Recognizing Subjectification | HA events

Recognizing Subjectification

Subjectifiers are insecure, incomplete and anxious. These individuals do not know their real contribution. This drives them to seek constant reassurance that everything is going well. Subjectifiers avoid confronting their lack of knowing by making information everything. It can also be noted that only through failure do we improve and get better. In their mind, Subjectifiers cannot fail. It is unthinkable. This keeps them from joining groups, which would increase their dependence on others. Eventually, those being Subjectified recognize this and take control of their own destiny. The Desire for Independence is based on the need to Subjectify others so that we can feel superior. It is all about getting others to acknowledge how great or right we are. These two conflicting directions end up cancelling each other out but create a bond where we believe that we are our Defense and that anyone challenging our perceptions must be wrong. 

Subjectification promotes an idea that beliefs are good. Beliefs are actually temporary assessments about something indicating that we can make an informed decision in the moment. When they become general guidelines, beliefs lose their value as short-term assessments.  They become things we tell others to do to make the ‘right choice’. The more we do not question beliefs, the more power they have over us. What we need to practice is assuming that our truth in the moment requires access to ourselves in the here and now. This is not Subjectification as long as it is not represented as a generalized truth. It is also not Subjectification when we express ourselves in a way that gives others space to respond in their own way. It is only Subjectification when we are unwilling to listen, hear or acknowledge the truth of others by believing that our truth is better.

On a personal level, we can Subjectify anything. That includes this material. There are no holy words written here. This is not a sacred text. While it is based on scientific observation and personal experience, it does not have to be your experience. The more you elevate this process, the less you will get out of it. This is merely a working process where we get to examine what we know and do not know, so that we (each of us) can come up with our own answers. If what we are saying resonates and speaks to you, you are free to choose this as a part of your truth. What we intend with this document is to awaken people to the questions they may need to answer to actually improve their relationships. Our only desire is to support those on a similar path so that they can move more quickly to become conscious relationship manifestors and are able to make the difference they want to make in the world.  

Dynamic Defense Style individuals take care of themselves at the cost of their partners, while Disarming Defense Style individuals take care of others at a cost to themselves. This is why these partners feel secure with each other. They at least agree on who is going to get taken care of in the relationship. Unfortunately, it is always the Dynamic who gets taken care of and the Disarming individual that does the care-taking! The Disarming individuals eventually learn that they need to take care of themselves and the Dynamic individuals learn that they have to pay appropriate attention to others if they want to have a partner.

If the statement above polarizes you, you might still be identified with your Defense. Some who do not know their Defense Style may have found the statements interesting but unenlightening. It is useful to explore and name our patterns so we can modify, change or release them. Until we let go of our Defenses, we are typically attracted to our opposites. This means if we are heterosexual we are attracted to opposite Defense Style partners. If we are lesbian or gay, we are attracted to the same Defense Style partners (more or less feminine Defense with gay men and more or less masculine Defense with women). With every failure in relationship, our Defenses become more amplified and activated, which attracts us to stronger opposite Defenses. We move beyond this level as we begin to love ourselves as we are, shifting our attractions to individuals with the same Defense Style. A lack of polarization or reduction of intensity within us supports attracting partners who will value and automatically love us. Diminishing attention on Defenses empowers creativity.

The ugly truth about Subjectification is that we create our own versions of the truth more than we realize. Scientists have discovered that every time we access our memories, the process, in fact, changes our Thoughts.Thoughts can evolve or decline in importance, and our thoughts about our Thoughts become intermixed, which allows them to evolve in new ways. It is now recognized that memories diminish without emotional congruence or support. We see examples of how people improve their memories using emotional anchors to establish a fixed framework of reference. The filters of our Sensations, Feelings, Emotions and Thoughts all provide different perceptions about our experiences. Each individual provides his or her own perceptual framework, which is based on previous experiences. This teaches us that actual objective assessments are figments of our imagination. We learn how perceptions change with new inputs.

