--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Translated from the Latin, "I argue therefore I am." This > is a play on "Cogito ergo sum" -- "I think therefore I am," > and is held as a credo by those whose only possible mode > of social interaction seems to be trying to provoke people > into arguing with them. > > My theory is that we should treat such people according to > their own credo. If some part of them really feels as if > they don't exist unless they are arguing, ignore them and > see if that turns out to be true. If it does, win-win.
Following up, this was a generic rap. It wasn't inspired by anyone in particular on Fairfield Life or by any recent exchange or set of them, only by trends I've noticed over many years. My point was that -- across the entire Internet -- there seem to be people whose preferred, and in some cases ONLY, mode of social interaction is arguing. If you analyze such people's posts over a long period, what you tend to notice is -- IMO, of course -- that many of them don't seem to have much to say *unless* they are arguing. It's as if something in them needs the constant challenge of defending or proving the things they believe or "know" to engage in discussion at all. To address some of the comments so far, I do make a distinction between "writing provocatively" and "provoking arguments." The difference IMO lies in intent. The intent of the latter is to start a one-on-one (or many-on-one) argument, the point of which seems to be to "win." The former can be done just for fun, to see how people react to a provocative statement. You can tell the difference based on the followup -- do the writers of the original provocative statements "get into it" with those wishing to turn it into an argument, or do the writers just "stand pat" on what they said originally? I think there are many posters here who fall into the category of "provocative writers," but I would in no way accuse them of provoking arguments. Provoking cognitive dissonance, absolutely. But the thing that turns that into an argument IMO is the arguing itself, the attempt to defend one's opinions or prove them correct. One of the things that continually surprises me about the spiritual cybersmorgasbord is how many people seem locked into this "Gotta argue" thang. They seem to "come alive" only when they can lure someone into having an argument with them. Their other posts are often listless and uninteresting, as if they don't feel they need to bring their "best game" to mere discussions, only to arguments. Especially if those arguments give them the opportunity to show off their ad hominem chops. And all of this on so-called "spiritual" forums on which most of the members believe that the only thing that can have beliefs is a self, and that they're all working diligently to eliminate or diminish the influence of that self. Yet the selves argue endlessly, and from my fly-on-the-wall POV just get stronger and more established with every "win" or imagined "win." Go figure. Don't get me wrong -- I have so been there, done that with the mindset I'm describing. But I'm in recovery. :-) I'm just bringing this up to give those on this forum who might feel I'm addressing them directly -- even though I'm not -- to bounce off the ideas I've presented. This is an example of the "provocative writing" I described above; I expect some to get passionate in the defense of arguing. Please, do so, if that floats your boat. But don't expect me to argue with you. I said pretty much all I have to say on the subject in my first posts.
