--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > I have actually written, on this forum and on others, > several times now, of one of the things I do almost > religiously with my posts. Once a month or so, I go > through all of them and reread them as if the person > I had been talking to was myself. I've been doing this > for years now. I've learned much from this.
Sure can't tell you've learned anything from your posts, Barry. You've been doing the ranking thing for as long as I've known you. It's always been the *foundation* of your approach to discussing spirituality. <snip> > Anyone here who has been a part of the TMO who says > that they *can't* identify with this is IMO indulging > is self deception or lying. Here you're ranking others by whether they do or don't identify with it. > Me, I've tried for almost nine years now, since beat- > ing feet from the last cult, to *get over* some of > this feeling of hierarchy and one's place in that > hierarchy, to *get over* the sense of superiority > and "best-ness" and being "more evolved" that was > programmed into us for so many years and decades. And here you're ranking yourself above those you perceive not to have "gotten over" it. > Do I have a greater degree > of respect for these people than I do those whose > reaction to this very subject coming up for discussion > is to either deny that they do it or to point fingers > at someone else and say, "Yeah, but they do it, too." More ranking. > More evolved/Less evolved. More honest/less honest. > CC, GC, UC/plain olde waking state. Enlightened > people who can do no possible wrong, and whose per- > ceptions are always accurate because they have > evolved past the things that would cloud their > vision, and who are in tune with the Laws Of Nature. > Ranking systems all. Another ranking system: Those who rank versus those who don't. > Your perception of the *language of spirituality*, > and its usage as a form of ranking system, got me > thinking about how to recognize it. One of the ways > that's occurring to me is how someone reacts when > someone else here says something about them that is > *very* contrary to the way that they obviously see > themselves. We've all seen folks who react by...uh... > reacting, and get all huffy and defensive about it, > or by actually attacking the person that they believe > has attacked them. But we've also seen a few great > examples of folks saying, "Yep, that's me. Or another > part of me, at any rate." I can't help but think that > the latter just might be displaying a tad more wisdom > and insight. Or, possibly what someone else has said about them is accurate, as opposed to being off the wall. That doesn't make them "better," but it > sure does make you want to share a beer with them > more than you might want to share one with someone > who reacts by going postal. Barry. This is just as much ranking, just as much saying they're "better," only without using that word.
