--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > If it weren't for the by far greater number of spiritual > > > > > > seekers who do NOT fall into this trap and become fanatics, > > > > > > the few who *become* fanatics would stand as a blanket > > > > > > condemnation of spirituality and the spiritual path itself. > > > > > > Fortunately, the balanced, sane followers of spiritual > > > > > > paths are more numerous, and represent well the same > > > > > > traditions that the unsane fanatics make a mockery of. > > > > > > > > > > Barry's shoot-the-messenger demonization > > > > > tendencies are brilliantly on display in this > > > > > post. And note that his rant represents the > > > > > identical us-vs.-them kind of polarization he's > > > > > decrying: reasonable people vs. "fanatics," > > > > > sane vs. "unsane." > > > > > > > > > > Fanaticism, unreasonableness, and "unsanity" > > > > > exist at the extremes of both sides of these > > > > > issues. In between there's a wide range of > > > > > views, but there's no such middle ground for > > > > > Barry. Distinguishing between shades of gray > > > > > is "hard work" that it's just too much trouble > > > > > for him to undertake. > > > > > > > > > > Barry Wright, Master of Inadvertent Irony. > > > > > > > > Yep, he is someone who is only comfortable in a black and > > > > white world. The fanatics of which he speaks only exist > > > > in the comfort of his unenlightened mind, where he creates > > > > them in order to have a false foundation from which to make > > > > sense of an illusionary world. > > > > > > > > > Uh, Judy and Jim... > > > > > > I'm trying to understand why you're reacting so > > > strongly above to what I wrote. Did you somehow > > > think that I was referring to YOU? > > > > Actually not, since you had recently made it clear > > in another (admittedly bizarre) post how amazed you > > were and how shocking it was that Jim and I would be > > willing to express an opinion similar to that of the > > folks you designated as "the crazies." > > > > That in itself was odd, given how insistent you had > > been up until that post that Jim and I were "unsane > > fanatics." But apparently the post represented a new > > "state of attention" that, while it meant you had to > > give up the "fanatics" line of attack, opened up the > > potential of a whole new line of demonization in > > which Jim's and my integrity and "values" could be > > called in question because <gasp> we were willing to > > risk a guilt-by-association smear from you by taking a > > position also held by the "crazies." > > > > In any case, whichever side of your us-vs.-them > > formula you choose to place me and Jim on any given > > day, *my* point was the formula itself and your need > > to put people on one side or the other. It was a > > "strong reaction," in other words, to yet another > > manifestation of your tendency to project your own > > behavior onto others and then proceed to demonize > > them. > > You still seem to be ranting, when all you had > to do was respond to one question,
Well, no, I was actually responding to your first question, you see. Did you forget you'd asked that one? which you seem > to have accidentally snipped from your reply: > > Do you NOT consider the two TMers who referred to > Paul Mason as a demon or who suggested that he was > in league with demonic forces to be fanatics? I don't make those kinds of demonizing fanatic/ nonfanatic distinctions. I don't think calling someone a fanatic makes any more sense than calling them a demon.
