I love this post Share. You seem to have an ability to hone things down to their essential meanings and elements. This comes across as clean and intelligent and may I even add "interesting".
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Turq wrote: > > Treat that which is interesting with interest, and that > which is uninteresting with disinterest. > > My reply: > Hmmm, seems straight forward enough. > > One could ask why this even needs to be stated. > Perhaps something else is going on? > As you note, people are claiming to be tired of same old, same old, but keep > engaging in it anyway. See points about avoidance below. > > > Pertinent aside: Ammachi once said that Love is never bored. > > The word interesting is well, interesting. I'm guessing that the wily old > ego loves it. If it feels threatened by something read in FFL then ego > decides that it's not interesting. Fair enough. But as we all probably > know, what we avoid, etc. will keep amping up until we give it the attention > it needs to come to resolution. Disinterest could be a very sneaky form of > avoidance. > > > It's my experience that until a person heals the internal dysfunctional > family, EVERY group which one joins will reflect that. No wonder we start > acting like children. And basically it's the personalities that trigger us > and our old stuff. So getting caught up in personalities is actually part > of the potential healing.  > > > About rewarding, etc. Even children learn how to reward and punish, don't > they? And in their pain and discomfort, they can be pretty mean spirited > about it. So again, our behavior could be coming from child/ego rather than > a more developed aspect. It might be useful to be aware of this as we go > about labeling posts. > > > You suggest that we ignore the past, which is admirable but mostly > impossible. But then at the end you say that we already know who is who. > This seems to be based on the past and thus a contradiction. > > > I didn't know about the posting limitation until Judy kindly pointed it > out. I only have 4 posts left between now and Fri at 7 ish. Oy! Another > diet! Anyway, will consequently be posting way less between now and > then. > > > BTW, I mostly enjoy this forum. I enjoy the variety of topics very much. > I'm starting to "know" individuals but that's happening slowly because I tend > to be lazy and don't wade through the longer posts. Unless they have lots > of white space (-: > > Also replies are sometimes hard to find. There seems to be at least 2 and > maybe 3 forms. And that posting limitation! Don't even get me started! > Speaking as one who prefers to write short posts frequently, I think there > should be, instead of post limit, a weekly word limit. Only kidding... > > Share > > > > ________________________________ > From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:07 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] A Modest Proposal For The Coming FFL Posting Week > > >  > It's very simple. I suggest it as an alternative to the > same old same old, which many of us *claim* to be tired of: > > Treat that which is interesting with interest, and that > which is uninteresting with disinterest. > > That is, ignore the personalities, and ignore the past. > If someone posts something you feel is interesting, respond > to it and engage that person in conversation about it. > > If someone posts something that is clearly an attempt to > either start or restart an argument, whether it is based on > "dueling egos" or "dueling philosophies" or old grudges or > whatever, ignore it. Let the attempt to start a fight fall > flat for lack of participants. > > I suspect that if most people did this for a week (let alone > all the time), we'd find out very quickly who here actually > has anything interesting to say, and who doesn't, and lives > instead *only* to start fights and engage in arguments. > > My proposal is nothing more than classic child management > (which I suggest is a more than appropriate approach to > dealing with FFL). Reward that which deserves to be rewarded > (saying something interesting), and ignore (and thus do NOT > reward) that which is the same old same old, an attempt to > turn the place into a war zone. > > Even if you choose not to participate in my modest proposal > this coming week, WATCH WHAT HAPPENS based on it. > > Watch to see who actually finds something interesting to > say and those who respond in kind to it. Watch those who > cannot find anything interesting to say, and therefore fall > back on bad habits and try to start or restart arguments, > or who try to get others to engage or re-engage in old, > tired personality battles. > > I think it'll be interesting to see "who is who." > > I further think that everyone here already *knows* "who > is who," given this dynamic. My modest proposal is merely > a way of demonstrating it. >
