Re: [FairfieldLife] Does the size of one's ego equate to their need to argue?
Looks like you *did* get something out of TM... Let it go and take it as it comes. But then, maybe you've always lived that. I don't read enough Barry posts to know, but I have a feeling that post is going to generate a lot of arguing, LOL! From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 12:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Does the size of one's ego equate to their need to argue? I find myself pondering this in my writing cafe this evening, because as far as I can tell, given the extent of my eavesdropping French, no one at this cafe is arguing about *anything*. The closest anyone came to it was to have a minor dispute about which wine to order with their dinner, and that was resolved amicably by appealing to the gods of chance (flipping a coin) rather than by an appeal to authority or an assertion of My opinion about this is better than yours, and that's that. Yet on this forum (judging from the posts I skip these days but can grok the essence of just from their first words in Message View), some people not *only* seem to have a constant need to argue, they *also* seem to have a corollary need to portray anyone who *won't* argue with them as broken or defective or bad in some way. Go figure. From my point of view, the desire to argue indicates attachment. Period. Full stop. Those who are SO attached to their point of view that they feel the need to argue it and assert its dominance over other points of view are *attached* to that point of view. They *identify* with that point of view, and confuse it with who they are. But, to carry the rap one step further, the *need* to argue indicates a horribly corpulent ego, and narcissism...and one steaming shovelful of both. The *ultimate* expression of ego -- and the neediness that drives such people to assert their ego's supremacy over all others -- is IMO those who argue (literally) that anyone who isn't willing *to* argue with them *has something wrong with them*. From my point of view, that's completely backasswards. It's those who continually feel the need to assert their ego's silly ideas and beliefs as better or more valid than other people's who just might have something wrong with them. Such people really don't get it when they encounter someone who is able to put their opinion on a subject into one post, and then is *through*. If someone wants to reply to it and present a contrary opinion, that's just fine with them, but they don't feel any need to respond, or to defend their opinion. It *IS*, after all, just opinion. But some get SO attached to their ego's opinions that they come to believe that if any of them are challenged, that is somehow almost a challenge to their ego's existence. Can't have that. :-) Gotta try to badger such people into an argument, or insult them into an argument, or actually slander them into an argument, as some here have done. Seems kinda silly to me. Stopping my writing and eavesdropping again for a few minutes, I can tell that it seems kinda silly to the Parisians in this cafe with me, too. Compare and contrast to those whose words to St. Peter, when asked to relate their achievements back on Earth as an entrance exam to qualify for admission to Heaven, will probably have to be, I never once lost an argument on the Internet. Is that SAD, or what? If he's really compassionate, St. Peter will resist the urge to dispatch such people immediately to the other place, realizing that they've already spent their entire lives there.
[FairfieldLife] Does the size of one's ego equate to their need to argue?
I find myself pondering this in my writing cafe this evening, because as far as I can tell, given the extent of my eavesdropping French, no one at this cafe is arguing about *anything*. The closest anyone came to it was to have a minor dispute about which wine to order with their dinner, and that was resolved amicably by appealing to the gods of chance (flipping a coin) rather than by an appeal to authority or an assertion of My opinion about this is better than yours, and that's that. Yet on this forum (judging from the posts I skip these days but can grok the essence of just from their first words in Message View), some people not *only* seem to have a constant need to argue, they *also* seem to have a corollary need to portray anyone who *won't* argue with them as broken or defective or bad in some way. Go figure. From my point of view, the desire to argue indicates attachment. Period. Full stop. Those who are SO attached to their point of view that they feel the need to argue it and assert its dominance over other points of view are *attached* to that point of view. They *identify* with that point of view, and confuse it with who they are. But, to carry the rap one step further, the *need* to argue indicates a horribly corpulent ego, and narcissism...and one steaming shovelful of both. The *ultimate* expression of ego -- and the neediness that drives such people to assert their ego's supremacy over all others -- is IMO those who argue (literally) that anyone who isn't willing *to* argue with them *has something wrong with them*. From my point of view, that's completely backasswards. It's those who continually feel the need to assert their ego's silly ideas and beliefs as better or more valid than other people's who just might have something wrong with them. Such people really don't get it when they encounter someone who is able to put their opinion on a subject into one post, and then is *through*. If someone wants to reply to it and present a contrary opinion, that's just fine with them, but they don't feel any need to respond, or to defend their opinion. It *IS*, after all, just opinion. But some get SO attached to their ego's opinions that they come to believe that if any of them are challenged, that is somehow almost a challenge to their ego's existence. Can't have that. :-) Gotta try to badger such people into an argument, or insult them into an argument, or actually slander them into an argument, as some here have done. Seems kinda silly to me. Stopping my writing and eavesdropping again for a few minutes, I can tell that it seems kinda silly to the Parisians in this cafe with me, too. Compare and contrast to those whose words to St. Peter, when asked to relate their achievements back on Earth as an entrance exam to qualify for admission to Heaven, will probably have to be, I never once lost an argument on the Internet. Is that SAD, or what? If he's really compassionate, St. Peter will resist the urge to dispatch such people immediately to the other place, realizing that they've already spent their entire lives there.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Does the size of one's ego equate to their need to argue?
