Theos-Talk Archives (December 1999 Message tl00101)

> NO, NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK.  JUST A DEMONSTRATION THAT I CAN WALK YOUR
WALK > IF I CHOOSE TO DO SO.  THAT NEVER REALLY HAD POSITIVE RESULTS FOR
ME, BUT
> LIKE YOU SAY, WE'RE ALL DIFFERENT.

"My walk" is apparently your walk. As with most that purport to follow
the "Golden Rule", it took but one post before you couldn't help but
give me your little "demonstration" - and, as with most, of course it
isn't a "personal attack", of course your motives and intentions and
feelings were only of the highest and purest, you were just descending
to show me you "could" walk my walk (this was in question?).

>AND IT STRUCK ME AS A BIT ODD  THAT THE
> FIRST POSTING YOU HAVE RESPONDED TO IN A WEEK'S TIME IS A POSTING
ABOUT
> *NICENESS.*  PARTICULARLY REMEMBERING THE LAST TIME YOU WERE SEEN IN
THE
> NEIGHBORHOOD.

Was in Seattle, then Silicon Valley, then launching a website. Don't
always have time to write to discussions lists. Not sure what other
lists you are on, but its rather common for people to disappear for
days, weeks, months at a time for no reason other than that they are
busy. In fact that is by far the most common reason for apparent
silence. These lists are minor periodic hobbies, not life.

>  JRC:  If this refers to my "JRC" ... then (as most on the list know)
my name is
> John R. Crocker. I don't "hide" behind my initials...
>
> WELL, AS I WAS NOT PRIVY TO THAT INFORMATION, THANK YOU FOR SHARING
THAT.
> PEOPLE SHOULD BE WILLING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WORDS, AND
THERE ARE
> TOO MANY OUT THERE HIDING BEHIND CODE NAMES.

Interesting that your first assumption - with no evidence - would be
that one. Is that how you'd like people to "treat you"? Assume the worst
intentions? Is that a demonstration of the Golden Rule you suggest we
all follow? Then what the devil is the difference between initials and
names? Its every bit as likely that "Maureen" is ficticious - a name to
hide behind - as JRC is. Weird, however, that I, nasty bastard that I
am, never even had it occur to me to question your identity, believe you
weren't who you say you are, or imply you'd want to hide behind a false
identity simply because *I* happen to disagree with your ideas.

The "held accountable" is also interesting. Sort of implies that these
are ideas I'd want to distance myself from (no one hides their identity
from ideas they're *proud* of). I can't wait for you to "hold me
accountable".

> JRC:  And simply don't think my personality is that important anyway.
?JRC

YOU DON'T THINK YOUR PERSONALITY IS *IMPORTANT* ANYWAY?  WELL, THEN, HOW
DO YOU
RECONCILE THESE CONTRADICTIONS:

1. All available evidence shows that we are, and a fairly fundamental
level, a
race that *grows through conflict at the personality level*.

YOU PROFESS TO SEEK CONFLICT AS A MEANS OF *GROWTH*  - AT THE
PERSONALITY LEVEL,
NO LESS.   HOW DOES THAT SQUARE WITH YOUR ASSERTION THAT YOUR
PERSONALITY IS NOT
THAT IMPORTANT?  ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT YOU DON'T FIGHT JUST TO
FIGHT,
AND ARE NOT USING  THAT *GROWING* CONCEPT AS A FRONT?

Wonderful interpretation of those words - but not my words - nor my
meaning. (If you're going to hold me accountable - try holding me
accountable for what I actually said - not for your own interpretation
of it ... *you* are responsible for that). Didn't say I *seek* conflict
... said that conflict is an observable *fact*, a part of the human
condition since our earliest days, and that growth happens as a result
of it. And further, that what at the *spiritual level* is growth, often
at the *personality level* appears as conflict. Fight just to fight?
Why? Sometimes I fight, often I don't fight ... but I don't priviledge
one as being superior to the other. What I *did* say - clearly and
several times, is that I refuse to *avoid* conflict, and that when
others *avoid* conflict that they genuinely feel, it doesn't go away -
it just comes out in all sorts of subtle ways (as, for instance, cute
little shots that are called "demonstrations" - geez, talk about a
transparent "front").

JRC:  For our *spiritual* levels to grow and flourish usually, if not
always,
*requires* discomfort, sometimes *serious* discomfort, at the
personality
levels.

I REPEAT MY PREVIOUS COMMENT.

And I repeat mine.

WELL, I WISH I HAD MORE TIME TODAY, THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT I COULD
POINT OUT.
I AM EQUALLY COMFORTABLE (AND EXPERIENCED) ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PLAYING
FIELD,
WITH A MODERATE PREFERENCE FOR CIVILITY.  OUT AND OUT NASTINESS?  I HAVE
BETTER
WAYS TO SPEND MY TIME.

As I attempted - clearly unsuccessfully - to point out, your definition
of "civility" may actually (can you believe it?) not be shared by every
person, race, culture, and philosophy on earth.

Better ways to spend your time? Perhaps - but if you are still capable
being nasty, still *feel* those sensations, hold those inner states, and
you not only try to avoid them, but even insist everyone else follow
your practice of avoidance, in order to conform to your definition of
civility - then no ... there may *not* be better ways to spend your time
than to experience it.

<<Hope you have a great weekend.. And thanks for the opportunity to
grow.>>

AND THANKS FOR THE ALL CAPS POST! -John Richard Joseph Crocker