--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Off World, I cannot read your mind. But I can read your words. Let > > me quote some back at you, and then maybe you can see why I might > > think you're mad, whether you actually are mad or not. Remember, it > > doesn't matter whether rage is coursing through your veins, it's how > > the world perceives you that suggests that maybe you and your > > enviroment are not exactly matching. Please try to understand that I > > am going through this motion for your benefit, not to punish you, or > > to make you feel bad, but to point out something in your manner > > which may really really benefit you in the future if you can grasp > > it. That is, whether you are mad or not, you are perceived as mad, > > and that limits the effectiveness of all of your arguments. I > > believe that you could get more respect through showing more > > respect, and this woould further your own desires. Again, don't kill > > the messenger. Here's some of your quotes just from the last two > > days: > > > > > > 4-26: "Sounds like your jealous." > > > 4-27: "Grumpy old fart, thy name is Sal." > > > "Why aren't you helping the poor and sick then ....hypocrit. You > > are > > > all talk and fantasy." > > > "I know you are very grumpy." > > > "Sure, like you met them Vaj. You are totally full of sh!t. I am > > > talking about IF, repeat IF, someone levitates. You have never > > seen it > > > and you are talking through your ass again." > > > "Yes, you come across as jealous. > > > Hari Om Tat Sat to you too" > > > "No they don't, because nobody dropped the A." > > > > > > Now, these might not sound so very angry each individually but > > anger stems from within, and usually is merely expressed when the > > situation is adventitious. Those who are not angry cannot be > > angered in kind, and do not respond in kind. At this very newsgroup > > are many very mature individuals such as but not limited to Rick > > Archer, LB, Vaj, Bob Brigante, none of which I have ever noted to > > react in kind to anger or act in anger at all. Their emotional > > maturity when confronted with obstacles has proven always to be an > > inspiration to me personally, as I am in no way as mature and wise > > as they are. > > > > > > Those who are not angry naturally feel no need to respond in > > anger even when others act angrily towards them. Turn the other > > cheek and all that. Now I have deleted posts older than two days > > but if I really wanted to strike the point home and I dredged up you > > old posts I'm certain that I could make a much better case. But > > again, this is for your benefit. And I hope you take note, and find > > the balance, as it could be the key to your, and my success. I can > > tell you I am a very wrathful person, and that's why I have no cash > > at this very money. My lack of success is merely my fault. Don't be > > like me. Get it together Babe. With Love :) > > > > > > No I think you are imagining things. There is no anger there. Good > > luck. > > > Its interesting that we tend to construct personality images and even > mental / emotional dynamics for others on the list -- most of whom we > have never met. If we all met at a FFL reunion, I speculate that most > would experience a strong discordance between our personal image of > the other, and the clearer "gestalt" of them upon seeing their words, > actions, expressions, interactions, in person, woven together. > > There are both some advantages and disadvantages in such non- corporal > interaction on a chat group. On one hand, by not meeting, we don't > have all the other visual and interactive ques about the person -- and > thus we don't stereotype on such. We don't make associations (often > weakly founded IMO) about the person based on appearance, sound of > their voice, smile, conversational response time (quick and witty or > more pensive), etc. For example, studies have shown that tall people > are often considered more as leaders, or more trustworthy, than > shorter than average persons. There is not much inherently valid in > such an assessment -- perhaps its a reptilian brain sort of response > -- or genetically lingers in us, harkening back to the days when the > biggest guy was a better leader because he could take out more of the > enemy. > > Research has uncovered a jungle of cognitive mistakes we make in > assessing others. There is A) what we see, B) how we interpret what we > see -- often quite flawed if the research in cognitive scinces is to > be believed, C) perhaps some intellectual reprocessing of B). A + B + > C = D = our impression of the other. Often, A is quite different from D. > > On the other hand, knowing a person solely by text, leaves a lot of > gaps in our image of the person. Many of us tend to fill in the gaps > with stuff -- often not rationally derived stuff -- just impressions a > person may give us. Probably related to one or several other people we > do know that wrote in similar tone, or held such opinions, or reasoned > in a particular way. Not particularly scientific. The monkey mind > just grabs on to stuff to fill up the gaps. Perhaps related to things > in our own lives and psychodynamics. Similar process to above, A + B > + C = D but now A is much smaller. We have just the words. And anyone > who has played with acting or rhetoric knows that the same words can > be read in so many different ways, the same words can be construed as > serious, funny, angry, satiric, crazy, insightful, soulful, rash, etc. > > So on one hand, just reading a persons words can be a more purer > exercise if we can avoid the pitfalls of filling in gaps with our > imaginative "monkey minds." Or at least become aware when we do and > attempt to farrot out such. With just text, and no gap filling, we > transcending the inconsequential markers that may prompt us to > classify people in certain ways that would occur in real life > encounters. > > On the other hand, without voice inflection it is more difficult to > cypher out tone from text alone. It often is there, but takes more > time and effort to see it. And it may take a series of the person's > posts to see the tone. > > Even then, I can often read a persons posts and "hear" many possible > tones -- mocking, fast banter reparte, anger, satire may all be > possible interpretations of any particular post. > > When I read off's post, there is sometimes a flavor that could be > viewed as anger. Over time, I have come to think of it as more locker > room banter "busting your chops" sort of thing. Or perhaps a british > wit the cadence of which others may miss. Or something else. Who > knows. What can we do, other than to take the person's word ("its not > anger") or see their writings in their larger context, or be open to > multiple interpretations. > > When I look at Off's words, as RJ listed, I don't see any dasterdly > explicit signs of anger. Its all stuff that seems mild and could just > be off-the-cuff banter. > > Why does RJ strongly see anger? I don't hold that everything is > projection, but that is one possibility. At times, I could intepret > more anger in RJ's words than Offs', though I sense more its sort of a > high energy rant jag he is on, not anger. > > Regardless, iwonder what use seeing too much emotions in the words as > written. Sure its nice to read passion and wit in a post. When its > clear its clear. But when too nuanced or jumbled, why make a judgement > call on a person's emotions? > > I know at times people have declared that I am angry, or that I have > an agenda, or other such grand insights. When asked to simple point to > my words that express such, usually there is no response. Knowing my > writing is more on the wit, satire, inquisitive, "getting to the core > of things" side, I know the perceptions of anger are incorrect. And > for the few that know in person, they know I am not an angry sort of > guy. Far more laid back and mellow. > > Yet its interesting if not good feedback as a writer/poster. If some > are misinterpreting words and tone so grossly, while the disconnect > may stem from something in them, surely its a good que to try to > tighten up my style. Make the wit or digging for deeper levels more > explicit. Pare away phrases that may have multiple interpretations. > And not jump so hastily myself as to another's internal state. At a > minimum, be open to multiple interpretations. >>>
>>>Be comfortable with not > classifying everone.>>> Yes. It is common for a few people here to classify me. Some call me TMO etc. Those that say this are far more TMO, even now, than I will ever be. But they cannot grasp that concept. They are also unable to read a statement without judging it and classifying my 'type' in a box. Let me once again state for the record. Even the TM-ex are more TMO than I have ever been or ever will be. Who among you can grasp this concept? Also, you will never see an insult from me that does not follow an insultat me. They tend to insult, then get all accusatory when I hit back. If anyone gets an insult from me, they should follow the thread back to see where they blatently insulted me first. (Although I notice some people's posts can never be followed to the thread they are responding to and criticising, which is annoying) Anyway, to sum up: If someone here gets an insult from me , you must have deliberately insulted me. Everyone here is more TMO than I will ever be . Finally: I am crazy, and I like it like that. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
