This post was a troll.
I could just sit back and see who responds to
it, and how. But instead, for a change, rather
than allowing everyone to project into the post
what they believe my *intent* was in posting it,
I will spell it out for you. It was a troll.
It was a "generalized rant" not just about the
arcane subject of film criticism, but about what
I perceive as the fundamental difference between
two approaches to spirituality, and to posting
about spirituality on Fairfield Life.
The *intent* of this post hearkens back to an
earlier post of mine, in which I compared FFL to
both a playground and a battleground. Some who
post here clearly perceive it as a playground.
When they post, they *rarely* declare their
opinions "better" than other people's, or "more
correct," or "more authoritative."
Others -- and I do not need to name them, because
you knew exactly who I was referring to the mom-
ent you saw the word "Others" -- clearly feel that
this place is a battleground. Their whole ACT on
this forum is to declare their opinions, or the
opinions of their preferred spiritual teacher or
spiritual tradition "better," "more correct,"
and "more authoritative."
So this post is a troll in that I am offering
people an opportunity to WEIGH IN on this
generalized subject. If you feel like it, WEIGH
IN and tell us whether you feel that your opinion,
or that of your preferred spiritual teacher or
spiritual tradition, **IS** "better," "more
correct," or "more authoritative" than anyone
else's.
IMO, it's OK to believe this. The whole *history*
of spiritual belief and spiritual practice is based
on the belief that one POV or opinion is "better,"
"more correct," or "more authoritative" than any
other. It's OK to believe that this is a forum
NOT composed of equals, and that some posters
here -- and their opinions -- **ARE** "better,"
"more correct," and "more authoritative" than
others.
On the other hand, I don't personally believe that
believing this makes it so. Me, I tend to believe
that IT'S ALL JUST OPINION, and that
none of those opinions are any "better," "more
correct," or "more authoritative" than any other.
But that's just my OPINION.
What's yours?
WEIGH IN. If you feel like it.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote:
>
> That word is "opinion."
>
> Recently on this forum, a discussion...uh...arose
> that I perceived as a kind of "dick-size contest."
> Someone mentioned a film that he'd liked, describing
> it as "very trippy," although "probably WAY too
> weird for Joe and Jane Public."
>
> Because I was out of posts, I responded to that
> poster in email saying that I had recently seen
> the movie and found it "unwatchable." Said poster
> then...uh...reacted by taunting me in a later
> post to "share my 'expert critic' analysis on the
> film with folks here." He was obviously affronted
> by the fact that my opinion about the film
> differed from his.
>
> Because I love rapping about films, I did so. I
> used the taunt as an opportunity to write up a
> Tantric melding of that film ("Synecdoche, New
> York") with something no one else on Earth would
> probably compare to it, the TV series "Dollhouse."
> In that rap, I explained a little *why* I found
> it unwatchable, carefully peppering my rap with
> the words (in capital letters) "FOR ME," trying
> my best to indicate that this *was* pure opinion,
> not a declaration of fact or "truth" about the
> film. I then had fun rapping about other aspects
> of film and television that I found fascinating,
> *as opinion*.
>
> The original poster seems to have reacted strongly
> enough to the expression of OPINION that differed
> from *his* OPINION to have written a long "resume"
> of his experience and "track record" with regard
> to appreciation of the film arts, in which he
> found the need to refer to himself 69 times. He
> then challenged me to present MY "credentials."
>
> I bowed out of the contest. Several here "piled on"
> to accuse me of cowardice for bowing out. At the
> time, I thought that this was the right way to go,
> because I really have VERY little interest in dick-
> size contests, whether they are about declaring
> one's OPINION about a film "better" than another,
> or about declaring one's OPINION about a spiritual
> teacher "better" or "more authoritative" than
> another, or about declaring one's understanding
> of a point of philosophy or belief (*by definition*
> OPINION) "better" or "more correct" than someone
> else's.
>
> Mea culpa. I just don't think those things are
> worth my time. I know that *anything* I believe --
> about a film, about a spiritual teacher, or about
> a point of philosophy or belief -- is OPINION.
> Call me a wuss, but I don't think it's worth
> getting into dick-size contests with those who
> feel that *their* OPINIONS are "better" (or, to
> call a spade a spade, "longer") than mine.
>
> But just for fun, here is my "resume" as a film
> critic:
>
> I'M JUST A GUY WHO LIKES MOVIES.
>
> That's it.
>
> There are certainly *many* people on this planet
> who can claim to have more "expertise" to "back
> up" their OPINIONS about movies or TV. Some can
> trot out long "resumes" to "prove" their expertise
> in these matters.
>
> But WHY would one want to do so?
>
> Could it possibly be a desire to "prove" their
> OPINION "better" or "more correct" or "more
> authoritative" than someone else's?
>
> Cool, I guess, if that's what gets you off, in
> film criticism or in spiritual practice. I don't
> get off on that. I just get off on having mere
> OPINION and rapping about it. I allow anyone
> "out there" in the reading audience to judge that
> OPINION any way they want to, without trying
> to declare it "authoritative," or "expert."
>
> It's just my OPINION.
>
> So is this cafe rap this morning. I was inspired
> to write it by the memory of my favorite bar in
> Santa Fe, NM. I loved that bar because of its
> 'tude.
>
> The 'tude at the bar was "Everyone here is equal."
>
> Your "worth" or sense of "authority" or "expert-
> ness" at that bar was how well you were able to
> express your OPINION on any subject. What you
> "brought to the table" in terms of your "exper-
> tise" or past history or "accomplishments" was
> irrelevant. How much money you had was irrele-
> vant. Your position in society was irrelevant.
> The *only* thing that mattered was how well you
> were able to express your OPINION on any given
> subject, everyone knowing and being comfortable
> with the fact that *all* of it was OPINION.
>
> Every so often some tourist would come in and
> join the conversation. They'd say something and
> find that everyone else at the bar reacted to
> what they said as if it were mere opinion. And
> they'd get UPSET about this. Where they'd come
> from they were used to people reacting to the
> things they said as if they were "authoritative,"
> or "truth." And the crowd at this bar didn't
> react that way, and that upset them.
>
> So they'd launch into long explanations of who
> they were and what their accomplishments were
> and why they should be considered "authorities"
> in this matter, not just one more person around
> the bar.
>
> And everyone would ignore them, and drink their
> beers, and get back to just being One More Person
> Around The Bar, sharing opinions, as equals.
>
