Rechtliche Hinweise zu Copyright, TMG und Links

Search by keywords

Now to the notions of the "offended-line" in detail:

offended: With it we go shopping for importance in the form of bestowal, we commit ourselves to the search for "consolation-plasters". If somebody for example has cut himself (to be cut is a colloquially known idea!), he also needs a plaster, that is, we expect from our vis-a-vis, who, as to our estimate of the situation, has offended us, the corresponding honors. The sensation of having been offended correlates therefore highly with the expectation of collaboration, the vis-a-vis must adapt to our idea of reparation, must give up logical thinking and with accordingly sad expression must make declarations in form of justifications or excuses.

The problem thereby is: If the vis-a-vis actually behaves in this manner, this person removes itself out of the present of the actual situation, must add own experiences out of the past, is therefore not to be found in community (with regard to content) with the "offended" person, and the person is not meant at all any more personally - and would have all reason, to react even more offended ...

Possible solution toward community with regard to content: The humorous question: "what do we do now?" Concerning the risks and side-effects please ask your common sense or your interest in the relationship with your vis-a-vis.

insulted: This sensation can above all be strategically very well made use of, once behaving insulted, some other time also again not despite of many similarities in the situation, according to mood, according to goal. This sensation highly correlates with the myth of improvement, to which the vis-a-vis is to apply itself in order to rearrange the own situation in such a way again, that the self image is to come true. If we feel insulted, that what we really mean becomes in a precise manner unclear and therefore so easily manipulatable.

The problem thereby is: If we react insulted, it is our insult. At being insulted the continuation of insult is expected from the other by that our vis-a-vis is to disregard its own interest, personally just also does not respect itself, but rather searches in its knowledge, how the situation could be improved. Also here we personally are suddenly not meant at all any more - and would have all reason to still react more insulted ...

Possible solution toward community with regard to content: The humorous question: "And what can I do now?" Concerning the risks and side-effects please ask your common sense or your interest in the relationship with your vis-a-vis.

humbled: With this sensation we start to claim dis-charge. "But I would like so much ...", "why doesn’t that work?". We are in an existential crisis, full of worries, which are coupled at the "next to insurmountable" anyhow-fatalism (I am not right anyhow, but must this person discover that?), and at the libertinism (away from, even if I not yet know, where). In connection with the worries we can start regressions of the particular kind: the sex-specific differences of patriarchally oriented injuring experiences procure for men all the more the claim to discharge (this correlates highly with violence), while the well-behaved women suits well the humble toleration for the sake of care alleviating the worries.

The problem thereby is: The "feeling humbled" has a very clear cognitive aspect, which reduces learnability to roughly nonentity. "Voluntary (own) humility is always better, than being humbled". The sensation of "humbled" limits each pleasant positive self-awareness and limits just thereby the learnability, too. This means, this limitation of learnability leads into an irrationally organized overactivity of the worries, which naturally makes countermovements necessary. If the sympathetic nervous system (the dynamizing part of our autonomic nervous system) now turns too active, must brake the parasympathetic system (the statifying part of our autonomous nervous system), and then at this emergency stop can be strained also the nerves in the stomach region very much. Since this sensation higly correlates with the predictability of questions of guilt, by this way of coping with the past it is requested again an exit out of the present. The vis-a-vis is found in need and must save itself. We are meant then suddenly not at all any more personally - and would have all reason to react still more humbled ...

Possible solution toward community with regard to content: The humorous question: "And who should help you now?" Concerning the risks and side-effects please ask your common sense or your interest in the relationship with your vis-a-vis.

very affected: In this context Rogers found the term "empathy" and brought it into psychological use: empathing, how it is going on with the vis-a-vis. "Do you want to speak about it?" We force answers, the vis-a-vis has to tell us, what is going wrong just now. He or she has to repeat, what he or she knows already - assumed for the counselor or the therapist- and has to fill his ears again with all the big stories. And the full understanding is following: "You felt very sad?" or "That hurt you very much?" The very affected counselor or therapist seems to feel the same sensations, that is either very good in a moralistic sense or a manner of adapting problems - poor counselor..., that is, what the vis-a-vis may (have to) think, considering this formal community. But different people react differently, the same subject does not make them one person, even if they are fascinated by the demonic. But on the other hand: the very affected one is wished as very affected, if someone wants to impress the vis-a-vis.

