--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: > > Below under "Emily." Â > > > ________________________________ > From: authfriend <authfriend@...> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 6:29 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily > > > Â > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > Judy you can barf as much as you like, feel as much contempt as you > > > want.ÃÂ But the fact of the matter is we simply don't agree.ÃÂ I > > > think it's possible to be COMPLETELY honest without being what you call > > > rigorous.ÃÂ Rigor in relation to honesty is only needed when someone is > > > so invested in their opinion that they can't entertain the possibility > > > that their opinion is not the only valid one.ÃÂ That is what I think is > > > truly destroying the planet.ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ > > > > Au contraire pierre, Judy..."is just as interested in the proposition of > > being wrong as being right." > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/326836 > > > > Prove her wrong, Share. All you have to do is be as rigorously honest as > > Judy. I'll take a crack at it: > > > > RD: "Judy, your use of the term "New Age twaddle" dismisses Share's ideas > > without defining New Age, as if "New Age" encompasses a body of knowledge > > generally understood to be twaddle. Is this a fact or your opinion? I > > believe it is your opinion. Secondly, Share believes a new paradigm is > > emerging and in that context, honesty need not be jarring to a settled mind > > and body. Can you see into the future, Judy? Do you know whether or not a > > new paradigm is emerging and how it might influence the functioning of mind > > and body and it's receptivity to honesty?" > > I prefaced those comments with "I think," so they're all > clearly my opinion. But thanks for trying. ;-) > > > Share, I don't believe it's true for everyone that "rigorous honesty causes > > a person to shut down." Maybe it's true for you, > but not true for everyone. Rigorously honest people *don't* > shut down. They courageously weather the truth no matter what. > Is it true "the truth will set you free?" > > Bingo. Share has a *very* strange notion of what "rigorous > honesty" means: "Rigor in relation to honesty is only > needed when someone is so invested in their opinion that > they can't entertain the possibility that their opinion is > not the only valid one." What?? I can't extract any meaning > from that sentence. > Emily: Â I don't think either of you is interpreting correctly. Â I think > that what the deal is, is that Share was triggered by the word "rigorous." > Â This concept of "rigorous honesty:" is evoked many times in the book the > Cult, first of all, which had a very definite impact on her. Â I believe she > is simply reflecting the idea that the concept, in combination with the > concept of "confrontation" perhaps, can be experienced as such a humiliation > in a conversation, that it shuts certain people down. Â This opinion clearly > refutes one of the techniques portrayed in the book. This may be what she is > subconsciously reacting to. Â There are other ways, as the one she mentions, > to "gently" bring the person to a state of honesty with his/herself that > doesn't trigger a confrontational cult experience. Â > The word "rigor" can be perceived as having a judgmental aspect to it - as > Share notes with her statement that "it is only needed when one is so......". > Â So, for her, the word has a predetermined agenda associated with it. Â > Share, is this correct? Â Are you perceiving my original sentence about > "rigorous honesty" being the only solution as unnecessarily harsh and > incorrect? Â Is it triggering that book and your intuition about what is > happening here on FFL? Â > In my original post this was included in, if I had not included the word > "rigorous" and just said "honesty", would you have agreed? Â > > >
Good point, Emily. I hope Share understands that your questions come from a place of genuinely caring about what she thinks and feels, that it *matters* to you personally whether or not she takes you seriously, and takes the intent of your questions to heart. From the standpoint of how it's natural to want to help a fellow human being grow and succeed, I think I understand your motivation in this post. Here's the thing, to a greater or lesser degree, according to our ability and inclination, everyone, including Share needs to be accountable for what he or she writes on FFLife. We'er a feisty lot. It's a great place to test your metal. Share gets her metal tested like everyone else, she's on her own. There's no need throw her a lifeline. It does't matter how you