--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Just curious Turq. Are your posts intended to inpsire and > > uplift Judy? Are your posts a reflection of grace and dignity? > > I ask you becuase in several nice posts you tried to inspire > > us to do the above. > > > > I guess its that stupid consistency thing -- where "A View" is > > "Any thought is good 'in the moment' but damn that thought if > > a day or two later 'I' get a different one that totally > > contracticts the 'great thoughts' of the prior day." > > > > Some people claim that is (towards) enlightenment. Some people > > say its signs of a petty, frivilous or unstable mind. > > And some people obviously believe that people who > do not bow to the god of consistency are fair game > for a putdown. As someone wisely said, "Consistency > is the hobgoblin of small minds." I wish you lots > of fun with your favorite goblins this Halloween. :-)
Actually, what Emerson actually said in Sef-Reliance, one of my favorite essays, is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." You may think that i)making an emphatic appeal one day that posts should be dignified, graceful, and aim to uplift the poster, and then ii) shyte all over a poster the next day -- has no relationship and its only a "Foolish consistentcy" -- then more power to you in your glorious POV and philosophy. I hope it serves you well. I don't find such a foolish consistency but an major inconsistency of an intellect taking a vaction. See below post. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/118575 > BUT, to home in on your first paragraph, yes, some- > times But a minority of times it appears. Mostly it appears to be meere spite and malice. Surely you can do better Turq. > my jibes *are* intended to present to Judy a > different way of seeing her self, in the hope that > someday she might be actually able to *see* her > self in a different way than the way she clings to. > It hasn't worked so far, but that's no excuse for > not trying. :-) > > ("Disturbing the peace" and bothering the other folks > here, on the other hand, *IS* a good excuse for not > trying, so I'll try not to do so as much in the future.) There we go! > The thing is, people just don't *respond* to posts > that cause them to see things a different way than > they're used to seeing them, *until they are ready > to do so*. So why be such a head to wall-banger? > IMO, it's the reason Rory stopped banging > his head against the wall here. He'd try to offer a > different way of seeing things to people, and they > would respond either by 1) using it as an opportunity > to slam him, or 2) by ignoring the new point of view > that he introduces and using it as a jumping-off point > for arguing incessantly about their old, tired point > of view. Its quite a huge leap between pointing out another point of view, and trying ot force poeple to adopt that view -- and being highly disappointed, even angry and spiteful, when they don't. That appears to be your MO. Not very productive for you or the "one needing mind-alteration". >You vascillate between 1 and 2 IMO. Thank you for your opinons of what you think I am doing. Actually, my interactions with Rory go way back before you joined the list. You caught the tail end when my approach to continued obfuscation and diversion became more "creative". A main aim in my posts is to point out logical, cognitive and/or factual errors as a means to share a differnt POV for them to consider. While its not solely charitable, I do it as an exercise for myself. I find it brings greater clarity as to the subtle nature of many such errors, and makes me more aware and able to avoid them in my own life and thinking. > I understand his decision to lay low until people are > a little more ready and willing to consider different > concepts and points of view other than the ones they > have clung to for decades. Every so often I throw out > a "test post" to see whether anyone is willing to > discuss a point of view or model that is *completely* > different than the ones they are used to repeating > over and over and over, ad infinitum. many of use are using models quite different from the ones we had 30 years ago. The difference between us and you perhaps is most of us don't try to jam such views down others throats, nor to we pout and carry on wehn our POVs are not immediately embraced by others -- and others don't proclaim how wise and clever we are. ButI wish you well on your chosen path. > I made one of those posts yesterday. I did so because > someone who doesn't post here often made a few comments > on Gangaji that suggested to me that he was approaching > the mystery of his time with her in a rather limited > fashion, trying to squeeze the round peg of his exper- > iences with her into the square hole of hypnosis. From > my experience, I suggested another way of looking at > the same experiences, one that *is* (IMO) uplifting > and positive, and neither worshipful nor cynical. > No one replied, except for a passing mention from > Curtis, before diving back into his existing way of > looking at such phenomena. So it goes. Actually I read [some] of it. As for either view, I was not that interested, but actually bookmarked curtices, with yours linked, to review later if I had the interest. Many posts go unresponded to. Many people read, I presume, and may go "hmmm", but don't have time or don't have anything compelling to add, so they don't. Far better than thsoe who feel the need to comment on every post regardless of how compelling thier points may be. > I do one of these "serious" posts every so often, just > to see whether anyone *will* reply, and we can have > some fun discussing something new. And maybe your "deep thoughts" are not very intersting or profound as you think. Have you ever considered that other POV? And why are yous o disappointed at such. Or the response? Are you seeking and missing the "applause"? If so, yuo might want to consider such as a value, goal and sourse of motivation. >In recent months, > the only person who does with some regularity is Tom. > That may just indicate that we're both just crazies > who appreciate each others' brand of craziness, but > it's nice every so often to see that someone *notices* > that a slightly different paradigm has been introduced. Yes, it can be. Maybe try another list with people who think like you so you can self-reflect against each other. > The reason I'm mentioning this is that you seem to > have this goal of getting me into a head-to-head with > you, No interst in that. Just my habit to point out the logical, cognitive na factual errors. For my on edification. And perhaps helpful to others. Since you find no value in such, just skip them. I seek no interation with you. You bore me actually. And your posts are quite predicable. But thats me. I skip most. But sometimes something catches my eye, often from quotes in others posts. >and treating you as if you have a formidable > intellect that I should enjoy interacting with. Nope. But since you "see", that, do you think perhaps that is what you seek? > But > from *my* point of view, usually all you do is blather > on about the same old same old, concepts that you've > thought about and argued about for decades. I rarely > see any indication that you are actually open to > different ways of seeing the same situations. Then you don't read very carefully. But that is abundantly clear from your posts, when you comment on others posts with little cognition of what they actually wrote, on the page, not in their head. > If I'm wrong about this, read message #118509 and > reply in good faith and I'll give you the head-to- > head discussion you are obviously so desperate for. No need. But you can write your self to get the approval and applause you seem to desperately seek and crave. > But PLEASE stop trying to goad me into the same old > tired discussions just because you're not tired of > them yet. OK, King and Lord of all goaders. > Repetition may be the mother of retention > and all that, but dude, some of us out there are > not *interested* in retaining old, tired concepts > and discussing them endlessly. Except when they are your old and tired concedpts I suppose. If yuo don't like my posts, simply skip them. As you often advise others to do. Its not a rocket science concept Turq. I am sure yu can do it. >We're more interested > in finding new ones, even if they're only new to *us*, > and having fun with *different* ways of looking at > things. So am I. One reason i hang around here is I pick up new ideas, models, and info. 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