The problem thereby is: We remain different personalities, even if we are very affected. In such a affecting report I must feel affected myself so much. Do we hear however a slight reproach of guilt? First I am affected very much, then I am in need. The vis-a-vis (the client him- or herself?) must mind, if the poor counselor quickly gets better within the next 5 minutes, otherwise everything of the non told facts comes to daylight. The sensation leads into the dimension, which marks our safety zones. At "very affected" we are left in peace, our vis-a-vis must now worry for us. Then we can support our own predeterminations in such a way with it, that our vis-a-vis does not notice at all, as he or she contributes to them, so that he or she does no more see us, but only the task to proof the own right of existence to us. We then suddenly are not meant personally, not at all anymore - and would have all reason to react even more affected ...

Possible solution toward community with regard to content: The humorous question: "How can I change that?" Concerning the risks and side-effects please ask your common sense or your interest in the relationship with your vis-a-vis.

totally hit: This feeling really invites to take a vacation beyond the common sense. If a human being means to be "totally hit" and expresses that, he or she is everything else, but surely he or she is not hit, however the vis-a-vis has to stand smart now. Really feeling hurt needs no talk about it, it belongs in the area of intimacy. If the one is "totally hit" and the other says (even if he or she isses this not): "I am now totally insulted", this party game immediately is at the end. This sensation highly correlates with the psychological recycling, that is: it lurks for moralistically transvaluable behavior on the vis-a-vis’ side, for mistakes which can be avenged immediately.

The problem thereby is: If the feeling hit really turns out to our favors, our vis-a-vis if necessary can react insulted and has so to speak taken away from us the handling of the psychological recycling. For we are then personally suddenly not meant at all any more - and would have all reason, to react even more hit ...

Possible solution toward community with regard to content: The humorous question: "By what have you earned that?" Concerning the risks and side-effects please ask your common sense or your interest in the relationship with your vis-a-vis.

blamed: Being blamed has something final: "blâmer", to accuse somebody of an error, "blasphemy", that is to accuse a divinity of a decay etc. Blamed is multi-dimensional and leaves hardly anything remaining to wish. It is supremely unpleasant to embarrass somebody, for all everything embarrassing takes not only an effort but also time. It takes a prehistory, a "middlehistory" and a "afterhistory", which costs much troubles - and then this judgment is issued! From the familiar situation we well know this terminology (who ever the divinities may have been), we have learned not to talk about anything familiar outside the family (to that in any case nothing evil becomes known to public), because we could blame somebody of the family. The pedagogical measures of our parents are always crowned with success, and if we then commit an error relating to this, we have disgraced them. However I can only put blame on somebody (in the proper meaning of the word), who has done for me meaning building work, where I have once again committed nonsense. We must (as children) indeed mature into communities, take over responsibility, without any hitch anywhere. We must compile everything what we might need in our later "living", which we (as children) cannot know, perhaps not even preunderstand, and for learning it we have to be grateful, indeed.

The problem thereby is: If we claim the possibility to be able to be blamed, we arise to competitors facing those, who have had this claim before us, we assume something, which possibly does not at all belong to us and therefore "offends" our vis-a-vis, - and already this person is in the security of the new start of the offended-line, while we must remove ourselves out of the situation, if necessary register our vis-a-vis as not "completely there". We then suddenly are not meant personally at all any more - and would have all reason to react even more disgraced ...

