Hey Bob, is this your version of damned if I do and damned if I don't? In any case I'd prefer the nom de plume "Butter Nut Squash" please.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price <bobpriced@...> wrote: > > Hey, do you mind if I call you WingNut? If you don't, I thought we could just > shorten it to > WN. And for the Nabster, if he doesn't mind, we could just use NNfor NumNut. > What do you think? > > WN, > > Since we still haven't established a market to allow me to give Turqsome > posts, I'm pleased he's > decided to pace himself, hope you don't mind if I give it a go, but I can't > promise, I'll waste more than > one. I'm not the kind of lady that needs the "last word". > > Frankly, I think we're all eight year olds,when we start throwing spitballs. > And just as frankly, > if I'm going to go for a drink with an eight year old, which I do regularly, > I insist on doing it with an "precocious eight year old". At my age, the > only real sin, > is going for a drink with someone- who's boring and unlike some on > FFL Turqis never boring. > > Have you ever heard the term "terminal uniqueness", I believe its a form of > later stage > narcissism, where the psychopathology of extreme self absorption turns on > itself in the > same way the visitor started eatingthe host in the film "Alien".  > > This is what came to mind, when I read you bragging about the fact you don't > read any more > and then trying to back up by rattlingoff a list of authors from a 9th grade > reading list. I was > surprised you didn't mention "Catcher in The Rye". No, I don't mean you've > nailed > Holden Caulfield'svoice. > > It's true many people don't read anymore, but most of them are smart enough > not to brag about it > in polite company. Of all the things one could chose to demonstrate > uniqueness, I would never have thought > to embraceilliteracy, well done WN! In addition to adornment, I was pleased > you brought up lipstick, > reading is on the very short list of what separates us from the animals. The > jury is still out on meditation. > Good luck with your realization, I'm still holding out for "improved > socialbehaviour", frankly, it seems the atheist > is the only one who's nailed that one. > > And since we're on the topic of NN, would he please stop bringing up > Maharishi's politics, now > that's embarrassing! In politics, Maharishi was a right wing nut > bar(nobody's perfect) and any one > who spent any time with him knows that. One of my fondest memories (that > would be a joke) is sitting > a few feet from him (yes, they didn't steal all my ATRcredits) as he shared > his dais with Isabel Peron's"Angel of Death" > and anointedhim a "Governor of the Age Of Enlightenment". Of course we can't > forget that other beacon of > hope he anointed, Ferdinand, "do you really need to take all those shoes, > Imelda" Marcos. Again, anyone who has > studied (read) anything about Maharishi knows what he really wanted was to be > President of India and when > that was obviously not going happen he invented his own "Magic Kingdom". And > calling the Dalai Lama > a politicianis not unlike calling Nelson Mandela an ex-con. For Gods sake, if > you're not going to read, get out more!   > > > > From: whynotnow7 <whynotnow7@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:17:19 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Trouble With Normal > > >  > 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. > > >
