Re: theos-l digest: December 15, 1999
Dec 29, 1999 02:11 PM
by Maureen Fitzgerald
Alan- you better take a pass on this one......
On 12/29/99, ""JRC" <email@example.com>" wrote:
> Starting was also your decision.
All things I do are my decision. (Wait, make that most.) But where was it
said I was addressing *you* I didnt see *your* name at all. Gee whiz,
all this from my little ole post to Alan?
> Quite common tactic of people who absolutely insist their point of view
> is right and who get angry when others don't accept it.
Wow, thanks for letting me know how common I am. Sure wouldn't want to
feel special or like some kind of individual. I don't insist on
(much less absolutely) anything. Outside of work requirements,
who am I to say? And angry? It would take a little more than this. I
mean this isn't even *real* time.
> The underlying assumption in claiming *anyone* is "in denial" is that *you*
> know what they should be focussing on, you know what concepts they 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".
Through all those little exchanges with Kym you were in continual
denial... But I just know you don't want me recapping all those. Or
> > Doesn't matter who addresses him,
> > he just takes the words and throws them back.
> And this, I presume, is your version of "stopping"?
No, I think it's my version of a slow news day.
> >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.
Even the one in China, oh Guru?
> 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) ...
You're great with the selective memory. Barely remember! Hardly.
> with the assumption that you were being refered to in one of my posts (when > you weren't) ...
Ditto. Gee, thought I was writing to Alan.
> and the nice little sentiment that I was wrong, and that this was
> something for me to deal with.
Where did I tell this invisible "you" that you were wrong?
> 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.
> Er, care to read the post that *started* the last exchange?
Er, I love it when you *Er* it's getting to be a real trademark.
> > 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
> > argument? What does that accomplish? An opportunity for aggressive
> > posturing?
> And this post of yours, then, is your way "finding common ground"?
I admit there is but a very faint possibility of the two of us finding
ground, but never say never.
> 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"?
Because you have the gall? Puhleeze, if this was jump-started again, it
is for your very inability not to have the last word. In fact, I
double dare you not to respond to this post. Dare ya, dare ya. I do
so rarely get to indulge my inner child, I thank you so much!
> >(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.
Truthfully, I don't rightly know what the "real issue" is. One issue is
that I don't understand why you couldn't have apologized to Kym wait
back when for all your rudeness. It wouldn't have taken that
> *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.
Ahhhhhhh, his memory mysteriously comes back. And in such detail too.
Hynotism, perhaps? But no- what you wanted to put forth was my
"utter childishness" in even bringing up the"golden rule," which
neither one of us seems to be following at the moment anyway. So a
lot of good that did.
> 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
Ha! Scintillating psychological analysis! Sorry- I get *such* a kick
, 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.
KNJ, KNJ, KNJ, when will you ever learn?
> I have no idea, as of yet, who you are or what you are like.
Ditto. And that is likely not to change since it is apparent that we
very much rub each other the wrong way.
> 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 -
No, I didn't. And you should be quite happy, as I recall you saying you
considered *new learners* IDIOTS. I'm so happy I didn't ruin it for
> Guess what? If you had responded to my post about experiments involving
> angels, we'd now be talking about angels. But you didn't ...
Mea culpa, idiot that I am.
> 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
*You* were the first to tell me I was avoiding. In fact, the very
of my tendency to avoid is the source of all this. Congrats!
> 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 ...
Made it a point to do so. Actually, it does not sound like the you *I*
have seen. Something must have happened to you and you're
working out your issues
here. See how easy it is to turn things around? Reminds me of a book I
once "A Thousand ways to lie with a piechart." Oh, my.
Alan is right, though. We should stop, it is non-Theosphical, and
probably very boring to everyone else.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application