Grate Swan, I do both here. I blog, and also, I comment with the hope that I can get clearer about where I stand and where others stand when our poems are distilled for concepts.
But the main reason I read the posts here -- virtually all of them -- is to be daily astounded by the utter individuality of each nervous system. Astounded means: how could they not be like me? And this question can only be answered: "um, they are like you; open your eyes wider." It isn't about their debate skills, and it isn't about the POVs, it's about their spiritual travail -- that's where my identity flows into their posts. To me, each person is yet another personality I could also be trapped within just as I am now presently "doing a life sentence" for the crime of "believing I'm an ego." How strange each stranger is, yet how like me that we are each facing the same spiritual challenges. Truth be told, Nab and Off are my peers in almost every spiritual analysis, and any differences fade to being mere aspects of the veneers with which we lacquer ourselves. Note that the light coming off of, say, an orange, tells us that the orange is every hue BUT orange. The orange colored photons are reflected off of the orange -- the rest are absorbed as "like in kind." An orange is not orange. Just so, when we see what's reflected off someone's mind when our mind shines on it, do we get to understand, if we but consider it a bit, that most of our light is absorbed by the other mind....for, note, how little of our posts are reflected-rejected. E.G. Where we find Turq rejecting any concept about predation, we find him largely absorbing almost all our other radiations. He doesn't reject the meaning of individual words we use. His interpretations of our posts' definitions and usage are in harmony with our dictionaries. He doesn't reject our posts as uncommunicative, and insists that he's been truly informed about our POVs by our posts. He takes us almost wholly within, ya see? He surrenders to the validity and authenticity of our posts as "data about our minds." We never see him questioning if we "really mean" what we post. See? He welcomes us into his home and only asks that we leave outside on the mat those parts of us he regards as "muddy shoes." If not for our shoes, he's already there steeping tea to serve us with an overflowing heart. That's the spiritual take I have of Turq -- just like me, he can accept almost anything from anyone -- except for those damned shoes. That sure looks like my ego-cell. There's the bottom line of FFL: that we can have so much in common and yet feel such anomie. In Asia, I would walk down a street that was a sea of black haired heads undulating about chin level with me. Speckling my view were the heads of westerners -- they seemingly swimming almost fully immersed in that sea. How instantly I identified with each face. In a shop, if two westerners we next to each other, it was a gimme that they'd speak to each other - if only to find if they spoke one's language. Just so, if by happenstance any of you found yourselves encountering any of you, would not the first experience be attraction? Meaning: a worthy object of consciousness? If some voodoo allowed me to be a fly on the wall of your house, I'd try it out. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There's a difference between discussing ideas for > > > > > the fun of springboarding off of another's thoughts > > > > > and arguing about those ideas. Curtis understands > > > > > the difference...discussions with him are almost > > > > > always really discussions. When he engages in one > > > > > of them with even the most compulsive gotta-turn- > > > > > everything-into-an-egobattle poster here, he > > > > > generally tries to avoid being sucked into the > > > > > game, and exits the scene as soon as she turns > > > > > it nasty and confrontational. Marek does the same > > > > > thing, as do a few others here. > > > > > > > > She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named and Curtis have interesting > > > > discussions defending their POV. A disagreement with a > > > > POV is a debate, not an ego battle. > > > > > > We must agree to disagree. > > > > > > A debate *IS* an ego battle. By definition. > > > What else could believe that its point of > > > view was "right" enough to debate it with > > > others. > > > > > > > Fifty people can have fifty POVs. > > Including 50 POV on the meaning of "debate". (well 60 POV if you include all > the voices in my head). One contextual meaning of debate stems from "debate > team". In that process, one team, upon a coin flip, is called upon to defend, > or put forth the merits of one position, the other team the other. If the > coin had been heads and not tails, Team A would be debating, defending, > making the case for, expounding the merits of the other side of the question. > In that context, "debate" is hardly an ego-bound POV that will be defended > to the death. the position is long-lived until the judges proclaim "Switch!" > Lawyers do the same. The ytake a case. They may have their own opinions and > POV. But they argue the merits of the case for the side they represent. > > But the main point I believe is beyond semantics. Whether we use the term > discussion, debate, exploration of ideas, exchange of views, the underlying > phenomenon is to the degree ones personal value, self-esteem, world view, etc > is challenged and destabilized by a counter POV. On a debate team, members' > personal value, self-esteem, world view are not challenged and destabilized > when the other team presents its best case. A lawyer personal value, > self-esteem, world view is not challenged and destabilized when the opposing > counsel presents his clients best case. If any thing is challenged -- and I > argue even that should not be -- it is ones self-esteem regarding ones > analytical skills, factual knowledge base, depth of conceptual thinking, etc > when faced with a better counter argument. That, to me is an opportunity to > learn, Or at lease admire as you (Raunchy) have done with Curtis and Judy. > > However, if ones personal value, self-esteem, world view, etc is tied > integral to ones POV, then a counter view does become a threat to ones > internal appraisals of self-worth. And when this happens, fireworks often > ensue. "The mothership is being attacked, this is life and death situation, > all hands on deck, damn the torpedos, full speed ahead, this is a fight to > the death!" > > And it can be glorious entertainment to watch such fireworks, to see the > personal ego under attack and see the contortions, energy signatures, > emotional frustration and intellectual hoops of dishonor such a challenged > sense of self-esteem will pursue to infuse life back into the battered soul > clinging to a dying, gasping POV. > > > >The person who can put forward the best defense of his or her POV is more > >believable and has less ego involvement than the person who puts forward an > >indefensible ego driven fantasy and defends it as "opinion" because his ego > >is too frail to debate. > > > > What is curious is the POV that the output of ones mind, ones opinion, is > beyond reproach, beyond discussion, beyond modification. "I had the thought > damn it, it must be right. By God it IS right! And it is not subject to > refinement or expansion". I think that's a classic description of a > reactionary. > > On the opposite side of the spectrum are those who see their opinions and > POVs as works in progress, something yet to be shaped, polished and perhaps > discarded when a large crack is found in the midst of an -- up to that point > -- elegant marble portrait. >
