Looks like you *did* get something out of TM... Let it go and take it as it
comes. But then, maybe you've always lived that. I don't read enough Barry
posts to know, but I have a feeling that post is going to generate a lot of
arguing, LOL!
________________________________
From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 12:31 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Does the size of one's ego equate to their "need to
argue?"
I find myself pondering this in my writing cafe this evening, because as
far as I can tell, given the extent of my "eavesdropping French," no one
at this cafe is arguing about *anything*. The closest anyone came to it
was to have a minor dispute about which wine to order with their dinner,
and that was resolved amicably by appealing to the gods of chance
(flipping a coin) rather than by an "appeal to authority" or an
assertion of "My opinion about this is better than yours, and that's
that."
Yet on this forum (judging from the posts I skip these days but can grok
the essence of just from their first words in Message View), some people
not *only* seem to have a constant need to argue, they *also* seem to
have a corollary need to portray anyone who *won't* argue with them as
"broken" or "defective" or "bad" in some way.
Go figure.
>From my point of view, the desire to argue indicates attachment. Period.
Full stop.
Those who are SO attached to their point of view that they feel the need
to argue it and assert its dominance over other points of view are
*attached* to that point of view. They *identify* with that point of
view, and confuse it with "who they are."
But, to carry the rap one step further, the *need* to argue indicates a
horribly corpulent ego, and narcissism...and one steaming shovelful of
both.
The *ultimate* expression of ego -- and the neediness that drives such
people to assert their ego's supremacy over all others -- is IMO those
who argue (literally) that anyone who isn't willing *to* argue with them
*has something wrong with them*.
>From my point of view, that's completely backasswards. It's those who
continually feel the need to assert their ego's silly ideas and beliefs
as "better" or "more valid" than other people's who just might have
something wrong with them.
Such people really don't "get" it when they encounter someone who is
able to put their opinion on a subject into one post, and then is
*through*. If someone wants to reply to it and present a contrary
opinion, that's just fine with them, but they don't feel any need to
respond, or to "defend" their opinion. It *IS*, after all, just opinion.
But some get SO attached to their ego's opinions that they come to
believe that if any of them are challenged, that is somehow almost a
challenge to their ego's existence. Can't have that. :-) Gotta try to
badger such people into an argument, or insult them into an argument, or
actually slander them into an argument, as some here have done.
Seems kinda silly to me. Stopping my writing and eavesdropping again for
a few minutes, I can tell that it seems kinda silly to the Parisians in
this cafe with me, too.
Compare and contrast to those whose words to St. Peter, when asked to
relate their achievements back on Earth as an "entrance exam" to qualify
for admission to Heaven, will probably have to be, "I never once lost an
argument on the Internet." Is that SAD, or what? If he's really
compassionate, St. Peter will resist the urge to dispatch such people
immediately to "the other place," realizing that they've already spent
their entire lives there.
