw? We believe it is, but what is to say that view is right. What is to say something we think is a negative thing is actually negative? How come I can see people all day in the street, on tv, at work, in shops, etc, etc and not think negatives of anything I see? Does that mean everyone else is flawless? No way! But it would appear that what I believe are negatives are not really a big deal at all and I need to change my beliefs of the importance of such things. That would appear one very effective way to no longer feel inadequate for such qualities, but in order to achieve that I have to absolutely believe it.
I am not sure if what you were trying to demonstrate is exactly that or not, but thanks for making me think about another method for overcoming my perceived flaws which is what makes me feel so inadequate, inferior, self conscious, self aware and anxious.
LittleMissMuffet
Well-known member
Ok Charlie,
I just want to say first that this 'formula' for God, or a person's perception of everything, is something that I came across and thought of/about when I was solving another personal issue.
I'm not particularly great at understanding it my self -which is why I have trouble knowing how to apply it now.
So, I can only do my best to be clear about it and then I hope that you can take this one way of looking at solving something and see it through better than I have been able to.
If I've understood correctly.... you are talking about self-esteem and saying that people with social anxiety need more of this. And frizboy seems to object to this way of describing SA.
Also, you are saying that 'what others think of me' -or others image of my self- is really just a projection of MY image of my self. Or, as Jackb has put it (in one of your other threads) that others minds and our own are one; that everything we think including what we think others think, is only ever what we think.
I think you are basically right, by the way.
Then I observe that frizboy objects to SA people lacking self esteem, and likewise believes that the problem is that we worry about what others think of us and not that we think what others think ourselves.
Here is where it gets more interesting...
What is the definition for 'self image'-?
Is it possible to know who you are in the absence of knowing also what others think of who I am....?
A person can be on their own with their own image of who they are (without others' images of them) and have "good self esteem".
In this sense, frizboy is right (and also, I think, you could even infer that people with SA perhaps have really large egos and an excessively good opinion about themselves)
What happens though when the world becomes bigger and we change when we meet others with different values and ideas-? (For example, people who are more extrovert) Our self image is challenged and we struggle defining who we are -since, who we are -our self image- is always only a make up of who I think I am and who others think I am.
Or, "Who I am" is actually 'who I am and who others think I am'.
It's best if I draw from my experience... before I knew more about the world I believed that the only acceptable kind of relationship was a monogamous kind. Then I encountered a view that challenged this enough, and my sense of what was acceptable (what exists) and who I am because of it, was challenged. In order for me to continue to be who I saw my self as, my self image in fact needed to change.
This is the same as knowing who you are on your own -yet it is still always in relationship with who you are not. Or 'feminine' exists in relationship with 'masculine'. And yet, if there is a real reaction or challenge between these two opposite forces, then they cease to be in balance (in relationship) with each other. And then, for the 'feminine' to exist, the feminine must see how the masculine and not just the feminine exists within. (This is true because without this new way of perceiving things, Alpha and Omega, or two different people must be equal in relation to each other in order for either one to fully exist. The only difference is that change has occured and new definitions are made upon having met a bigger world.)
Or Alpha exists (God, who's name is "I am" exists) when God realises that her very nature is both Alpha and Omega, both masculine and feminine, both 'who I am and who I am not' is now 'who I am'. Just as the definition of 'who I am ' has changed form, all that exists, and similar to this, the definition for what is 'good', can only ever change form with it.
I could apply this to social anxiety perhaps in this way... my self image is that I am sensitive, but upon meeting more of the world, I become more intensely sensitive in relationship with (say) others who are relatively quite extroverted. I am not in balance anymore with the world and my self image is in doubt. I feel shame about being sensitive, because two sides are not in balance and I see 'sensitive' as 'omega' (lower) and 'extroverted' as 'alpha' (higher). But if I recognise that the two are equal again, this coincides with a new definition of my self (with respect to others) and will be that I become less intensely sensitive, believing that sensitivity and extroversion and with this -my sense of self and others values and image of me are -are equal, and I can only find both extroversion and introversion within me just as my sense of value -of status- will be that these are equal (neither is lower or higher) and instead, 'who dominates' vs 'who is balanced' will be what I place value on.
I could basically believe that what is 'strong' and 'good', or 'Alpha', is now based on who can balance two sides best and not need to dominate with their sensitivity nor with their extroversion; whereas before I had a belief that extroversion was Alpha (superior) and introversion was Omega (inferior) .....(although, it is also true that the other side of insecurity is vanity)
My sense of what is 'strong' and 'good' and 'best' has now changed to once again allow my self emotional balance and a self-definition that is secure and a happy one, because it is based on my self and my thoughts being a make up of those of others.
....I think that especially the last part of this relates to what you said about "something only matters if you think it matters" ....'the kingdom of heaven' is redefining who you are and your values of what exists, what is good, based on seeing a new definition for what is 'good' and acceptable. Jesus put it: 'when you make the 2 into one, then you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven'; Jung: 'when a person becomes aware of both polarities within any given conflict, a great psychological shift occurs' and 'the third, transcendant (God like) opinion is achieved by maintaining the friction between polar opposites for as long as possible'
Jesus also said that if you store your treasure in the Kingdom of heaven that nothing can get to it. -and this kingdom is a new self-definition that is based on a new perception of what exists and what matters.
....Well: I told you that I am not great at understanding such things just as I don't do a particularly good job of explaining them. :wink: :roll: :lol:
I do hope though that it gives you a different way of looking at the same questions. And perhaps even looking at what spiritual teachers -including Jung- will give you guidance, and then you can take your own understanding further.
