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:
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_, especially
using 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."...
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.
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, Ph.D.