Theos-Talk Archives (December 1999 Message tl00320)

> Alan- So long as you know stopping was my decision.

Starting was also your decision.

> As much as I would like
> to make you happy, I can't pretend otherwise.  The point is, if I'm
going
> to play word games it may as well accomplish something, teach me
something.
> Your pal there is so far into denial there is not much reason to make
an
> effort.  I've seen it time after time.

Quite common tactic of people who absolutely insist their point of view
is right and who get angry when others don't accept it. "You're deeply
into denial". I have no doubt you've seen it time after time. As AA
members see thousands of people all over the world "in denial" about
their "alchoholism". And Bradshaw followers see anyone that doesn't
agree that every family is dysfunctional as being "in denial". The
underlying assumption in claiming *anyone* is "in denial" is that *you*
know what they should be focussing on, you know what concepts they
should accept, *you've* done an analysis of them and decided they should
be examining a particular part of their character and adopting a
particular point of view about it, and if they don't they are
(obviously) "deeply in denial".

> Doesn't matter who addresses him,
> he just takes the words and throws them back.

And this, I presume, is your version of "stopping"?

>That's all it is- words,
> words, words. Words that say nothing. He uses words to build a wall.
>Takes your words, paraphrases a little, and tosses them right on back.

As your tactic is to come to conclusions about people's characters based
on virtually no knowledge of them at all, save the way they deal with
you at a particular moment, in a communications medium that hardly shows
anything other than a mere fraction of who people are ... telling people
"its your issue", and "you're in denial" ... and the entire world full
of pop psychology buzzwords ... builds walls as high as any on earth.

If you are just playing around, taking a few random little shots at me,
then yes - I'll hold up a mirror. Quite intentionally. Tell me, what
*should* have I done, in your view? Just agreed with you? Said nothing?
You brought up no topics ... only came out of the blue and responded
(for some reason) to a series of post from a couple of weeks ago (I
could barely remember what it was even about) ... with the assumption
that you were being refered to in one of my posts (when you weren't) ...
and the nice little sentiment that I was wrong, and that this was
something for me to deal with.

> Really tough feat.  He won't address the issue, the content (with
women anyway.)

And precisely what content am I not addressing? Simply because someone
does not agree to speak within the context you want, or accept your
assumptions, or agree that the way you are framing something is the way
they want to frame it, certainly does not mean they aren't "addressing"
an issue - it simply means, again, that you aren't getting your way. We
all are perfectly free to frame things however we want choose, and to
address whatever issues we each see to be relevent. You haven't
addressed any of *my* issues either. But I won't accuse you of sexism.

> What will be next- he'll start to diagram the damn sentences?  As far
as
> I'm concerned, all this "arguing a point" stuff he gets caught up in
> deflects from what I thought was supposed to be happening here.

Er, care to read the post that *started* the last exchange? Care to look
at *the one this is a response to*? Who is "starting" things here.
Again, how *SHOULD* I respond to this post? Say nothing? Agree with your
bizarre psychological analysis? How would *YOU* respond if someone wrote
the same thing about *YOU*?

> Brotherhood, Sisterhood, Fellowship and so forth can result when
people are
> able to find common ground and find ways to cooperate.  Tension arises
> naturally on its own.  There is no need to seek it out. When it
arises, you
> work it out.  But to intentionally create it to jump-start a jolly
good
> argument?  What does that accomplish?  An opportunity for aggressive
macho
> posturing?

And this post of yours, then, is your way "finding common ground"? A
weird little exchange (that began with a post by you) had ended - who
precisely has "jump started" it again here? *Me*, because I actually
have the gall to *respond* to your portrayal of me that is just dripping
with "brotherhood and sisterhood"?

>(And what do you bet he jumps all over that Brotherhood,
> Sisterhood thing?  Thus evading the REAL issue where he is concerned.)

And do tell, what *IS* the "real issue"? If you want to have a
discussion - a genuine discussion -then tell me what it is exactly that
we are talking about.

*My* point of view ... a couple of weeks ago ... was that the *road* to
brotherhood and sisterhood was not through avoiding conflict, nor
believing that its establishment was composed of imposing some American
middle class concepts of what nice, polite discourse is. I even tried to
back that up, talked about the history of people using the concept of
the "golden rule", was *attempting* to start a discussion that called
into question some universal, but in my view error-ridden assumptions
about the *means* of pursuing universal brotherhood and sisterhood.
You've completely blown this point off ... focussed instead on
interpersonal issues, have privileged me with a couple of analyses of
what is wrong with me, accused me of avoiding issues, being in denial,
and aggressive macho posturing (which your current post is positively
full of - you don't need to be in a male body to be aggressive and
macho), all the while *starting* the very sorts of arguments you claim
to want to avoid, and only stopping when I won't listen to you taking
shots at me without continually responding.

I have no idea, as of yet, who you are or what you are like, I've only
seen a few posts of yours - none of them building any strong case for
any particular point, nor introducing any topics that have to do with
Theosophical literature, or mysticism, or comparative religion, or
esoteric thought. In fact, I've tried (as I periodically do) to
introduce a couple of different subjects for discussion ... having to do
with experiments that are part of a day to day expression of the 3rd
Theosophical Object, and only Chuck (who also pursues such things)
responded. You didn't - but you *do* seem to seize upon little
arguments - starting and re-starting them (at the same time as you
complain about them, and accuse me ...).

Guess what? If you had responded to my post about experiments involving
angels, we'd now be talking about angels. But you didn't ... you chose
again today to focus very particularly on a scathing analysis of my
character based on an utterly superficial knowledge of who and what I am
... simultaneously castigating me for being macho and not seeking
brotherhood and sisterhood, and writing a post pretty much guaranteed to
invoke a response, to cause the sort of discourse you claim to want to
avoid.

-JRC

PS. Since you've apparently taken it into your head to invoke gender
issues ... and have decided to imply in a couple of places that I am
sexist - perhaps you'd care to read an article I wrote a couple of years
ago, and that Alan posted on his website. One of these days you may
actually realize that you've jumped rather too quickly to some
conclusions ...
<http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/pcorrect.htm>