--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Turq,
Interesting that you should write this today. This morning, prior to
your post, I was thinking about several of your past posts where you
indicated various reasons why you post, and/or what exemplifies a
worthy post. And we share, in concept, similar views on these
motivations or impulses. These self-declared motivations (in contrast
to the Karnack-lick mind reading o others motivations) include:
1) Figuring stuff out, for oneself, through writing. Writing forces a
simple discipline that "big thinking" can miss. I view creation and
refinement of POVs, understandings, and most of life, as having
expansive and contraction phases. A Hegelian sort of dialectic. A
scoping out/brainstorming/no boundaries phase -- and then a
refinement, polishing, fitting the thing back into the boundaries of
the world so as to be functional. These two phases are symbiotic.
"Walking on the beach", most of us have similar pastimes, for me is
often a time for an expansive phase. Looking "outside the box" -- or
perhaps more accurately, being outside the box and looking in -- and
out. Expansive frame -- without rules and boundaries, not constrained
by the past -- or future. A good place for big, new unconstrained,
unconventional thoughts to arise 9becasue I certainly don't create them).
The other part of the cycle is the contraction, solidification,
road-test, refinement of the big ideas. Often via writing. Writing
forces one to think through an idea logically, systematically. And the
editing process -- rereading and rereading ones stuff, allows one to
critique, and re-evaluate things, filling gaps, and most of all,
removing the fluff.
Chicken or egg, the process can start from either side. And I have
found over the years, FFL, as well as many other sources, provides a
target rich environment of "things that just don't seem right -- but i
can't quite articulate it". Or, "thats an intriguing concept -- lets
take it out for a spin and see how it takes cornors"
To "figure it out", for me, is the primary impetus for my posts. That
post, can then seed the expansive phase -- where by the necessary
form, structure, logic or writing, can have its walls kicked out,
remodeled, expanded, connected to other things. Then a refinement and
contraction phase via writing. An ongoing cycle.
Posting the writing phase, instead of tucking it in a drawer, can be
a means to provide feedback. Not the goal of the writing, but a part
of the process. Often the feedback can be quite sparse. IMO, the
richness, depth, insightfulness and good nature of the feedback, is
not as strong as it was say in 2004 -- and the "golden years" of FFL.
Amongst others, LB Shriver, Phil Goldberg, Vashti (sp), Mark Merideth,
Peter, Rick, Tom, Vaj, Dana Sawyer at times, Rory -- in some of his
posts, and a number of others, enjoyed fairly respectful, funny,
incisive, exchanges. Not devoid of some of the negative aspects of
the forum that have grown loud here, but much less than today.
A key elements, as I recall (perhaps in glossed-over memories) is that
feedback on an idea, bouncing an idea around, contributing, was a
major attribute -- and had little to do with self-confirmation. (A
dynamic somewhat parallel to Turq's description of the two polarities
of people on the beach.)
Self-confirmation, the lack of it then, more of it now, characterized
by things including i) attacking others -- in contrast to (then)
providing a fair, considered, counter point to IDEAs (not people), and
ii) defending oneself -- in contrast then to vigorously defending and
taking stewardship for an idea , and 3) inflexibility of POV vs
looking at things from many POV's without attachment to such, without
a strong stake in the ground mapping out ownership positions.
But regardless of the value of feed back, then or now, the real value
in working through a post is is in getting the Ah ha! of it. For
oneself. No self-confirmation necessary. Instead it s more like, "Its
not MY idea, its just a POV I have taken out for a spin, kicked the
tires, and in open source style, contributed to and collaborated with
others on. I have taken temporary stewardship for the idea or POV,
not permanent ownership of it, not territorally staking out as
exclusively mine by pissing a boundary line to stake out some realm of
self-confirmatory real estate in the mind sphere. Its an open source
exploration -- not tied to self-identity or self-value"
At the end of the day, one might tenativly adopt a POV way different
from the starting point. And I say tenativly because the POV continues
to be refined and tested against the world.
2) A second theme you have mentioned in the past, one I applaud, is to
figure out ways to uplift others, not tear them down. Quite rare, but
a nice target. I have, I think we all have, gone down the snarky,
satiristic, sarcastic, irony, and/or contradiction-watch road. All
part of working it out, IMO. Working out stuff inside of us, impulses,
past conditioning, no longer relevant stuff, seeing it is low value,
and discarding it.
Sometimes we have gone down this snarky path for good reasons
(self-sense of (quite warped)) humor, to get people to respond gapping
contradictions in their posts. And not so good reasons -- spite,
anger, maliciousness, ego boosting ("if I can show they are bad, ergo
I, who oppose them, is good", and self-confirmation "I am RIGHT! and
you are WRONG!" which can lead to "Admit it" ==> "ADMIT IT!" ==>
"ADMIT IT your scathing dog of a human being!" ==> worse.
