<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since last night 11pm or so PST, there have been 25 posts. 15 of them
> stem from Shemp deciding now was a good time to revisit his views of
> what Judy posted in January.
>
> If that one post were kept at the poster's thought level, the ensuing
> low value (IMO) 14 posts would have not been posted. If the 14
> subsequent chain of replies were kept at the poster's thought level,
> then the abundant fuel (apparently of venom) would not be added to the
> spark of one posters momentary (hopefully) lapse of judgement and
taste.
>
> This perhaps requires posters to realize just because they thought the
> thought, that does not necessarily make the thought valid, useful,
> humorous, insightful or of broad value -- that is, it may not be
> worth posting.
>
> If posters were less possessed / driven by the past events and
> percieved ego hurts, and less prone to listening to inner deep layers
> of preconceptions, prejudgements of posters -- and simply read each
> post for what is in the post itself (not myriads of past posts
> rattling in their brains), then discussion on FFL would be far more
> interesting IMO -- and not a reincarnation of a 60's type encounter
group.
>
> Is being driven by and apparently obsessed with the past a sign of
> deeply embedded spirituality? Makes one wonder about the effectiveness
> of all these techniques people have been practicing for years.
Using the term "spirituality" here is perhaps unproductive. Its a
many-meanings "label" (similar in the many-meanings label attributes
as words like "enlightenment", "realized", "awakened" etc.).
On one hand its a label whose many-meanings have the conotation to
most as generally something good. The rub is that the specific
connotation of the label is quite different among different folks. The
attributes or features that comprise spirituality for each person are
often different from (many) others. Same for "something good"
connoting labels like "enlightenment" etc.
The use of such labels can be rhetorical trap, a type of logical
fallacy. For example, a writer or speaker may make an appeal regarding
"spirituality" which most agree is a "good thing". Having gained
concensus on this, some writers will then, by an often missed slight
of hand, substitute their own attributes of and connotations for
spirituality, and equate these as "good things" as an obvious, almost
a priori, fact. Same with labels such as "enlightenment".
So instead of falling into the trap of using a weak if not misleading
rhetorical device, let me rephrase the last paragrah of my original
post:
"Is being driven by and apparently obsessed with the past a sign of
something good? Makes one wonder about the effectiveness
of all these techniques people have been practicing for years."
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
SPONSORED LINKS
| Maharishi university of management | Maharishi mahesh yogi | Ramana maharshi |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