I'm still obviously very much working on mine.
I hope that the above wasn't incredibly confusing and unclear!
I just want to say first that this 'formula' for God, or a person's perception of everything, is something that I came across and thought of/about when I was solving another personal issue.
I'm not particularly great at understanding it my self -which is why I have trouble knowing how to apply it now.
So, I can only do my best to be clear about it and then I hope that you can take this one way of looking at solving something and see it through better than I have been able to.
If I've understood correctly.... you are talking about self-esteem and saying that people with social anxiety need more of this. And frizboy seems to object to this way of describing SA.
Also, you are saying that 'what others think of me' -or others image of my self- is really just a projection of MY image of my self. Or, as Jackb has put it (in one of your other threads) that others minds and our own are one; that everything we think including what we think others think, is only ever what we think.
I think you are basically right, by the way.
Then I observe that frizboy objects to SA people lacking self esteem, and likewise believes that the problem is that we worry about what others think of us and not that we think what others think ourselves.
Here is where it gets more interesting...
What is the definition for 'self image'-?
Is it possible to know who you are in the absence of knowing also what others think of who I am....?
A person can be on their own with their own image of who they are (without others' images of them) and have "good self esteem".
In this sense, frizboy is right (and also, I think, you could even infer that people with SA perhaps have really large egos and an excessively good opinion about themselves)
What happens though when the world becomes bigger and we change when we meet others with different values and ideas-? (For example, people who are more extrovert) Our self image is challenged and we struggle defining who we are -since, who we are -our self image- is always only a make up of who I think I am and who others think I am.
Or, "Who I am" is actually 'who I am and who others think I am'.
It's best if I draw from my experience... before I knew more about the world I believed that the only acceptable kind of relationship was a monogamous kind. Then I encountered a view that challenged this enough, and my sense of what was acceptable (what exists) and who I am because of it, was challenged. In order for me to continue to be who I saw my self as, my self image in fact needed to change.
This is the same as knowing who you are on your own -yet it is still always in relationship with who you are not. Or 'feminine' exists in relationship with 'masculine'. And yet, if there is a real reaction or challenge between these two opposite forces, then they cease to be in balance (in relationship) with each other. And then, for the 'feminine' to exist, the feminine must see how the masculine and not just the feminine exists within. (This is true because without this new way of perceiving things, Alpha and Omega, or two different people must be equal in relation to each other in order for either one to fully exist. The only difference is that change has occured and new definitions are made upon having met a bigger world.)
Or Alpha exists (God, who's name is "I am" exists) when God realises that her very nature is both Alpha and Omega, both masculine and feminine, both 'who I am and who I am not' is now 'who I am'. Just as the definition of 'who I am ' has changed form, all that exists, and similar to this, the definition for what is 'good', can only ever change form with it.
I could apply this to social anxiety perhaps in this way... my self image is that I am sensitive, but upon meeting more of the world, I become more intensely sensitive in relationship with (say) others who are relatively quite extroverted. I am not in balance anymore with the world and my self image is in doubt. I feel shame about being sensitive, because two sides are not in balance and I see 'sensitive' as 'omega' (lower) and 'extroverted' as 'alpha' (higher). But if I recognise that the two are equal again, this coincides with a new definition of my self (with respect to others) and will be that I become less intensely sensitive, believing that sensitivity and extroversion and with this -my sense of self and others values and image of me are -are equal, and I can only find both extroversion and introversion within me just as my sense of value -of status- will be that these are equal (neither is lower or higher) and instead, 'who dominates' vs 'who is balanced' will be what I place value on.
I could basically believe that what is 'strong' and 'good', or 'Alpha', is now based on who can balance two sides best and not need to dominate with their sensitivity nor with their extroversion; whereas before I had a belief that extroversion was Alpha (superior) and introversion was Omega (inferior) .....(although, it is also true that the other side of insecurity is vanity)
My sense of what is 'strong' and 'good' and 'best' has now changed to once again allow my self emotional balance and a self-definition that is secure and a happy one, because it is based on my self and my thoughts being a make up of those of others.
....I think that especially the last part of this relates to what you said about "something only matters if you think it matters" ....'the kingdom of heaven' is redefining who you are and your values of what exists, what is good, based on seeing a new definition for what is 'good' and acceptable. Jesus put it: 'when you make the 2 into one, then you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven'; Jung: 'when a person becomes aware of both polarities within any given conflict, a great psychological shift occurs' and 'the third, transcendant (God like) opinion is achieved by maintaining the friction between polar opposites for as long as possible'
Jesus also said that if you store your treasure in the Kingdom of heaven that nothing can get to it. -and this kingdom is a new self-definition that is based on a new perception of what exists and what matters.
....Well: I told you that I am not great at understanding such things just as I don't do a particularly good job of explaining them. :wink: :roll: :lol:
I do hope though that it gives you a different way of looking at the same questions. And perhaps even looking at what spiritual teachers -including Jung- will give you guidance, and then you can take your own understanding further.
I'm still obviously very much working on mine.
I hope that the above wasn't incredibly confusing and unclear!
charlieHungerford
Well-known member
Interesting post littlemissmuffet, thanks for that. There is too much for me to discuss with that for me to reply now, but you certainly have made me think about different angles to look at this problem. I am glad, but at the same time I feel like arrggh I don't want to keep working on the 'theory and method', I just want to do what I need to do in order to work at overcoming this. I have printed off your post and will have a good read again and think about this today. Will reply when I get proper chance.