Subjectification is the attempt to close down our examination of experience so that we see things with a particular emphasis and priority. There is an unconscious hierarchy of what we consider important based on how we have denied ourselves. The more we are out of touch with what drives our need to know, the more likely this unconscious hierarchy defines our reality by default. This means that the more we Subjectify others, the more insecure and out of balance we get about what we know, which further amplifies our need to be self-important. Subjectification is the primary cause of ego-inflation. Although this can be amplified by Idealization, the source of the problem is our inability to see ourselves in relationship to others. The more we isolate ourselves and separate ourselves from others (as indicated by loneliness), the more we are at the effect of our Subjectification patterns.

We not only subjectify others but we subjectify ourselves by being entranced by our own Thoughts. This reduction in scope is further compromised by a dread that we cannot lose control of activities around us. In effect, what we are doing is pushing ourselves into fixed behaviors based on predefined Thoughts that compound our problems. This further reduces our connections to others. This illusion of control is proven false because our Desires exceed our ability to grasp what we want. Instead, we make grandiose predictions that tend to fall through because we were not able to anticipate certain problems. This is why Subjectification is a distortion or blindness, making it impossible to see or accept the Truth.

Subjectification is ultimately self-defeating. Knowledge is not direct power when it comes to working with others. This is particularly true as forcing others to follow our truth increases our own imbalances. It is these imbalances that prevent the application of Wisdom and Truth. We end up not being able to be present to our own Truth because we are so concerned about how others will interpret our perspective. The more forcefully we Subjectify others, the more resentment will be built, which diminishes the likelihood others will accept our knowledge. Greater consciousness must also come into play to identify when and where knowledge can be applied appropriately. Unless we can be present to our Truth, and engage both the emotional and intellectual aspects of it, communications will always be limited and unbalanced.

Any imbalance, withholding, or over-doing of knowledge diminishes the trust of others. As a result, others react and are not able to fully hear or comprehend the whole experience. This is why the most powerful speakers do not operate from fixed positions or try to convince others of their truth. It is enough that it is their experience. When Emotions and Thoughts are integrated and present, our Truth feels multi-dimensional. When the structure of an experience flows, it feels informative. To make our Truth complete we also need to disclose our Motives. Anyone attempting to manipulate through knowledge has to deal with the credibility of their experience and how it relates to the listener. Common Neutral Ground facilitates this sharing by preserving our personal space and establishing a neutral space for others (so we do not become self-conscious). When others respond, we can then respond appropriately.

Embodying our Truth becomes the primary way to clarify our path. Autonomy means being able to separate our experience from another’s. Without Autonomy, there is no way to operate in alignment together. At this level, where we are learning about differences, we are trying to neutralize Co-Dependence. Instead of going along with what others want, we need to question what is appropriate for us and speak this truth. Otherwise, our perspectives will be lost in the confusion. Emotions help us complete our Thoughts. They also empower our thinking. Not having a clear emotional response to our thinking minimizes the ability to enact our Truth. Autonomy helps us process our experience so that our identity has Thoughts and Emotions that are congruent and integrated.

Many see Subjectification as a game. The more we can prove how right we are, the more superior feel. Since there are very few rules in this game, we can lie, manipulate and deceive partners as long as we can justify that it is eventually in their best interest. The first deception is that we need them, but will only admit it when our romantic interests require it. This is why we never accept that we are co-dependent, or that it is in our interest to acknowledge others for what they are to us. Subjectification at its best is a shallow experience with incongruent Emotions. Mixed messages, in particular, result from Objectification being controlled by Subjectifiers. We learn that any response other than acceptance will provoke reactions. This uses up all of our energy and time. We learn to be successful and go along because we can have the benefits of some outer, seemingly secure relationship without a deeper need to connect. This success trap promotes pontification, political alliances, and blindsiding others by changing plans in the middle of a process. Like the Survivor television show, it becomes out-think, outwit and out-play your opponents.

The Success Trap is to believe that outward success is equivalent to inner success. Meaning that if our truth is not represented in what we do, we are in fact, the victims. The true cost is that all creative problem solving is minimized in favor of platitudes, meaningless arguments and top-down group think, such as social slogan ‘Power is based on knowledge.’ The real issue is that we do not own our thinking but by the people who tell us what to do. This does not mean that we cannot agree to go along with others for a specific purpose, it just means that we do not get lost thinking that others’ Thoughts are our Thoughts, or forgetting to think for ourselves.

