I usually gloss over such "you said this, you meant that, you said this 100 yeas ago" sort of discussions. For me, I find little value in them -- but if they are of value to others, then wonderful. We are all working stuff out -- and if this is a path for some to work out their stuff -- consciously or not, who am i to judge.
And I went into detail yesterday -- and it was useful for me. I find I have various values that appear naturally. And I find that, occasionally, its useful for me to try to articulate them -- and this actually solidifies them. Having spoken them out -- they become a "voice" within -- a rememberance that silently feeds into my intellect -- giving it a better set of software code from which to operate. But I don't plan to do it again for a while -- if ever. And, I appreciate feedback. I paused before I sent the, IMO, gentle mocking of raunchy -- thinking this may be taken in ways I didn't intend. So feedback helps calibrate my sense of appropriateness for different audiences. In a post on batgap that I saw, Peter said when called on a prior statement, "I am such a pitta-bunny" -I can relate. Impulses, knee-jerk reactions arise -- that doesn't mean they need to be acted on. (The book ACT -- Acceptance Committment Therapy help me to better understand this. Indeed , my talk on the book (maybe off, but its what I got out of it) is that a lot of our thoughts are not worthy of faction -- just a lot of garbage being unwound. Similar to thoughts in meditation I suppose. My take is, however, that if people do act an these impulses -- and if its a good path for them to work things out -- its more useful to be nice about it -- and not yell at people and call them names. However, like primal scream therapy, I suppose even doing that is useful for some at certain times. And thanks for your nice comments. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sun...@...> wrote: > > My 2 pence worth. Tart, here is my observation, accurate or not. I always > enjoy your comments, and find your participation and Curtis's participation > generally high points in a discussion. But then I observe both of you getting > dragged into, (what I view, at least)petty arguments. Then after a couple > weeks, it appears that you, (and Curtis), get exhausted, or worn out, and > absent yourselves. Maybe I have less invested in the group, and therefore > just don't have the time, or take the time to indulge in the nuances of what > someone said, what they meant, what they might have meant, and on and on. > But I guess as it says on the title page, "take what you want and leave the > rest" > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Boy, every time I think the reek of hypocrisy > > > > > couldn't get any worse around here, somebody jacks > > > > > it up a notch. Sal's putrid emissions in the past > > > > > week have been so nauseating they make one want to > > > > > reach for the gas mask. But she was building up to > > > > > a grand climax that tops all her previous excretions > > > > > with this attack on raunchy. > > > > > > > > > > I'm going to go take a bath, see if I can wash off > > > > > the stench. > > > > > > > > > > tartbrain, you didn't do yourself any honors either. > > > > > But at least with you, it's an aberration rather > > > > > than your SOP. > > > > > > > > I try (its not really an effort) to be nice to everybody. I try to stay > > > > away from remarks that I know will rub people the wrong way. And I > > > > think its a nicer, funnier, caring environment -- with more insights > > > > shared -- and more laughter -- when people don't spend half their posts > > > > bashing others. > > > > > > > > Sometimes, through hyperbole, gentle mocking, and all, words can sort > > > > of shock some people into a recognition of how harsh their words are -- > > > > and that they are really not consistent with their values. A > > > > self-realization. It can be a great trigger -- without confrontation. > > > > I have had it done to me -- and find it helpful. > > > > > > > > > > Brain, why, do you think it's O.K. to slam me for using "harsh" (but > > > truthful, IMO) words to criticize Sal and not slam Sal for using mean > > > spirited sarcasm to criticize a new guy? > > > > My intent was not to slam you. I didn't take Sal's post as a slam. > > Particularly since marc seemed to be a one time spammer/bot. Not really a > > new guest. And as I have said, I took her post as a bit of self-effacing > > humor -- self being the group. That many didn't see any humor in what she > > posted prompted me to ponder about the when TMO forgot how to laugh (or > > laugh less). > > > > > > > > You assumed you knew what my values were with respect to TM based on a > > > stereotype that "real" TM'ers (whatever the hell that means) are too pure > > > to criticize anyone. > > > > Not so much. I am not a "TMer", Ru or movement person, etc. But I still > > have an affection for certain values that MMY put out there. Speak the > > truth that is sweet -- I think is a great standard. My first impulse is not > > always along those lines -- but a part of me, or circumstances, tend to > > remind me of it -- and it makes me aware -- "yes, there is a better way > > here." Actually, you seem like a nice person -- I like your poetry riffs > > and all. I was pointing to an alternative way that I thought might be part > > of your value system. It was playful. > > > > >I get the feeling that you imagine "pure" TM'ers have an air of > > >superiority > > > > First, I don't really stereotype people -- at least not rigidly. I sensed > > you had a TMO background and "speak the truth that is sweet" might