Intending,
creating, and recreating a communication
This 1 1/2 minute video titled
Dog Babysitting Baby was submitted
to YouTube by LordDavid6 from Argentina. It's a delightful illustration
of what happens when one (in this case a dog) recreates another's
communication, in this instance a baby's discomfiture and upset.*
Using communication coaching lingo, A (the baby)
created a communication and B (the dog) recreated it. As always, if
B
perfectly recreates A's communication then A no longer has it;
B
has gotten and disappeared it for A and both are complete—what's left
is nothing, referred to as space—space for the next creation/sentence.
The baby communicated, the dog got and recreated it and the baby got
that its discomfiture had been acknowledged "gotten."**
A breakdown in communication between
two often begins before the actual delivery when A fails to intend
that B recreate their communication. Most always
A blames B for
not getting/understanding them. When A's leadership-communication
skills produce something other than what they thought they intended it
simply reveals that A was not clear about his/her own intention.
A
clear mind supports clarity of purpose and intention. To discover what's
clouding your mind use —
The Clearing Process.
Let's use the above as pertains to communications between a
parent and child: Mother to son: "Time for homework." Several minutes later the mother
notices that the child is still watching TV. In this case the mother
failed to cause her son to recreate what she believed to be her
intention; most often a parent blames the child instead of accepting
responsibility for failing to intend that their child get and recreate
their communication. What's also true is that the mother (albeit
unconsciously) intended her son to thwart her.
What? You say the mother intended her son to not do as she said? Yes.
Unbeknownst to her (she had gone unconscious) there was/is an
incomplete
in the space, one that's serving as a barrier to communication. Most
likely, earlier in the day, she yelled at him and it didn't feel good
(yelling is abusive). It's not just that she yelled, it's that she has
yet to acknowledge the abusive communication to him. I.e. "I get that my
yelling at you at breakfast didn't feel good. I get that it was
abusive." Her integrity set it up for her child to (unconsciously)
thwart her as a reminder to restore (recreate) the experience of
integrity between them. Read—
Creating/recreating the experience of
integrity between parent and child—a clearing process.
Children are perfect integrity meters for parents:
A child will
misbehave, fail in school, or even get sick, to draw attention to the
fact that the experience of communication between family members is
missing, when the integrity is out within the family. Whenever a child
is misbehaving, off compass so to speak, it can always be traced to an
incomplete, typically something is not being acknowledged; it's always
because the parents are withholding thoughts from each other, they have
become stuck dramatizing an upset. There are no exceptions to this
phenomenon. This non-verbal drama between parents (pouting/no hugging)
greatly affects a child. The absence of an experience of love between
parents causes uncertainty and fear within a child. A child, from it's
point of view, thinks he/she is the cause of the friction between his/her parents;
children especially believe they are the cause for their parent's
divorce. A child can recall an instance in which he/she did something
bad and, coincidentally, the parents started arguing. No matter what words a parent might use to explain to their
child why the divorce is not their (the child's) fault, a child assumes
it's a consequence of how they have been behaving-communicating; the
thought the child has of causing the friction persists for as long as
the parents go without hugging and giggling. One thought goes something
like: If I were a truly loving child I would inspire my parents to treat
each other lovingly as they used to; now they argue all the time so I'm
definitely not a loving deserving child. Children are naturally
responsible, they intuit that somehow they are causing (intending)
everything.
* It's understood that most dogs
automatically respond to certain frequencies by howling, a throwback to
communications between wolves. It's further assumed that the dog did not intend
that the baby recreate (get) its howling; it's just a nice happenstance.
Of interest is the dog started howling at the baby's discomfiture
(before it starting to cry); it wasn't the frequency of the crying
(howling) that started the communication. Also, the photgrapher's
vibrations and intentions influenced the outcome.
** More accurately it should read:
A
intends to communicate.
A then creates a communication (in his/her own
mind).
A then intends that
B recreate A's communication.
A
then delivers the communication to B.
A
then confirms that B recreated/got B's communication
which confirms "A's" intention.
This all happens seemingly
simultaneously.
Tip: If a neighbor's dog barks abusively, you can,
using simple audio equipment (mic, amp, & speaker), capture the dog's
barking and play it back via an amplifier capable of adding a
micro-second delay; it will cause the dog to stop barking. The dog will
start barking again and again immediately hear it's own voice; the
confusing echo eventually causes the dog to stop barking at itself. It's
best to have the neighbor's supportive permission for this solution.
More about cause and effect and a neighbor's
persistent barking dog.