Verbal/body language communication is over rated

Verbal communication and actions are over rated.

For example, for the past 12 months while I’ve been in burnout, I haven’t heard from hardly any of my friends and barely any of my family, and I’ve got a lot of friends and family, so this isn’t usual.

This has been a true god send to me. Most of them don’t even know yet that I’m autistic and they certainly don’t know I’ve been in a burnout, they have no idea.

However, since I’ve started to feel better, I’ve had a steady but manageable (so far) stream of friends contacting me. Inviting me out for lunch, to go for a walk, to go nordic walking, cycling, one friend who knows I would love to go to Marrakesh has paid for and booked a holiday there for us in June, the same friend has also booked a hotel for us next week so we can go to listen to her favourite band who are coming over from America. None of her friends like the band so they won’t go but she knows I’d go to the end of the world for her if needs be so although I don’t like going to listen to bands, I’m happy to go with her because I know how important it is to her and she’s insisted that she pay for that as well. We might not see each other or have any kind of contact for months and months on end but she knows she can rely on me to the degree that if i’m able to help or be there for her in any way, I will be. She doesn’t have the same level of confidence in the friends she hangs out with all the time.

I have other invites coming in as well, as well as friends popping up to simply say hi, how are you. I don’t keep in regular verbal or physical contact with my friends or family but we are in touch constantly by something much stronger than our words and actions. They didn’t know that I need their friendships right now, that their friendships are what will help me on my next leg of the journey. I’ve decided to go back to India and Bali and some other countries so I’m going to be away for a while this time, maybe a few years, maybe forever, who knows, so it’s great that I get to see some of my friends before I go. And no matter where I am in the world, at least one of my family or friends (who are my family) will come and visit me. They have been to Australia, Bali, India, the Isle of Man, all the places I’ve lived in the UK, wherever I go or wherever I am my friends keep in touch with me some how. I’ve even had letters and cards arrive at remote ashrams I’ve been at in India ~ I wouldn’t even know you could do that!

I don’t keep in touch with them so much but they never let me out of their hearts and visa versa. They all encourage and support me no matter what I do. My dad is currently encouraging me to walk the Pacific Crest Trail, another friend bought me the book with the route etc and I just know that whether I want them to or not, at least one of them will come and see me while I’m walking the trail and either walk a bit of the trail with me or for me to have a little stop off with them. I know when my sister is hurt and in which part of her body and visa versa and she’s the least ‘spiritual’ person you could ever come across.

This is a few days later now and I have to admit that the messages from friends and family is starting to become a little overwhelming for me now. I’ll handle it. But what I’m saying is, if I had to rely on verbal communication, I don’t think I’d have any friends at all, but I speak to them in my language. They don’t use this language with other people and they have no idea really how it works with me but it does and I’m overflowing with gratitude at the love and friendship that’s pouring my way now, now that I’m ready to receive it.

Verbal communication hurts my head, sign language is a bit better but I much prefer to communicate in a non verbal, none sign language way. That way I don’t have to get past all your understandings and you beyond mine before we reach some level of mutual understanding.

This is why I love silent retreats and the level of friendships you form there go way deeper than the ones you make when you are verbally communicating or communicating through body language.

I love it when I go mute but that doesn’t happen very often so I have to accept that I was given the ability to speak for some reason. I have surrendered to this now so now I will be guided in whatever way I need to be and if it means using my voice, so be it. I don’t hate it like I used to. I accept I can speak and now I’m not fighting it I guess I’ll soon find out why I can. I still find verbal/body language to be a very crude and harsh form of communication though. 

Parents Reply
  • Oh absolutely, I love human laws. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not belittling them in anyway. They are a necessity because currently, most people don’t think for themselves and until they do, we absolutely need human laws. 

    Like you, they have been helpful to me in so many ways and were key to me getting my clients what they needed when working as a social worker. So I’m not putting them down in anyway and it’s fun to watch as they get more severe as people are beginning to learn how to think for themselves. But it doesn’t matter how severe they get, they will eventually dissolve to the degree that people start to think for themselves and no longer allow themselves to be controlled by them, they will lose their purpose. 

Children

  • Oh absolutely, I love human laws. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not belittling them in anyway. They are a necessity because currently, most people don’t think for themselves and until they do, we absolutely need human laws.