Initially, the need to prove ourselves worthy drives us to find ways to make contributions needed by others. When this is done in a stressful way, it is egoic. When it can be done in a relaxed and consciously present manner it is our true Creative Nature emerging. One of the main things that build our egoic knowing is being able to see what others do not understand and provide the requisite knowledge. When this is done without presence, it becomes Subjectification. We can either elevate the truth of our Thoughts or the truth of our Emotions, but when we Subjectify people, it is neither. Since our Emotions and Thoughts are open-ended explorations where we choose what to validate, we can make mistakes and deny our truth, particularly when there is no agreement as to what is the source of our understanding. Fixating on Desires is a common way to see the world from a unilateral, self-centered perspective. The more we need to be right, the less we can learn. We begin to believe that power is about knowledge and information, when it is actually about our flexibility of either perception or creativity. What we need to see is that our natural truth needs no support or convincing to be accepted. We can validate our Truth by determining the degree to which it is whole and complete. This means it needs no personal ownership or justification for its existence. Since Defenses are the result of an imbalance between our masculine and feminine sides, we become whole and complete by giving up our Defensive positions. This allows us to choose partners with the same Defense, who no longer hide by using Defensive frameworks. 

The definition of the Success Trap is that the more we externally measure success based on others’ truth, the less fulfilling it is for us. The problem is that once we are compromised, others pressure us to compromise more, otherwise the will likely walk all over us. Over time, we lose track of who we are, trying to be what others consider successful. Many Subjectifiers just repeat themselves, not knowing how to explain themselves in any other way. They are either unable to grasp the Content or have a reduced Context that prevents them from seeing the big picture. Anti-Subjectifiers question Thoughts, particularly when they have a group-think mentality. Inventers particularly have difficulty listening or taking in Subjectified Content without spouting it back.

When we identify with Outer Success, we deny our Wisdom. The irony is that the more we are unbalanced between our Emotions and Thoughts, the more our insecurity about our truth pushes us to seek external power over others. In these circumstances, we assume certain Positions, and forget our previous uncertainty. We attempt to make our partners feel more secure by being uncompromising and dogmatic. Unfortunately, this just makes them feel more controlled and Subjectified. We are blind to the fact that this can actually be a detriment to the relationship. We elevate everything to the level of principles so we can maximize our Intensity. It also promotes a feeling of superiority over others. Using Intensity to push back others becomes our main way of protecting ourselves. Rather than thinking about Truth as an open discussion, Subjectifiers attempt to shut down discourse by talking over others. The way they accomplish this is by intimidating others who challenge their thinking.

Many times we initially experience Subjectification as children, making us more powerful Subjectifiers when we leave home. Sometimes we have considerable anger about not being listened to in our families, which drives us to be more strident about not being heard. This is a natural turnabout because we hated the experience of being Subjectified by others. Another trigger for Subjectification is the use of a particular tone of voice (or even sarcasm) when Subjectifiers become enraged or irritated. When children see that this approach gets others to back off, they tend to adopt it when they want to drive others away. When we are able to forgive others for operating arrogantly and see that they have little or no compassion for themselves, it makes it easier for us to be a calm voice in supporting them to understand how they negatively impact others. While they may not be able to get it, they do see how talking down to others reduces their willingness to listen. What is confusing for them is that they cannot feel the reactions of others because their own Defenses prevent them from taking this in. We need to be compassionate about the fact that they have no outward way of calibrating to the Emotions or well-being of others. At best, they learn by behavioral cues when things are not going right. From this limited subset, they make many erroneous assumptions because they cannot distinguish good connections from bad connections.

