--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" > <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > I love a good quote and I heard a good quote along the lines > > of "people have the strongest opinions about the things they are > > least sure of" but didn't want to post it without finding who said > > it, I didn't but found these gems instead. > > > > http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/opinions/ > > > > Well, I thought they were good, but as usual I'm always happy > > to be wrong ;-) > > Yes, thanks, nice quotes. > > I was thinking perhaps the degree of vigor, passion, absolutism > (absolute certainty), and steadfastness of ones opinions are > directly proportional to the degree to which the idea, concept > or fact is a central part of ones identity.
Bingo, although I would phrase it, "...to the degree to which they cannot *distinguish* the idea, concept, or fact *from* their identity." When someone gets their buttons so pushed by someone challenging an *idea* that they believe is true, pushed enough to react as if someone has attacked *them* personally, that person IMO can't tell the difference between his or her ideas and who he or she *is*. And that's fairly sad in my estimation. > The identity will fight ferocously when its under attack. Or when it *believes* that it's under attack. Even if the only thing being challenged is one of its ideas. > Or when there are not fall back elements to identity. Bingo. As long as one is convinced that one is a self, and is unaware on a daily basis of Self, then there is no real "fallback postion." IMO, the stronger a person reacts -- *especially* if they do so with anger -- to one of his or her *ideas* being challenged, the further way from realization of Self that person probably is. > That is, if identity is composed of 20 intertwined factor, > and one loses one, no big deal. The other 19 re-adapt. But > if identity is wrapped up in 1 or 2 or 3 main things, and one > of those is under attack -- and there is threat of > loss, then its a huge deal. Bingo again. You have just described the mindstate of the spiritual True Believer. > Or if identity is being, an indivisible, infinitely flexible, > always shinning, then there is no potential for loss. Same > thing if identity cannot be found. I think I agree here, even though I'm not completely sure what "shinning" is. Is it fun? Maybe I should try it. :-) > On Turks points, I notice some (all of us at times) write as > if "IMO" is strongly implied and inherent in what we write, > but others read it as absolutist statements overflowing with > arrogance. IMO, Its clumsy to repeatedly write "IMO", but > sometimes its necessary. And it seems to be *more* necessary when someone has made a thirteen-year "career" for herself of claiming that almost everything you write is a pronouncement aimed at "exalting yourself." :-) > Just as the silly smiley face. If one needs to explain a joke, > its not much of a jok in my view. Does a "jok" have something to do with "shinning?" I loved hugheshugo's quotes. Because Judy's gotten her buttons pushed again and reverted to "If nothing else works, criticize Barry's writing" mode, here are a few of my favorites on editors: "The relationship of editor to author is knife to throat." -- unknown "A good many young writers make the mistake of enclosing a stamped, self-addressed envelope, big enough for the manuscript to come back in. This is too much of a temptation to the editor." -- Ring Lardner "LUMINARY, n. One who throws light upon a subject; as an editor by not writing about it." -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary "An editor should have a pimp for a brother, so he'd have someone to look up to." -- Gene Fowler