    I am not getting you wrong ~ as I know where you are coming from, it is just that your writing style involves absolutes in the positive and negative senses. As for instance you have in different post shifted from Child ego states of mind to Parental ego states ~ where you have been stating like many do quite opposite and thus contradictory points of view at different stages.

    My favourite example of me being hypocritical was as a child when I shouted at the very top of my voice that I was not shouting. I did so 'so' loudly enough I actually managed to hear myself ~ which fascinated me intensely. This was one of the many reasons that led to me get into Transactional Analysis (or TA) particularly, and psychology in general.

    Now the basic model for TA is called the PAC model, as follows:


    P = Parent ego-states ~ behaviours, thoughts and feelings copied from parents or parent figures

    A = Adult ego-states ~ behaviours, thoughts and feelings that are direct responses for the here-and-now

    C = Child ego-states ~ behaviours, thoughts and feelings that are replayed from childhood


    Just as very basic guide, in that Adult ego-states deal with the here now ~ Child ego-states tend to include 'always' statements, and Parent ego-states tend to include 'never' statements, although of course there are cross overs.

    Autistic Black and White Thinking involves Child ego-states getting contradicted by Parent ego-states, and vice-versa, rather than being mediated and reasonably integrated by the Adult ego-states ~ as need to be developed to become more functionally viable.

    Simply learning to recognise the difference between being in Child or Parent states of mind ~ goes a long way to developing the Adult ego states.


    Like you, they have been helpful to me in so many ways and were key to me getting my clients what they needed when working as a social worker. So I’m not putting them down in anyway and it’s fun to watch as they get more severe as people are beginning to learn how to think for themselves.

    So when you state that, "I am not putting [laws] down in any way" [P] you contradict yourself with, "its fun to watch as they get more severe" [C] which puts laws down as being severe. Then comes as follows:


    But it doesn’t matter how severe they get, they will eventually dissolve to the degree that people start to think for themselves and no longer allow themselves to be controlled by them, they will lose their purpose.

    So in the here and now sense you write about not putting laws down in any way, then describe their severity and your hope they will become useless. Laws are not just about controlling people, for they also guide us as to how things are done for the greater good.


  • Ok, I see what’s happening now. We effectively live in two different worlds and we are therefore talking two different languages. 

    I understand what you’re saying regarding child/parent ego etc. We have a similar understanding in metaphysics but it is a deeper understanding to what you describe. 

    Depending on who I work with, I might use a more psychological approach, as you described, to help the client understand their situation, in the beginning at least. But always metaphysical principles, which work along natural laws, will underly everything I do with them.

    For example, I work with the law of cause and effect which might at first (the cause) appear in the physical realm but I will get to the real cause. 

    For example, if Jo said something really unkind and hurtful to John which resulted in John being upset. John might think that Jo is the cause of his upset. But that’s not true. Jo has no power to cause upset in John.

    The upset is in John and was triggered by what Jo said. If this root cause is not addressed and dissolved, John will continue to meet people in his life who upset him.

    Even if he were to deal with the perceived cause of the upset, i.e. he made it up with Jo etc, he understood why Jo said what he said etc and he forgives him. A similar situation would reoccur in his life because he hasn’t dealt with the root cause. 

    If man made laws are made to protect people, why aren’t they working? And if man knew himself, loved himself and loved his neighbour as himself, who would he need to be protected from? 


  • Ok, I see what’s happening now. We effectively live in two different worlds and we are therefore talking two different languages. 

    Not quite but almost. We effectively live on the same world in two different bodies, and are both writing in English. You write abstractly using displaced concrete terms more generally, and I more generally use concretely applied terms.

    Displaced concrete terms above involve describing 'talking' when we are 'writing', and living in different 'worlds' rather than in different 'bodies'.

    Writing abstractly involves imagining and as above describing separate worlds and different languages ~ in your mind, rather than concretely describing being in different locations on this same planet using this same language.

    If we were though talking with one another ~ we would be speaking with different 'dialects' or 'accents' (tomayto~tomahto or potayto~patahto sort of thing). Also, we are living on so very many different versions of this one same world, and sensing several more than the vast majority do - what with the sparticles, orbs, hazes and light-frequency wavelengths and all that. 


    I understand what you’re saying regarding child/parent ego etc. We have a similar understanding in metaphysics but it is a deeper understanding to what you describe. 