On 07/09/2013 12:31 PM, turquoiseb wrote: I find myself pondering this in my writing cafe this evening, because as far as I can tell, given the extent of my eavesdropping French, no one at this cafe is arguing about *anything*. The closest anyone came to it was to have a minor dispute about which wine to order with their dinner, and that was resolved amicably by appealing to the gods of chance (flipping a coin) rather than by an appeal to authority or an assertion of My opinion about this is better than yours, and that's that. Yet on this forum (judging from the posts I skip these days but can grok the essence of just from their first words in Message View), some people not *only* seem to have a constant need to argue, they *also* seem to have a corollary need to portray anyone who *won't* argue with them as broken or defective or bad in some way. Go figure. From my point of view, the desire to argue indicates attachment. Period. Full stop. Those who are SO attached to their point of view that they feel the need to argue it and assert its dominance over other points of view are *attached* to that point of view. They *identify* with that point of view, and confuse it with who they are. But, to carry the rap one step further, the *need* to argue indicates a horribly corpulent ego, and narcissism...and one steaming shovelful of both. The *ultimate* expression of ego -- and the neediness that drives such people to assert their ego's supremacy over all others -- is IMO those who argue (literally) that anyone who isn't willing *to* argue with them *has something wrong with them*. From my point of view, that's completely backasswards. It's those who continually feel the need to assert their ego's silly ideas and beliefs as better or more valid than other people's who just might have something wrong with them. Such people really don't get it when they encounter someone who is able to put their opinion on a subject into one post, and then is *through*. If someone wants to reply to it and present a contrary opinion, that's just fine with them, but they don't feel any need to respond, or to defend their opinion. It *IS*, after all, just opinion. But some get SO attached to their ego's opinions that they come to believe that if any of them are challenged, that is somehow almost a challenge to their ego's existence. Can't have that. :-) Gotta try to badger such people into an argument, or insult them into an argument, or actually slander them into an argument, as some here have done. Seems kinda silly to me. Stopping my writing and eavesdropping again for a few minutes, I can tell that it seems kinda silly to the Parisians in this cafe with me, too. Compare and contrast to those whose words to St. Peter, when asked to relate their achievements back on Earth as an entrance exam to qualify for admission to Heaven, will probably have to be, I never once lost an argument on the Internet. Is that SAD, or what? If he's really compassionate, St. Peter will resist the urge to dispatch such people immediately to the other place, realizing that they've already spent their entire lives there. My question to you would be why do you even care? Why don't you just ignore the arguing which what you've advocated in the past? Or is it that it was slow writing day and so you had to choose something to write about for your daily creative writing exercises. ;-) I'm on forums that I ignore whole sections or whole threads because they aren't of interest to me. The ones on movies and TV shows and particularly TV shows I only read the day after I've seen the episode for that show or I'll be wasting my time on people nitpicking over details until the next episode. Boring, boring, boring. Many of the spiritual topics on FFL read like TM didn't work for the majority but for some reason they still do it hoping to pop into enlightenment some day. Apparently it's more of a club thing and provides a little relaxation response. I saw the topic 10 Spiritually Transmitted Disease and thought who cares? For those enjoying experiencing enlightenment (regardless how they came by it) there is probably little to talk about since it is just an experience. Chopping wood and carrying water would be more relevant. But then I like to survey the mood of the net anyway and these days there is more tension growing. Maybe that is the real reason for arguing.
