To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/09/13 04:37
Subject: Re: [K-list] Reactions from the inner 2 yo. ... Melissa
From: Martin Thompson
On 1999/09/13 04:37, Martin Thompson posted thus to the K-list:
06:05:49 Mon, 13 Sep 1999
at SmilingjaguarATnospamaol.com writes:
>In a message dated 9/13/99 3:23:30 AM Central Daylight Time,
>martinATnospamtucana.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>> What triggers it with me is what seems like certainty implicit in much
>> of what you write: the unrestrained use of the "is of identity;"
>I don't see the need for qualifiers. It seems as though possibly you are
>uncomfortable with the strength of belief. That's not his issue. He's got
>the courage to put out his thoughts without regret on a list that can
>sometimes seem like an ocean full of hungry pirahnas. I respect that.
>
I have no problem with people believing things. It just irritates me
when the beliefs are written as if they were facts that apply to
everyone.
Strength of belief? Well, it may be an issue with me; I'm not sure. I
believe that all beliefs are provisional, including this one! Either
way, I'm not against CW or anyone else writing their opinion. I even
agree with some of it.
>> Perhaps you're tempted to ask me why I'm so down on certainty. Well, I
>> just find it unrealistic and disrespectful, I suppose.
>
>To find one's own truth and hold on to it is an honorable thing. To be able
>to share with confidence, but not absolute "this is how it is for everyone"
>is greatness.
And that is the point I was making. Leaving out qualifiers implies (to
me) that the writer is making a statement of "fact,"
>"this is how it is for everyone"
rather than a statement of opinion. Then, I see that it must be an
opinion after all: continual cognitive dissonance, again and again!
Maybe I need to retrain my inner reading machine to make these
distinctions more rapidly, before the dissonance sets in. Reading more
of such writing is bound to help.
Indeed, even when people are writing things that are what we generally
accept as "facts," it is fair to say that they probably are not facts at
all in many if not all cases. So even though on the conscious level I no
longer automatically believe what I read (as I trustingly did when I was
younger), that "reading and believing" circuit is still there, and gets
triggered by text written as if it was stating facts. Extra processing
is required to cancel it out. The extra hassle leads to annoyance, I
suppose. The function of the anger? To fix the problem, a) by
considering my approach (which is why I've said nothing for months: it's
not necessarily his problem) and b) by writing about it, when
appropriate.
> We all talk from our experience. Personally, I take everything
>everyone writes here as opinion or conclusion from personal experience, and
>subject to be different in us all.
I think that is a good approach and I do that in practice, but it
requires a double-check on my part when it isn't written that way in the
first place. I suppose that annoys me.
> The need for
>> respectfulness is obvious, but the need for realism perhaps less so.
>
>What is realism? To define that, you'd have to define reality, and for that
>I wouldn't put out my theories.
>
No; it just requires respect for other people's views (in my view).
> I
>> think that this Universe operates using a system of survival of the
>> fittest, and realism is therefore implicitly demanded by that goal. To
>> me, realism equates to truth, which I think of as very important for
>> everybody's spiritual growth (although the left-hand path is always
>> available too). Maybe that's just a personal foible, or do others feel
>> the same?
>
>But everyone's truth is different...so reality is different for everyone. In
>which case, we should all relax and realize that all we write, all we think,
>all we say are from our experience and our own quest for truth.
Exactly what I was suggesting with my talk of writing using qualifiers,
although your suggestion (which I interpret as advice to ignore the
issue) is more tactful perhaps. But CW asked Melissa a question, and my
thoughts on it seemed relevant, so I wrote. It isn't intended as a
personal swipe, just a comment. And I'm interested in hearing his view
too.
> In this
>there is no need or want for pettiness, or negativity. Perhaps the
>negativity is a result of a challenge to a personal block.
>
Who knows? Only me perhaps? Not even me at the moment, anyway.
>> I find your sentence structuring kind of annoying too: all those
>> ellipses or whatever they're called (...) instead of finishing the
>> sentences properly, using correct punctuation, or just leaving them out!
>> However, that's rather a minor thing and I can assume it is a stylistic
>> feature. I don't need to be a perfectionist these days. Much...
>
>Now, I'm sorry, but everyone on the net has been guilty of that,
> and it's not
>kind to criticize like this in fromt of 400+ people.
Fair comment. I just threw that in as an extra. As I said, I try to
treat it as a matter of style, which it probably is anyway, but I
haven't quite convinced my inner reading machine of this, hence my
comment. I'm not suggesting that anyone stop writing, or even
necessarily change their style: what is, is. It is just something to
think about, that's all. A possibility.
--
Martin Thompson martinATnospamtucana.demon.co.uk
London, UK
Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Free Regular Income: http://www.virtualis.com/vr/mthomps4/vrp.html
"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.