Intensity Indicates Incompleteness (Co-Dependence)

There are three ways we can use Intensity to Defensively motivate ourselves. We can Avoid, Co-opt, or Idealize Intensity. When we avoid Intensity, we amplify our selfishness and/or deny compromise by attempting to demonstrate our Power. We push others to define themselves in our terms, making sure they fulfill our needs as well. We also use self-pity and contempt to punish our partners by withdrawing or driving them away when we are scared of the change they represent. The whole idea of avoiding Intensity is to limit its use and using it as a last resort. We Co-opt Intensity by generating as much havoc as possible, so partners will not challenge any deception or insincerity. With this option, we constantly push others to keep them off-balance so they will not see what is really going on. We take positions, like entitlement, to convince others that what they believe must not be true. If this does not work, we delay using resistance or generate as much confusion as possible. When we Idealize Intensity, we introduce malice or anger by constantly reliving all the pain of the past. This comes out as extreme vigilance, overwhelming pride, snide sarcasm, and being extremely serious. We seek to make others pay for all past inequalities, falsely believing that this will make things better. When it does not, we can resort to shaming or blaming them. Subjectification is not dead until we realize that Intensity is an indication of insecurity that will not be resolved until we accept our complete Truth. This involves releasing positions that tie us to fixed perspectives. When we embody our resourcefulness and abundance, it is easier to forgive ourselves and others for previous violations. By this time, we also realize how we unconsciously violated another’s truth without fully understanding the consequences. 

When we Subjectify others, we consciously separate ourselves from them. Reducing understanding, shared concerns, or inclusive cooperation. As a result, we cannot see our own confusion, co-dependence, seriousness, resistance, self-pity, sarcasm, entitlement, pride, or contempt. We hide in our deception, compromise, anger, insincerity, selfishness and malice. As long as we continue to deny our Defenses, these dualities will continue to exist. What makes it more difficult is how we unconsciously attract others who will point out these deficiencies. For most of us, we get trapped, believing that our Defenses condemn us to isolation and co-dependence. We settle for what we can get (usually at the cost to our partner), not realizing there is a creative way to get beyond Defensiveness. All it requires is that we see and accept our partner in their difference so that we can work together.

Transforming Subjectification is about making sure that we do not use differences in knowledge to make someone seem less capable. There are also situations where we have been trained to be subservient and we want others to tell us what to do. Either one of these shows us that Subjectification is at play. For example, Dynamic Defense style individuals use the doubt of Disarming Defense style individuals or the fear of Distant Defense style individuals to impose their perception by providing answers that are the most available and rational options. They can be arrogant in their assumptions. Disarming Defense style individuals tend to be more covert in their desire to control, questioning the emotional availability of the Dynamic Defense style individuals. While suggesting to the Distant Defense style individuals that their argument is not clear, consistent, or lacks completeness, which will have them backpedaling quickly. In this situation, they tend to disregard what others say, recognizing that there are ways of manipulating the situation. Distant Defense style individuals know not to directly confront Dynamic or Defense style individuals so they can state something and ignore the consequences until the other person gives up or forgets to prevent it. This is why Distant Defense style individuals can Subjectify others, but more likely are those who are Subjectified by others.

When we pierce the veil of Subjectification by honoring our Wisdom and Content, we begin to see knowledge as a state of being, rather than an objective. The difference between Wisdom and knowledge is that with Wisdom, we are constantly giving birth to new possibilities, and with knowledge, we are trapped in our past. We come to recognize that our choices can trap us in our past, or open the doors to enhance perceptions. Using Pregnant Duration, time is no longer an obstacle, allowing us to unfold our knowing as and where necessary. We start to understand that there is a larger cosmic destiny built into our evolution so we are always finding solutions allowing us to continue to evolve even more. In relationships, this is currently showing up in neutralizing co-dependence so that we can be autonomous and yet be co-creative with others. Are we willing to make this choice? If not, we are doomed to repeat our lessons over and over, trapped in the isolating situation of being with people who do not get us.  Are we able to stand on our own two feet and accept responsibility for our future without getting caught up in Security Fears and Desires? If yes, we will accept that we created an optimum path for our development, and that all we need to do is affirm it.

