--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > Tom T; > > > > > The only thing we have to lose is fear itself. Lose your > > > > > denial. Lose your fear. Lose your denied anger. Would you > > > > > rather be loved or do you still insist that you have to be > > > > > right? Lose the need to be right all the time and see how > > > > > much love is available here. Tom T. > > > > > > > > Exchanging truth for love is a very bad bargain, IMHO. > > > > > > Depends on what you mean by each of those terms. For some > > > subset of definitions, you can't have one without the other. > > > > "Exchanging" wasn't the right term; "sacrificing" > > would be better. Your comment is closer to the > > point I was trying to make: If, as Tom urges, you > > stop standing up for truth because you want to be > > loved, whatever you get in exchange for the sacrifice > > of truth isn't going to be worth bubkes. > > > Tom says absolutely nothing in his post about 'truth'- The word > doesn't even appear in his post. You have chosen to equate insisting > that you are always right with championing the truth. Not the same > thing at all. >
Yes, that was an interesting "flip" of words. What Judy says is true: if you stop standing up for truth because you want to be loved, whatever you get in exchange for the sacrifice of truth isn't going to be worth bubkes. (Quite parallel to that expressed by Ayn Rand "heroes".) However, "stop standing up for truth" is IMO quite different from what Tom said -- or what I inferred from it. My inference was that while one can (should) always stand up for truth, one should state ther point and sit down. Standing up for truth does not mean keeping the argument going until every one aquieses and explicity agrees with you. Or perhaps just falls over from sheer exhaustion. The deeper point I take from Tom's statement (as he and many have expressed elsewhere) is that knowing that "our" truth is absolutely true is difficult to "prove" absolutely. Thus a bit of humbleness with respect to our truth claims is prudent. And "I" am not my truth claims (whether they be true or not). That intellect thing, next door, makes such claims, but that is his thing (dharma as Peter likes to say). "I" am not my intellect, though I love the dude.