    The Parent, Adult and Child (PAC) ego-state model is the basic introduction model for TA. In metaphysical terms we also have the model of consciousness, experience and awareness, involving the Receptive, Protective and Projective aspects of our experiential embodiments, as sensibilities, personalities or selves.


    Depending on who I work with, I might use a more psychological approach, as you described, to help the client understand their situation, in the beginning at least. But always metaphysical principles, which work along natural laws, will underly everything I do with them.

    Metaphysicists work with the principles of nature, as which gave rise to the laws of the land, as are recorded for the people of that land, when ignorance prevails on certain matters.


    For example, I work with the law of cause and effect which might at first (the cause) appear in the physical realm but I will get to the real cause. 

    So with the law of cause and effect stating that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, you use that statement as a theme for your work.


    For example, if Jo said something really unkind and hurtful to John which resulted in John being upset.

    So ~ Jo's unkind and hurtful wording 'caused' the effect of John being upset.


    John might think that Jo is the cause of his upset.

    Well in the given instance there is 'a' direct link between what Jo said and what John felt, so not an unreasonable assumption on John's part in the given circumstance. 


    But that’s not true. Jo has no power to cause upset in John.

    Jo did though have the power to cause John to be upset ~ given that 'Jo's unkind and hurtful wording 'caused' the 'effect' of John being upset.'


    The upset is in John and was triggered by what Jo said.

    Given that in the given context as described:

    Power: 'the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way'

    Upset: 'make (someone) unhappy, disappointed, or worried'

    'Caused: make (something, especially something bad) happen'

    Triggered: 'caused by particular action, process, or situation.'

    If then as you describe Jo has no power to upset John ~ on account that what Jo said was a trigger, you have stated a contradiction in terms; as something 'triggered' is something 'caused' ~ as an 'effect' ~ rather than Jo not having the power to do so, as you stated.

    I think that what you actually mean, is that possibly Jo need not have power over John.  


    If this root cause is not addressed and dissolved, John will continue to meet people in his life who upset him.

    When it comes to addressing and 'dissolving' the root cause or primary issue, dissolving it is not really a befitting term. The sensitivity or issue involves aspects of John's of psychological and physiological anatomy, i.e. ego-states or experiential fragments, which need 'resolving', in the sense of discovering or more rediscovering, the original need or purpose.

    It is perhaps better to state that:

    If this root cause is not addressed and resolved ~ John may continue to meet people in his life who upset him.

    I changed the 'will' to 'may' in that although there is likelihood of John's behavioural pattern repeating with others ~ as you state; there are also 'pattern burn-outs' or 'habituated extinctions', as the capacity to keep going with the behavioural pattern  gets worn or burnt out. Particular people as such can instead meet others who make them feel good in and about themselves.

    Alternatively ~ the pattern does not get burnt out, but healed out by meeting people who have the opposite inclination to Jo saying unkind and hurtful things, such as Frank who says helpful and encouraging things.


    Even if he were to deal with the perceived cause of the upset, i.e. he made it up with Jo etc, he understood why Jo said what he said etc and he forgives him. A similar situation would reoccur in his life because he hasn’t dealt with the root cause. 

    Well the root cause could involve perhaps Negative Adaption Child ego-states, for John's adaptation at school could of been for instance to put up with and shut up about being insulted or bullied, rather than learning how to deal with it appropriately. The only release for John maybe was just to get upset about it.

    Basically a Child ego-state adaptation is 'negative' in that it does 'not' fulfil the developmental need, but opposes it.

    Another consideration, regarding John making up with Jo, could involve Negative Nurturing Parent ego-states, where John is supportive to Jo's plight, i.e. bad week at work, money worries or whatever else ~ and John forgives all, but the long term problem does not as such get resolved. 


    If man made laws are made to protect people, why aren’t they working?

    With laws being systems of written rules and regulations, it is not a question of why laws aren't protecting people, but why they not being respected and carried out by people. Lack of wisdom and or experience may be the simplest answer perhaps?


    And if man knew himself, loved himself and loved his neighbour as himself, who would he need to be protected from? 

    Laws as codes of conduct are not just about protection, they are more instructions on how things are done for the greater good, in which ever circumstances, whether they be foreseen, or unforeseen.