Here's what Barry spouted about "holding court" in his other, longer post. Doesn't quite seem to fit with what Share describes as "generativity," does it?
You wanted to be perceived as "knowing" things that others didn't, just as you perceived that in the particular guy or gal at the front of your rooms, whether or not it was ever true. A part of you tried to convince other parts of you that you wanted this for altruistic reasons, to *help* people and assist them on their path to enlightenment, but if you think about it, there's a shitload of ego and hubris even in that justification. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emilymaenot@...> wrote : Sorry Share, I think what you spouted reflects, for one simple example, the ignorance of never having children. Parenting isn't an experience that can be transferred, so I don't fault you. I haven't read either of these psychologists, so can't comment on the context of what they were saying or how you've applied it to what Barry spouted. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emilymaenot@...> wrote : Don't kid yourself Share. What you've just spouted is all surface bullshit. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : What turq is calling "holding court" psychologists Erickson and Piaget called generativity, the passing on of one's experience based wisdom to the next generation. It's considered a natural stage of human development. The problem might be that on FFL we're all pretty much at that stage with no youngsters around to impart to! On Saturday, May 31, 2014 8:11 AM, "TurquoiseBee turquoiseb@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: From: "Michael Jackson mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> I appreciate the fact that Mr. Gilpin had no desire to become an object of adoration, a guru. Most people's egos would have made a different choice, no matter what kind of spiritual gauze they might wrap the choice in. I've never really understood those who want to "hold court" and sit on the tall chair at the front of the room, whether that seat be the Throne Of Swords or Maharishi's Sofa Of Sattva. My opinion on this may be colored by my reading of Shakespeare, where the perils of "holding court" are presented so well. It may be further colored by the fact that I've just started reading Christopher Moore's "The Serpent Of Venice," in which he reprises his character of Pocket of Dog-Snogging, known elsewhere in literature as Lear's Fool. The Fool is the *only* position in any court worth aspiring to in my opinion. He's the only one in the room who can speak his mind and yet (much of the time) be allowed to stay in the room. In my opinion, every guru should be forced to have a Fool on his or her payroll, and to listen to him. It shouldn't even be an option...more of a "required security feature," like seat belts. :-)
