--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > If it weren't for the by far greater number of spiritual > > > > seekers who do NOT fall into this trap and become fanatics, > > > > the few who *become* fanatics would stand as a blanket > > > > condemnation of spirituality and the spiritual path itself. > > > > Fortunately, the balanced, sane followers of spiritual > > > > paths are more numerous, and represent well the same > > > > traditions that the unsane fanatics make a mockery of. > > > > > > Barry's shoot-the-messenger demonization > > > tendencies are brilliantly on display in this > > > post. And note that his rant represents the > > > identical us-vs.-them kind of polarization he's > > > decrying: reasonable people vs. "fanatics," > > > sane vs. "unsane." > > > > > > Fanaticism, unreasonableness, and "unsanity" > > > exist at the extremes of both sides of these > > > issues. In between there's a wide range of > > > views, but there's no such middle ground for > > > Barry. Distinguishing between shades of gray > > > is "hard work" that it's just too much trouble > > > for him to undertake. > > > > > > Barry Wright, Master of Inadvertent Irony. > > > > Yep, he is someone who is only comfortable in a black and > > white world. The fanatics of which he speaks only exist > > in the comfort of his unenlightened mind, where he creates > > them in order to have a false foundation from which to make > > sense of an illusionary world. > > > Uh, Judy and Jim... > > I'm trying to understand why you're reacting so > strongly above to what I wrote. Did you somehow > think that I was referring to YOU?
Actually not, since you had recently made it clear in another (admittedly bizarre) post how amazed you were and how shocking it was that Jim and I would be willing to express an opinion similar to that of the folks you designated as "the crazies." That in itself was odd, given how insistent you had been up until that post that Jim and I were "unsane fanatics." But apparently the post represented a new "state of attention" that, while it meant you had to give up the "fanatics" line of attack, opened up the potential of a whole new line of demonization in which Jim's and my integrity and "values" could be called in question because <gasp> we were willing to risk a guilt-by-association smear from you by taking a position also held by the "crazies." In any case, whichever side of your us-vs.-them formula you choose to place me and Jim on any given day, *my* point was the formula itself and your need to put people on one side or the other. It was a "strong reaction," in other words, to yet another manifestation of your tendency to project your own behavior onto others and then proceed to demonize them.
