Do you still subscribe to Tiger Beat?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Thirty years ago my favorite singer-songwriter released a song with the
> same title as this post. Bruce Cockburn was accurate in his description
> of the vibe of his time, but also IMO *our* time as well. He traveled
> the world, sat in cafes and looked around as he traveled, and tried to
> extract the *trends* he saw going down in the different places. Then,
> being a deeply spiritual person, he tried to extrapolate from these
> trends what they might mean about our collective future as humans
> sharing this blue-green ball in black space. As usual, he was prescient.
>
> http://www.uulyrics.com/music/bruce-cockburn/song-the-trouble-with-norma\
> l/
> <http://www.uulyrics.com/music/bruce-cockburn/song-the-trouble-with-norm\
> al/>
>
> Bruce IMO was brilliant at capturing what he saw as "normal" in the
> places he traveled to and the people he observed. And I think he did an
> admirable job of it in this song. But the real "take away" of the song
> for me is the phrase that follows the Subject title of this post in the
> chorus:
>
> The trouble with normal
> Is it always get worse.
>
> Lately, taking advantage of my summer vacation, I've had occasion to
> cruise a few more of the spiritual drive-ins on the Internet than usual.
> Some of the trends I've seen there among the participants uplift me and
> make me feel all warm and fuzzy again about the spiritual path, and
> where it might lead. Other trends...uh...not so much. What I'm pondering
> over this glass of beer in this cafe is the latter trend's
> representation of what constitutes normal. And, if Bruce's insight is
> correct, what will these forums -- and these people -- be like in a few
> years when their idea of normal actually gets worse.
>
> For some posters -- sad to say, on any of the forums, the rare ones --
> normal is writing about high, shiny shit, and conveying to others their
> continuing joy at watching it hit the cosmic fan. For others -- sad to
> say, often the majority -- the normal of a "spiritual" Internet forum
> seems to be all about taking that same shit and re-flinging it at others
> through their writing.
>
> For the latter, a joke becomes a deadly insult, one that "has to" be
> responded to not just with one rejoinder, but many. Some turn the
> tiniest, most petty affronts into multi-year vendettas. Others just get
> their buttons pushed about some criticism of or witticism about their
> teacher, their path, or them personally, and feel the need to lash out
> at the heretics. I wish that I could say that this tendency was limited
> to TM and FFL, but sadly I cannot. I have seen this same over-reactive
> behavior on dozens of Internet forums over the years, and on five of the
> six I haunt lately. They are pretty much like all other Internet forums
> in terms of the "flame quotient" and the chronic over-reaction. Reading
> them, I question sometimes why these forums are designated "spiritual."
> Fortunately -- so far -- the sixth has remained the sole exception. This
> gives me hope, and the impetus to write this rap.
>
> The sixth forum seems to consist primarily of long-term spiritual
> seekers who have decided to try to walk on the Internet the talk of
> their philosophy. They have decided to go for a (in their view) higher
> definition of normal. I find that reassuring, especially because the
> forum is unmoderated.
>
> Because otherwise, I mean...WTF? Did we all start meditating and climb
> aboard the spiritual Magic Bus all those years ago just to settle for
> everybody else's idea of what constitutes normal?
>
> I know I started walking the spiritual path because I was looking for a
> better version of normal than I was experiencing everywhere else. I
> think a lot of us who signed on back in the late 60s or early 70s felt
> the same way. Why then do so many people *who* started walking the
> spiritual path all those years ago feel that there is nothing the
> slightest bit "off" with a definition of normal that involves going
> postal when someone posts a belief or opinion that runs counter to their
> own?
>
> WTF? Did they *forget* why they started walking the spiritual path? Did
> they give up on the view of "enhanced normal" or "more normal" that path
> and its dogma presented to them? Are they, after all these years
> questing for a better definition of normal, willing to settle for the
> Internet's version of normal? WTF happened?
>
> I have no answers. I'm just pondering the topic in this cafe today over
> a beer. If you have answers to what constitutes normal for 20-to-45-year
> spiritual seekers -- or should -- you guys can work it out.
>