Possible solution toward community with regard to content: The humorous question: "How can we ever repair this?" Concerning the risks and side-effects please ask your common sense or your interest in the relationship with your vis-a-vis.

wounded (hurt): It can be found out, who once really has wounded us, indeed these experiences date back already some time. What so ever we feel as "injury", it is the association to an actual injuring experience, which is being switched on in addition to the moment, that can be misunderstood as understanding of the situation. Here we find the general moral dimension, in which the frontal lobe of the brain is being demanded at the most (according to Karl Kleist the areae 47 and 11 are particularly responsible for custom and propriety). What is being hurt therefore here? Custom and propriety. That seems to be a liable offence, which can hardly be atoned for.

The problem thereby is: The sentence "you have hurt me" is extremely unprecise. We really would have to ask: with what, whereby, when, where and how or "show me". In the situation of "being hurt" passionism (the capacity to suffer with passion) arises. In this "hurt" sounds also something supernatural, something numinous; as if the injury was concrete and however also inconcrete. The reference to the hurtness affects an interstice of human understanding, which beforehand nobody understands without inquiry. Answering inquiries can therefore become very painful, especially since projections could be uncovered, which discamou-flage the own feeling as aggression. The reference to the own being hurt can be recognized as exaggerated self-sight "I am custom and propriety, and you have hurt the rules, in that you have hurt me". If our vis-a-vis should take these almost divine self-attributions actually seriously, then his or her view onto the reality must be clouded - and we suddenly are meant personally not at all any more - and would have all reason, to react even more hurt ...

In difference to this there is a situation, in which an own action, an own answer, is laid out in such a way, that it is acted auto-aggressively and joy is no more perceptible, instead fury and a "cry for help" .There is in that moment no rational argument for this behavior, since it presents no method, which would like to pursue a goal of superiority with it. There is only a causal association, which comments in a flash, the rousing spark calls forth directly the explosion. That must have to do with a kind of denial, with a fear reaction, which happens nervally in a flash. If that is so, it must copy something, which we (during an injury experience) have set outside with a cry. It is an adversive denial facing an aversive denial. How can this come into consciousness to be able to deal with it calmly? The fear reactions can be discamouflaged despite of the fact that the content of the fear cannot be verbalized. Fear is perceptible. Fear is to be recognized by its expression, and by it conclusions are possible. Despite of the associations of pain we can find another way of communicative interaction with it. We must bring up ourselves personally the readiness and the courage to experiment with us, without playing with us, to make just new experiences, which we, if we like them, can take over into our repertory of behavior.

Possible solution toward community with regard to content: The question: "How may I behave, seriously, how may I behave?" reveals the own helplessness and shows a possibility to be able to get out of this conflict. Concerning the risks and side-effects please ask your common sense or your interest in the relationship with your vis-a-vis.

confused: "Now you have confused me totally." "But now I am all mixed up". This sentence is never said in a confused way. For that reason it irritates so successfully and provides us time enough for measures against the heared or experienced, if necessary for forgery of memory.

The problem thereby is: We can only confuse ourselves, and we can try with this state of confusion to provide further confusion outside, until nobody knows anymore, what really has been said. And if we are still in the position to say "I am confused", then we are not so confused, that we could not notice that something has happened, which could possibly irritate our view of the world. It is more favorable to say: "Now I don’t understand nothing at all any more". However we also disclose with it that our naivety probably is played, since we have not shown otherwise any indication of an oligophrenia (medical language for mental deficiency). Otherwise it could be a wish for hospitalization in the psychiatric ward. Since laymen and laywomen however are not entitled to such monumentous diagnoses, normally the admission to hospital remains undone. But instead our vis-a-vis must correct its own estimate of us in such a manner, that we do not occur in it at all any more - we then suddenly are not meant personally at all any more - and would have all reason to even react even more confused ...

Possible solution toward community with regard to content: The sensitive question: "What exactly have you not understood right now?" reveals readiness to talk and offers clarity, if on it actually will be answered. Concerning the risks and side-effects please ask your common sense or your interest in the relationship with your vis-a-vis.

Types of blockages are following HERE!