Marie-
Nice to see you back
Interesting post.

two things here.
If JZ is doing this on a grander scale, she is diluting her emotions. But it is not a two way street-there is no one on one with JZ. It is one on 1000. It is like being on a teeter totter with someone.
Someone bounces someone off.
Then the other person decides to let the other person's butt hit the ground.
Then they both get on and say "hey! that doesn't quite work. can you scoot forward some?"
But JZ does not do that.
She teeters...and 1000 people act out her
delusions. "Audrey is bad. Don't associate with her. Joe D is bad. Don't associate with him. David McCarthy is bad.
Don't associate with him. Tree is bad. Dpn't associate with her." and on and on.
She is never put to the test to ultimately change HER SELF. She never has to. It is not a two way street for self improvement. She has never one on one confronted any of these people. She has a habit of firing staff indirectly....NEVER one on one.

secondly,I am more in favor of the Philosophy of Thich Nhat Hanh.
Part of his message is learning to do what one can do relieve suffering of others.
For example, I blow a gasket one day, whether I deem it "justifiable" or not
(there was a teaching by JZ/ R on 'justifiable anger' which I won't get into right now), but what I have done, is cause suffering in someone else.
It is up to ME to go about removing or attempting to relieve the suffering I put upon someone else. Self responsibility in the form of amends of some kind.
And then I have to look at what caused MY suffering? Did someone intentionally steal from me, yell obscenities, or other worse things? How do I go about relieving my OWN suffering? Talk to that person?
What if they are a delusional Naricissitic Axis II personality?
There is no way, other than not associating with them any more.
But if the other person is growth-inspired, they will see to a meaningful conversation and endeavor to abolish the behavior that originally caused my suffering.
If someone has narcissitic tendencies, then there is no hope in communication and growth between the two. And in Ramster's cases, they will just say:
"I am no longer frequency specific to you."

Thich Nhat Hanh:
His philosophy is not limited to pre existing religious structures but speaks to the individual’s desire for wholeness and inner calm.


Any excuse will serve a tyrant.
~Aesop

Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
~Albert Einstein


Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained.
~Mahatma Gandhi

If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army.

~Frederick the Great er JZ Knight

Have never heard of Mr./Ms. Hahn, will google that.

Marie, what I meant was, sort of like in "AA" (reviled at the ranch, I understand) or some Christian prayer meetings (also reviled by many), or group therapy (reviled by me, lol), you tell your story, not to "put it" on others,or to gain sympathy, but to show them one way in which evil or temptation or pain and suffering, or adverse circumstances, may be overcome, and in that sense, you could serve as an inspiration. Not quite the same as dumping on others.

Lost -- I see!...agreed.

Thich Nhat Hanh was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 1967.
There were no prizes made that year or the next due to the war.
How ironic.
He recently had a discourse with John McCain, as both had been in Viet Nam during the war (under same, yet different circumstances).
check it out.

Marie, I know you mean well but your description of how we 'put our emotions on others' when we speak is very similar to a point of view taken at rse. Which is why people at rse are often completely disinterested to the point of being nasty if you ever have an issue or 'drama' going on. Forget lending an ear, people are so afraid that they will 'take on' your drama that they don't even want to hear it. 'Blah, blah, blah, blah...' if they have to, to tune you out.

So, while I agree that there is potential to be dragged down by the emotions another may be feeling when speaking, I don't see that as a rule. Many factors are involved, the situation, the place the person speaking is at in regard to the issue, personal involvement, etc. To say it as a rule implies something negative to me and I'm not sure I can agree with it. You may not have meant it that way, but I can't help perceiving it that way maybe because of my previous beliefs.

I realize that you meant to assure us and I can see how it's possible that we would take on JZ's fear/paranoia thru her 'processing' essentially, but more in the sense that loved ones tend to take on similar traits just by being around each other. Or via peer pressure and the general prevailing thought that somehow what is important to JZ needs to be important to everyone.

"I say this with the thought that it might be of some comfort to you to know that not all your feelings are truly of your own origin.. .."

I am with littlewiseone here.
This line really does not sit well with me
at all.
1) I really am self resonsible for what I do with my own emotions.
Which, oddly enough, at RSE, one is led to believe that they really should not have any emotions or that they should be "greater" than having emotions.
A really great example is I saw one couple this past summer in a really tenuous position with a land developer.
Even though they maintained they were "greater than their emotions", the actions and nastiness that I observed between these 3 (all in RSE) was just astounding. That night, one of the three suggested they have a few glasses of wine and "be done with the past" of the day.
So, of course, they drank.
The next day, all three had a bit of a hangover and basically just "left the experience in the past" and never addressed that any of them were emotional about it at all (a fair amount of money was at stake here).
I stood by in awe.
Here they were, DENYING they had ANY emotions, and then having a few toasts, and just let it be at that.
Now truly, how is that a way to responsibly deal with one's actions as a result of emotions, in particular, when one is taught that emotions are essentially "bad"??

I would say this is a result of a belief system gone bad, and NOT JZ's emotions.

It has been my experience that many Ramsters even REFUSE to see that they indeed have emotions and that they are "greater than that" (e.g. arrogant about it all).

2) in the example I gave in another post regarding have been thrown in the pokey for a drunken altercation and declaring,
"I truly think I would not have engaged alcohol this way had it not been for the wine ceremonies at RSE."

Which, is still true.
BUT.....
I was STILL responsible for my actions and lack of forethought to reasonably just kick this person out of my house before it escalated, thus it went, enormous fines, etc.
So I MUST, and I did, take responsibility for my actions. I cannot lay this on JZ,
although , my original premise still stands.

In hindsight, I am much more sound mentally, than the last 18 years.
So there is something to be said about recovering from such a group and taking even a more wider perspective and approach in regards to my emotions and the way I decide to play them out.
They are all mine, and no one else's.
Thus, I do not see where JZ's emotions come into play in this scenario
(other than setting up the group think in the first place).

So, Marie, I would tend to think your line might apply to current RSE students.
Not those in the aftermath, esp those working with trained professionals.

To clarify -- it's not "my" line -- it is a generally held concept of how people / human beings deal with and process emotion...

I didn't mean to have everyone over think this -- just made a general comment ... It has nothing to do with how people in RSE are different from people who are not in RSE.. it is a GENERAL statement about how people, IN GENERAL, process feelings and emotions...

I understand that you mean it as a general way people process but we have to accept that premise to accept the rest of your post. All I was saying is that I'm not sure I accept the general premise. Where are you quoting this line from?

LWO -- As I said in my initial post, this was told to me by a therapist, someone who counsels people and helps them, someone "in the field"... of helping others.

Ok, I got it. I still wonder what philosophy that's based on. I'm not an expert on psychology but I don't like the sound of this premise.

Also, we're not attacking you, I know you meant well.

I don't know what's to like or not like...It wasn't an accusation or anything meant to infer blame or non-responsibility... I'm surprised it has been construed that way.. It's not something people do on a conscious level, it's just one of those things "that is"...