I don't remember Seth Cohn -- though the name rings a bell -- though
our paths at MIU apparently intersected a bit in time. But he appears
from the descriptions to be the rare kind of individual that often
perhaps always uplifted people -- in real, down to earth, humorous
good-natured -- non "blissy" ways. Thats a good role model, IMO, a
good target for ones posts -- and all interactions. Jerry was/ is like
that in many respects. A target often, early on, discarded on the
dusty, dry shoulder of the road. Rare -- particularly in myself -- but
we are never too old or calcified to adopt new frameworks.
I venture that the "Seth" energy to uplift others -- while still being
insightful, funny, real, and per one's nature -- is far more
liberating than energy focussed on spiteful vilification of others.
What I draw form Turq's equation below, perhaps off key from what he
meant, is that indentity with a set of tight boundaries --
individuality -- is the opposing side of loosened identity, or lack of
identity with boundaries.
And the more we defend those boundaries, the more we identify with
them. The more we let go of those boundaries -- by foregoing
self-confirming bashing of others, though self-depricating humor, by
finding ways to uplift even when it "hurts" (that is one needs to step
aside ones attahcment to a set of boundaries) -- the more boundaries
dissolve.
> "The sum of the energy a person puts into defending
> his or her self is equal to or greater than the sum
> of the energy that person puts into fighting their
> own selflessness."
>
> In mathematical terms:
>
> e(defending the self) => e(fighting enlightenment)
>
> In layman's terms:
>
> "When it comes to self, don't excuse it, lose it."
>
> I cognized this theory today while walking my dogs
> along the beach. I cognize many of my weirdass theories
> while walking along that beach; there must be something
> Vedic about it. :-)
>
> Gazing out at the beach, I noticed once again how easy
> it was to tell the locals from the tourists. The tourists,
> male or female (and the latter, topless or not) were vis-
> ibly expending a great deal of energy looking around to
> see if people were watching them, and if so, what these
> people *thought* of them. You could tell from the expres-
> sions on their faces how *important* it was to them what
> these strangers thought of them. Most of their energy was
> being channeled into "pushing it out," projecting a weak
> shakti field, trying to *influence* what these strangers
> thought of them.
>
> The locals JUST DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT what anyone
> else thought of them. Most of their energy was "pulled in,"
> reserved for having a nice day on the beach. The most
> beautiful person I saw on the beach this morning was a
> 35-ish woman, *very* pregnant and wearing only a thong,
> playing on the beach with two of her other children,
> both girls, both as topless as she. Shemp would have been
> horrified; he would have made speeches about "inappropriate."
> I *loved* this woman. Not a single erg of her energy was
> being expended in caring what the people around her thought
> of her. She was just being herself, and thus stood out
> as the most selfless person on the beach.
>
> Then I walked on, watching my dogs and their interactions
> with other dogs. Same thing. Same expression of the theorem.
> Some dogs trotted along, in their own world, just enjoying
> a good walk for itself. Other dogs felt the need to snarl
> at other dogs and to guard their territory as if this public
> walkway along a beach really *was* their territory. Do I
> need to tell you which of the sets of dogs appeared happier,
> and seemed to be enjoying their walks the most?
>
> Then I came back home, deposited the dogs in the garden,
> took my computer and settled in at my favorite seat in
> the new cafe next door to my apartment. And, for the first
> few minutes, I watched the people out for their traditional
> Sunday Stroll. (Sunday Stroll is a big thing in Spain.)
> And here, too the theorem seemed to be in effect. Some
> strollers just strolled, in their own happy spaces, smiling
> and joking with the people they were walking with, and they
> JUST DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT what those of us sitting
> in cafes watching them walk past thought of them. Others
> put MOST of their energy into "pushing it out," *trying*
> to get us voyeurs to focus on them, and to appreciate their
> new designer outfit/shoes/breasts/whatever. Again, do I
> need to tell you which group seemed to be enjoying their
> walk more?
>
> And now I'm writing a rap for Fairfield Life, knowing from
> long experience that this theorem of physics is in effect
> here, too. I'm presenting the theorem as the basis for an
> experiment that other posters can perform, an experiment
> in perception, as it were:
>
> For the next week or so, as you read the posts on FFL, pay
> attention to where the poster's energy is directed. Are they
> "pushing it out," trying to defend themselves or their
> beliefs, or are they "pulling it in," seemingly in JUST
> DON'T GIVE A SHIT mode, either ignoring negative
> "takes" on their self, laughing at them, or best, laughing
> with them?
>
> Make a list -- mental or physical...doesn't matter. On that
> list, make two columns: "Defends his/her self" and "Doesn't
> give a shit." As you read each post, analyze its energy and
> put a checkmark in the appropriate column by that person's
> name.
>
> When you've gathered sufficient data, look at each column and
> think about how the people in each column "rank" on your own
> personal scale of "evolution." Which group seems to be most
> self-realized, or just happier? Which group tends to write
> about their cool experiences Here And Now, not just memories
> from courses and retreats long past or the last time they saw
> Sri Soandso? Which column seems (in your opinion...no one
> else's) to have the best shot at enlightenment and non-
> attachment to self, if such a thing exists?
>
> If you perform this little experiment, and find my silly
> theory valid, cool. If you perform it and find my silly
> theory invalid, cool. If you don't do it at all, cool.
> I don't give a shit.
>