When we are balanced between Thoughts and Emotions and present to our truth, Subjectification is neutralized and we can see the Attractions of others. We can also meditate by developing a relationship with our Truth. First, we learn that we are not our Thoughts, but that they are independent constructions. While some Thoughts are produced by us as a result of integrating and reflecting on our Modalities (Sensations, Feelings, Thoughts, Emotions and Intuitions) many of our Thoughts are either from the re-creation of the Thoughts of others or are reactions to them. As Pierre Teilhard de Chardin has suggested, “Many thoughts also live on as elements of a universal mind.” It is the Thoughts that we choose or create as a contribution that mean the most to us. While we can focus on Defensive Thoughts, and make these our whole life, it will greatly minimize the contributions and creativity we would naturally manifest. When we do not know better, grasping what we want increases our desire to Subjectify others.

When we are caught up in Subjectification, we do not deepen into our own Knowing, preventing us from clearly seeing our own Attractions and lessons. Every Attraction is a part of our lessons, which is how we grow and master our own experience.  Subjectification flattens our Attractions, so we fixate on reproducing the experiences without understanding their purpose or meaning. We become need-fulfillment mechanisms when we Subjectify ourselves and others, in this way everything becomes defined in terms of inputs and outputs. This causes us to distract ourselves in a fruitless search for Power and unbalanced productivity. We imagine that Power is being able to dictate what the priorities and objectives are, when actually we are defining ourselves in terms of how others can best serve us. This is personality manipulation at its worst. The irony is that in seeking greater Defensive Power we no longer lead, but rather follow, the path of least resistance.

The Purpose of Attractions is to Assist in Identifying Our Lessons

We free ourselves by focusing on Attractions and Lessons so that we can go beyond needing others in order to follow through. The hidden limitation of Subjectification is that the more we believe common knowledge (without personal experience) the weaker we are. Our natural strength comes from our personal experience and knowing, not the watered-down mentality of common, cultural interpretations and compromise. Paradoxically, most Subjectification is the result of misusing certain perceptions of what we believe to make others feel incompetent. As a Subjectifier, we confuse our perspectives with how others should think. As the Subjectified, we come to question why our perspective is so different from others. What this points out is that our patterns of thought are rarely similar. This is reflected in different attractions and lessons. Until we accept that others are different, both in Attractions and their way of knowing, we cannot effectively gauge what is appropriate (or inappropriate) for them. What is appropriate is engaging interdependent lessons.

When we operate in fixed, polarized Attractions, our future is stagnant. This is because limited, pre-set Attractions cut off our new Thoughts and Emotions. We then constantly recycle old Thoughts, Emotions and Life Lessons, falsely believing everything is the best it could be. Each relationship has its own natural set of Attractions, which means if we are looking for the same Attractions, and finding them, there is little or no growth potential in a relationship. Instead, we create greater co-dependence by choosing people with opposite Attractions, such as those with Innocence attracting those with Strength. Also contributing to fixed Attraction is that we seldom seek out individuals with the same Attractions. These similarities would create more non-Defensive relationships, which would be more intellectually and emotionally stimulating. The best solution is to not limit every relationship to any particular set of Attractions because we do not know how different Attractions could fulfill our larger lessons. Attractions could be a resource where we choose individuals that bring out the best in us, instead of those that confirm us as we have been. Another benefit of mixing our Attractions is that it opens us up to the light, wisdom and trust of our Intuition. This spontaneity is the primary indicator that we are leaning into our Attractions as tools for our growth.

Having a relationship that respects and esteems us is the secondary driver of friendship and romantic relationship. The desire to have a partner who will be there for us becomes the predominant way to weed out the quality of our partner opportunities. Usually one of us is playing into the Innocence game, while the other is playing the Strength game. What they both admire is the ability to speak their truth without reservation. The main issue is the stability of the relationship. So while Sexiness, Reliability and Smarts are important, we now seek someone we can intellectually engage who will become our ‘best friend’. While it always starts out with some degree of equality, the challenge is that we subtly, over time, make assessments about what we can and cannot count on in our partner. This can create Distortions in perception about who is in charge and who is ‘going along’. This leads to the mutual desire of working out agreements to see if there is a long-term benefit in being partners.