frame a request for honesty. With or without a trigger word, we'er all on the same hook for honesty. Try as you may to coax genuine feelings from Share, if she agrees to answer your questions, I'd be surprised if she answers in depth about trigger words and if and how it affects her on a feeling level rather than writing the usual non-sequiturs, platitudes and vague generalities that we've seen in previous posts. I'd like her to prove me wrong. > > It's likely Judy will roundly rebut the lame, dishonest argument I just > > made on your behalf. Why? Because taking issue with a definition of "New > > Age twaddle" is tangential to the substance of Judy's point of "not letting > > oneself off the hook." If I want to rebut her argument, I would have to be > > rigorously honest in addressing this point. > > > > > I deem my wise others wise based on their lives.ÃÂ This is what we ALL > > > do when we label anyone anything.ÃÂ And I don't just tell her.ÃÂ I > > > show her actual posts from FFL.ÃÂ She decides for herself.ÃÂ And > > > besides being an objective professional, her intuition is highly > > > developed.ÃÂ She is not dependent on anyone or anything outside of > > > herself to discover the truth. > > > > > > Your calling what I say excuses does not make it so.ÃÂ It's simply > > > another opinion of yours that you are entitled to have and express. > > > ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ ÃÂ > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: authfriend <authfriend@> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 12:23 PM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: to Emily > > > > > > > > > ÃÂ > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Rigorous honesty sounds more like a hyper masculine approach > > > > to human development. I believe that a new paradigm is > > > > emerging. It includes the experience based context of a > > > > settled mind and body. Within that context, the honesty that > > > > emerges is full without being jarring. When the body minds of > > > > people are jarred with so called rigorous honesty, it merely > > > > causes them to shut down. > > > > > > I think that's just the worst kind of New Age twaddle, a > > > contemptible excuse to relax and be self-indulgent about > > > the degree of one's honesty. > > > > > > Oh, no need to be *really* honest; why, I would find that > > > so *jarring* I'd just have to shut myself down. I can be > > > *sort of* honest, not worry about that nice soft cushion > > > of dishonesty that keeps me comfortable. As long as I'm > > > honest above the cushion, I can call myself "fully honest" > > > and feel good about myself. > > > > > > Excuse me while I go barf. > > > > > > > I think the hyper masculine was appropriate at a certain > > > > stage of human development. > > > > > > There is nothing "hyper masculine" about rigorous honesty, > > > Share. Don't be ridiculous. Rigorous honesty has to do with > > > being the best one can be, with not letting oneself off the > > > hook, with being able to look at oneself unflinchingly even > > > if one isn't pleased with what one sees. > > > > > > Standards of honesty become *higher*--more rigorous, more > > > scrupulous--not lower, as human development advances. > > > > > > > But I think the time for the hyper masculine approach to > > > > anything is done. If only to save the planet. > > > > > > Share, *USE YOUR BRAIN*, for God's sake. The greatest > > > single threat to the planet, to the survival of the human > > > race, is low standards of honesty. If rigorous honesty is > > > "hyper-masculine," it could not possibly be more urgent > > > that this approach take hold and become the norm. > > > > > > > Even EST become less jarring, confrontational and hyper > > > > masculine when it morphed into The Forum. > > > > > > Watered down, IOW. > > > > > > > When I think of my wise others, they are wise even before > > > > they encourage me. > > > > > > And you know they are wise exactly how? > > > > > > > As mentioned before, my pastoral counselor is happily married, > > > > funny, smart, kind, down to earth. And objective about me > > > > and my strengths and flaws. > > > > > > Do you say to her the kinds of things you say here on FFL? > > > Or are you honest with her? Are you familiar with the phrase > > > "garbage in, garbage out"? She can't be objective about you > > > unless you are *rigorously, scrupulously honest* with her. > > > > > > > If for no other reason than it's her job description to be > > > > so. > > > > > > Oh, please. A job description describes what is expected, > > > not necessarily what one is getting from the person in > > > that job. > > > > > > So many *excuses*, Share. > > > > > >
