434. How To Recognize a
Trap When You See it
The basic characteristic of a trap is that
there seems to be:
- NO CHOICE -
This zero-option feature is often hidden deliberately
or buried by confusion. However, there are lots of dead give-aways:
no choice of time
Example: tight and precise schedules
("Muster is at 3:05 sharp!")
no choice of appearance
no choice of source
Example: the one and only Guru has
said it all. It's insane to look at anything else.
forced choice of a symbol
Example: other symbols are those of
no choice of space
no choice of "good and bad"
Example: 'enemies' and 'salvators'
have been 'preselected' and one should trust 'their' judgements.
"No choice" situations brought about through
the use of words (semantics)
are a class all in itself. Here are some of many examples:
It may seem that it would be impossible to avoid
some structures used in traps altogether, especially the 'language constructs'.
For example, it makes good sense to expect punctuality for a meeting, thus
restricting 'time' for other parties.
general identifications using unspecified subjects
or objects: "everybody, "we",
the usage of the verb "to be" to uncritically
equate two things that are different:
"he _is_"; "they are...";
unlimited time/space specifications:
"always", "eternity", "never",...
using paradoxical or contradictionary constructs
without warning or proper awareness:
"all is one"...
formulating statements as _suggestions_, especiallyusing
the pronouns "we" and you: "We are easily falling back
into old habits.", "You want xxx."
throwing in assertions of correctness and pseudo-questions
to produce formal agreements or disagreements: "right?", "do you see this
now?", "do you follow me?"
The Supertrap (all of above sub traps combined):
"everybody always wants ..."; "we are all
one", "you can never do this
without..."; "you'll fry
there in eternity."...
The purpose of the list above is to find recurring
and compounding indicators that, taken together, expose the suppressive
structure of the world-saving person or organizations.
If there are only some of the indicators present
in the investigated group, it would be, of course, a good idea to work
on resolving or attenuating the suppressive features rather than doing
away with the entire structure as a whole.
Last, not least, the list above can also be
taken as a 'check-sheet' in cleaning out one's own dependencies on prior
personal or group agreements that may have been of a suppressive nature.
And, as always, don't be so serious ;-)
Copyleft © 1998
by Maximilian J. Sandor