> I'll > just say what I say and allow those I say it > about to react the way that *they* see fit. I > feel no obligation to "back up" any of my opin- > ions (because that is, in fact, what they are),
I am perhaps hopelessly naive, but I had assumed that posts are primarily about sharing and working out ideas -- and passing on and discussing news. A forum is not a blog. Blogs are more for monologues. Forums are generally for discussions. If one is throwing out ideas and has no inclination to enagage in dialog about them, then that, to me, says boatloads about what degree of depth a post has. That is, is it a momentary, mouth bypassing brain gut response -- or is it a well considered thought, reflecting some depth, and "pre-challenging" of the ideas by the poster. By the latter I mean -- has the poster critiqued his own ideas, looked at them from other perspectives -- worked them out a bit before posting. That doesn't have to be a lengthy process for a post. But to just throw things out there as "Hey, look at this new thing that just popped up inside my head! I have no idea if its any good, or has much truth value, but I do know that its truly art simply because IT is a thought that I had -- so it must be fantasticaly worthy". Just because one has a thought says nothing about how insightful, truthful or valid it is. I may be in the minority, but I confess -- everything that pops into my head is not necessarily golden. The mind has thoughts -- monkey mind at times. The intellect, experience, judgement help sift out low value thoughts from high value ones. If a poster is content to just throw what ever thought comes onto the forum without consideration, that's their perogotive. If they are not inclined to, even then, evaluate it further, discuss it, provide some background as to claims made (if claims are indeed made) then its a double whammy of non-consideration. The idea was not worthy of any evaluation prior to posting, and not worthy of any evaluation after posting. Whew! What smells in here? The non-separation of ideas from self is an interesting concept. If one posts an idea -- hopefully somewhat considered prior to posting -- and not just mind vomit -- the idea is not the poster. Well that's my view. Others, it would seem, may not distinguish the two. So a question about an idea is viewed as a personal challenge. My view is that the two are quite distinct. However, i can see the reluctance to address reactions, feedback, questions etc about an idea or claim made -- if one sees the idea as themselves. The ownership is so deep, they see no distinction between self and thought. (btw, This post is not a response directed at the original post, simply some (considered) ideas that the post has stimulated. I will be happy to discuss the content of my post with anyone and entertain different perspectives. If its a weak thought that I have had, better to figure it out now, than to cling to it for years.) --- In fairfieldl...@oogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Theorem: Anyone can say anything about you > that they want; that is out of your control. > What is *not* out of your control is how to > react, or whether to at all. It is my con- > tention that those who react defensively or > angrily to "protect their self image" have > the most self to protect, and the least Self. > > Take Marek as yer classic example of how a > person who is *not* heavily invested in his > self acts. Several people on this forum have > laid into him mercilessly; one threatened him > in real life. But as far as I know he has > *never* tried to "defend himself." In my book, > that indicates a lack *of* self, in its neg- > ative connotation. And it indicates a presence > of Self, in its positive connotation. Take > Curtis, who rarely gets involved in "defending > himself," and when he does, usually manages to > do so with humor. > > Now take a couple of other frequent posters who > shall go unnamed because there is no need -- > everyone here thought of them the moment I said > "those who react defensively or angrily." Then > mentally count up the number of posts they > spend each week "defending themselves." Now > extrapolate from that to the amount of self > they believe that they have to "defend." > > In case no one has noticed, I've been trying > not to defend myself. I've had many occasions > to, but I don't. I may in fact do my best to > portray those who spend the most time demon- > izing me as being as ridiculous as I perceive > them to be, in the hope that if enough people > laugh at them, someday they might learn to > laugh at themselves. And I may occasionally > give them "a taste of their own medicine." > > But I don't waste time trying to nitpick each > derogatory name they call me or "defend myself" > by disputing their claims. What would be the > point? Those on this forum who already dislike > me still will, no matter what I say. If I were > to waste time "defending myself," all that would > happen is that I'd be playing the game of the > people who want me to do just that. > > No way. I'll stick to "drive bys," thanks. I'll > just say what I say and allow those I say it > about to react the way that *they* see fit. I > feel no obligation to "back up" any of my opin- > ions (because that is, in fact, what they are), > or to argue about them incessantly, the way some > seem to want me to. If that's what they see as > a good use of their time, so be it. I'll stick > to expressing my opinion and allowing others to > express theirs in response. Or not, depending > on how much self they feel they have and how > desperately they feel it needs defending. > > And that's all I have to say about that. Lit- > erally, this being my last post of the week. :-) > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > I've rapped a few times about the tendency