Some indications that we are caught up in Status Quo Contracts are the Attractions we use to engage others. The Attractions of Strength, Innocence and Personal Autonomy help define how the relationship is a commitment. The Attraction of Strength sets the stage for expecting others to respond to us. When we are strong, we see ourselves as defining our needs so that our partners know what is expected of them. The Attraction of Innocence allows us to hook others with our vulnerability so they feel needed by us. When we are innocent, we hope others will be caring and supportive of our own healing so that they will give us a break. The Attraction of Personal Autonomy helps us to trust that they will be able to identify what they want and see us as reasonable, consistent arbiters of what will make things better. We like partners who do not confuse us or are wishy-washy about their direction in life. Otherwise, we cannot count on them. What these factors have in common are ambition, criticism and courage.

The more we become conscious about our Attractions and the Attractions of others, the less we can Subjectify ourselves or others. Since Attractions are the basis of Lessons, and not everyone has the same Lessons, we need to realize that what is appropriate for some is not necessarily appropriate for others. Each level of Attractions indicates a different set of Lessons, which requires more consciousness to engage. If we are calibrating to the consciousness of others, we are no longer Subjectifying them. Instead, we are adapting to them and supporting them in the best way possible.

The Instinctive Layer of Attractions focuses us on Intent. The Intellectual Layer focuses us on the Content, the quality or the way something is being done. The Idealized layer of Attractions focuses us on the Context and the paradoxical aspects that need larger unification. It is not until we get to the Intuitive Level of Attractions, such as Aliveness, Wisdom and Awareness, that we are fully calibrating to others as equals. This is why we say that higher level Attractions conflict with Subjectification patterns that require us to lose ourselves in our Thoughts. It is also important to note that the Intellectual Attractions: Strength, (e.g. “They have to understand that I’m in charge.”), Innocence (e.g. “What? I caused that problem? No. I don’t believe so.”), and Personal Autonomy (e.g. “I am just telling my truth.”) are most often used as excuses for doing Subjectification.

Interdependent Lessons are present when we individually work to solve problems together. When we are locked into Defensive patters, anyone with an opposite point of view attracts and guides us to confront our needs. The more we seek security in our differences with others, the more obvious our co-dependence. When we acknowledge only half of who we are, interdependent lessons teach us what we are denying within ourselves. This shifts when we fully accept who we are, and choose partners that are similar to us. In this way, interdependent lessons become the primary reason to work together. When we accept who we are as a Creative Being, we see things from a positive perspective and build greater detachment from how others see us. This permits us to distinguish our truth from the truth of others and question any claims of an absolute truth.

We discover that many unquestioned absolute truths are actually cultural distortions that we want to believe because it makes our lives seem easier. For example, the perception that Knowledge is Power becomes a truth only because of its societal acceptance of being a truth, rather than its merit. From a less conscious perspective, it could be a truth for a certain group of people, but this wouldn’t make it the truth for more conscious people. It would be easier to make the assumption that all truths are relative, meaning some people would find them true, while others would not, then to falsely believe there is universal truth that everyone should believe. Subjectifiers could not function if everyone operated from relative truths. The more aligned our lessons, the less we are compromised by any relationship. This means that we need to overcome fixed opposite attractions in relationships if we plan to find partners that will be aligned with us.

Sometimes, we are able to get to Level 3 without becoming conscious and self-reflective about our problems and lessons. In this situation, we need to learn how to distinguish the levels and learn how to best respond in different circumstances. More importantly, we need to heal each level from the bottom up before we can live in a conscious top-down manner. Level 4 is where we take responsibility for our lives from living from our Creative Nature. What takes most of the time is unpacking the levels of self-identity around gender by talking about inner and outer beauty; around individuation by practicing telling our truth harmlessly; and around aspirations by experiencing our Goodness and by increasing our creative contributions. What confuses us most is the merging of multiple problems together when we do not possess the tools to separate them.

Page Author: 
© Copyright 2016, Larry Byram. All Rights Reserved.

Newsletter Subscription

Sign up now to get updates and event notifications, and you will immediately receive a Higher Alignment Mini Creative Assessment that summarizes the seven most important Compatibility Factors.

Go to top