still be > > in your value system. I don't really hold any other TN related deeply > > engrained assumptions or pre-judgements about you. > > > > And generally, I don't try to generalize too much about a large group of > > people -- whose entries and exits from the TMO spans 40 or more years. > > There are lots of folks in that group. There are some that appear to take > > themselves pretty seriously. As there are in other groups. But I don't > > tend to to try to pile a high a bunch of characteristics that apply to > > everyone in a group. There is a huge amount of variation between people. I > > enjoy the variety. > > > > >and you view such people with disdain. > > > > Nope > > > > > That's why I don't buy > > > > > > I am not selling anything. > > > > >that you now say your excuse for mocking me is that you were trying to > > >help "trigger" my self-realization. > > > > Bad choice of words in my part -- I was getting a concept of "inner > > personal recognition" seeing some split between actions and values. And I > > reread my words last night and I see they have a bit of bombasticity to > > them. For me, often first drafts -- which is mostly what I send -- just off > > the top of my head riffs -- lack the subtlety that may come from a more > > considered piece of writing. > > > > And words can be read in so many ways. I can read my post in a dripping > > with sarcasm, heavy, dense put down way. And I can read it in a quite > > light, gentle mocking (like I do with friends and they do with me) sort of > > way.) My intent was the latter. > > > > And at times, I read someones post and think "WTF -- what an asshole". Then > > I read it another way and it seems funny. I tend to choose to interpret > > things in the more positive way. A great story for me is when Kennedy got > > two quite conflicting messages from the Soviets -- during the Cuban > > missile crisis. He chose to act on the positive on, not the negative one. > > And possibly saved the world from a massive nuclear war. > > > > On a smaller scale, I always have the choice of how to read words -- what > > tone to assume from them. I tend towards re-reading words directed at me > > (not my ideas presented) until I get a tone that is on the brighter or > > humorous side. And while its likely thats how the writer actually meant it > > -- even if their intent is a scathing insult to me, there is no need for me > > to get stuck in that rut. I don't nee to play that game. I can interpret > > the world in so many ways. I tend to interpret it in positive ways. Hardly > > Pollyannish -- and I may be failing to clearly articulate the nuances of > > what I am getting at. > > > > > No, you were simply defending Sal > > > > I was not defending sal, just as I don't attack people. I was defending her > > post. > > > > > because you thought her cheap shot at the TMO was funny. > > > > I din't take it a a shot at the TMO -- but rather us -- as a group. > > Group/self effacing humor. And I don't really care if Sal meant it in a > > mean-spirited way (I don't think she did) But if she did, I don't have to > > play that game. > > > > > > > So it isn't surprising you ignored her bad behavior and zeroed in on me. > > > > I am not about joining sides. There appears to be some pretty strong > > barricades of sides here -- and a perpetual lobbing of mortar fire, > > grenades and napalm. I don't choose to play in that game. I wave a white > > flag and wander around both sides -- having interesting conversations. > > > > > > > > Maybe Marc *was* just trying to sell a few songs. So what? He would have > > > found out soon enough that this is a tough sell crowd. Who knows if he > > > might have had something interesting to say? Rolling out a welcome wagon > > > loaded with barbs is no way to make new friends. > > > > > > > Its a group. Many responses to marc. Would I hire Sal as the single welcome > > wagon person to greet new people -- probably not. But taking all the posts > > together, I think a new person gets a better flavor of the group than if > > only from one person. A massala of views. A wonderful churna. Tasty. > > > > > > Sometimes serving up someones values, in a bit of hyperbole, makes the > > > > person laugh and and think "oops". Other times it can rub people the > > > > wrong way -- not my intent but it can happen. I don't really know > > > > Raunchy -- I have read few of her posts -- so I was probably off base > > > > and presumptive in assuming her to have sort of mainstream ru values. I > > > > repeated some of those values, in exaggeration, thinking it was a bit > > > > funny -- certainly not mean. If Raunchy felt she it was an attack, > > > > mean-spirited, then I am sorry. > > > > > > > > > > Apology accepted. > > > > > > > I remember when I first came on the list -- you said something I took > > > > as harsh and I said, "thats uncalled for". But you explained your > > > > intent, I laughed -- neither of us launch armagedon -- and I think we > > > > have had a nice rapport since. > > > > > > > > And as I said, I found Sal's post a bit funny -- and that it reflected > > > > a group with a sense of humor. Others surely disagree and have > > > > alternative senses of humor. Wonderful, its a big world, lots of room > > > > for lots of views, perspectives and styles of humor. > > > > > > > > But you are right, its not my SOP, but an occasional path I go down -- > > > > in a good-spirited way. And I found it a funny -- It made me chuckle a > > > > bit. And if I am viewed as a chuckle head for it by some -- wonderful. > > > > I can play the fool -- anytime and gladly -- if that makes them smile. > > > > > > > > > >