of some > > > spiritual seekers to mistake a feeling of strong > > > emotion for spiritual experience. This morning > > > over coffee, I'd like to rap about doing that in > > > public, and link it to the phenomenon I think it's > > > most similar to -- whacking off. > > > > > > Think about recent rants in which one of our resident > > > emotional jackoffs went on and on inventing fantasies > > > about about poor, victimized people and those who > > > prey on them. Now go back and read that same rant > > > and visualize him masturbating furiously while > > > writing it. Doesn't it fit? Doesn't it seem like > > > that's *exactly* what's going on? > > > > > > POT: > > Gather 'round children, and get a good picture in your > > head of Edg, jacking off and cleaning up after himself. > > (Ewww!) Now watch and be amazed as I, the biggest crybaby > > of all and master of irony, jacks off in public on FFLife. > > > > KETTLE: > > Pretend not to notice that Pot is desperately trying to > > convince you that Edg is just a big meanie for picking on him. > > > > GREEK CHORUS: > > Hey Pot, don't forget to clean up after yourself. > > > > > > > My theory is this -- if a spiritual organization does > > > not provide real spiritual experience on a regular > > > basis, it learns very quickly that to keep followers > > > on the line and contributing the big bucks it has to > > > give them something *else*. That "something else" > > > is often regular doses of strong emotion. > > > > > > The organization might do this in the form of "telling > > > stories" about the teacher or root guru, stories cal- > > > culated to make the followers feel strong emotion > > > about them. And, over time, the followers begin to > > > associate those strong emotions with real bhakti, and > > > believe that the manipulated pseudo-emotions they're > > > feeling were somehow spontaneous, and that they're > > > "growing in devotion" to the teacher or root guru. A > > > few might very well be, but IMO most of them are just > > > being manipulated as effectively as addicts of soap > > > operas are. "Ooooooh...Guru Noname walked on water...I > > > feel so uplifted and spiritual just thinking about it." > > > "Ooooooh...Genna is pregnant with Darin's baby and he > > > dumped her but she managed to overcome her angst and > > > saved the town from terrorists anyway...I feel so > > > uplifted." > > > > > > The thing is, after decades of being manipulated by > > > others telling you "uplifting stories" to stimulate > > > you into a sense of heightened emotion that you have > > > been trained to associate with "spiritual experience," > > > many people begin to do the same thing to *themselves*. > > > They start to tell these "uplifting stories" to them- > > > selves as a way of "jumpstarting" emotions that they > > > cannot feel naturally. > > > > > > Thus we get the phenomenon of "manufactured outrage" > > > we see so often here on Fairfield Life. Someone pre- > > > tends to be outraged about someone "lying," and rants > > > on and on about it for hundreds of lines of text, > > > jacking themselves up into a mood of oh-so-righteous > > > indignation and moral superiority. Or they accuse > > > someone of "predation" and do the same thing. Or they > > > call someone else an "anti-TMer" and do exactly the > > > same thing. The supposed "causes" of the manufactured > > > outrage vary, but the effect it has on the people > > > expressing the faux outrage never does -- they're > > > *getting off*. > > > > > > I'm presenting the notion that by doing this they are > > > essentially masturbating in public, indulging in > > > fantasies to jack their emotional levels up to the > > > point where they can convince themselves that they > > > can still *feel* emotion. And it is *SO* satisfying > > > to them to feel these emotions. Make up a story about > > > some poor woman manipulated by evil scum who make her > > > do Bad Things, and you can feel *SO* superior to the > > > "scum," and *SO* evolved yourself because you *care* > > > about the fate of this poor woman. Repeat with a > > > regular motion. Now grab a Kleenex and clean your- > > > self up and run the same number again next week. > > > > > > Feeling dull and gray and lifeless, as if your medi- > > > tation practice did nothing for you? Simple solution: > > > pick someone who has done something you can consider > > > "wrong" like...uh...say something positive about a > > > person you hate, and make up some stories about how > > > he or she is evil and use the story as a kind of > > > masturbation fantasy. It doesn't really matter who > > > the target is of the fantasy...it could be Sal, or > > > Vaj, or Barry, or Ruth...it could be the Dalai Lama > > > or Obama or pretty much anyone...their faces are as > > > interchangeable as the photos in Hustler that guys > > > jack off to on the toilet or the photos of Burt > > > Reynolds that *you* jack off to in your bedroom. All > > > that matters is that you can fantasize about them > > > and GET OFF. Again, when you've finished, grab > > > a Kleenex and clean up, while claiming "victory" > > > and saying that you "won." Uh huh. > > > > > > Call me a perv ( and I know that some will :-), but I > > > think of this act, repeated ad nauseum by those who > > > seem addicted to it, is *exactly* what I'm portraying > > > it as -- a form of mental and emotional masturbation. > > > The people who indulge in it are using fantasies to > > > manufacture cheap emotion in themselves and GET OFF. > > > > > > And, interestingly, many in the "audience" they're > > > speaking to *cheer* the emotional jackoffs for doing > > > this, and shout "Booyah!" or "Boy, you sure nailed > > > him/her/it with that one!" I have to assume that > > > after doing so they have to run for the Kleenex > > > box themselves. :-) > > > > > >
