[FairfieldLife] Re: Everything I need to know about FFL I learned from Psychoanalysis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Kirk kirk_bernha...@... wrote: snip I suggest that those who here show so much anger and yet at the same time are lifelong meditators, might necessarily be showing signs of meditation induced complacency. That complacency coupled with heightened awareness might produced heightened anger. I think there may be a bit of complacency on FFL about the ability to accurately label posts and posters as angry. Opposition, even vehement opposition, is not necessarily a function of anger. But labeling that opposition as angry allows those on the other side to feel smug and gives them an excuse to dismiss the content of the opposition. One of the big deficiencies of FFL, it seems to me, is that people don't tend to grapple with opposing points of view. There's very little here in the way of dialectic. When I have occasion to look up something in the alt.m.t archives, I'm frequently struck by how intensely we grappled with disagreement, how persistent we were--on both sides--in trying to hash things out. We had threads that went on for a hundred posts or more focusing closely on a particular topic or issue. Whether anything was resolved or whether anyone's mind was changed isn't the point. It was just a much more *honest* effort. We certainly learned a lot more about the basis for an opposing point of view and had to work much harder to refine our arguments to address that perspective. This kind of discussion rarely happens on FFL. It occurs to me that on alt.m.t, the TMers were defending their home turf; the group was started by TMers for TMers. FFL is pretty much the reverse: the group was started by TM critics for TM critics. Maybe there's a connection. At least to some extent, the home team gets to shape the group's agenda and has a greater influence on how that agenda will be dealt with. On alt.m.t, the TMers were genuinely interested in thorough debate. On FFL, the TM critics seem more interested in finding ways to dismiss disagreement with their points of view.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everything I need to know about FFL I learned from Psychoanalysis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunsh...@... wrote: On Apr 13, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Kirk wrote: To quote Robert Langdon (2003): The roots of attachment are consumptive (like greed, lust, gluttony, vanity-the usual self-aggrandizing desperations), aversive (hatred, envy, simple anger), and ignorant (shirking the responsibility of self-examination). A translation from moral terms to psychodynamic strategies is approximate but telling: vanity may well inbue narcissism; gluttory and greed may mask deprivation; lustfulness may shy from vulnerable intimacy; and hatred may serve complacency. Whether and how such links apply to a particular person or a particular time is open to examination, which is the dispelling of ignorance. I suggest that those who here show so much anger and yet at the same time are lifelong meditators, might necessarily be showing signs of meditation induced complacency. That complacency coupled with heightened awareness might produced heightened anger. Or, they could simply be major assholes, who would undoubtedly be the same way whether they meditated or not. Sal The thing is, Nabs words are so pure, so purifying, that those with mondo stress naturally come unglued (did you know that before unstress there was ungluing) and naturally act out against the source of purification. Nabs IS heaven walking on Earth. And the devil within the commonors and ignorant -- well the devil is going crazy as he, err I mean Heaven, struts his stuff.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Everything I need to know about FFL I learned from Psychoanalysis
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine salsunshine@ wrote: On Apr 13, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Kirk wrote: To quote Robert Langdon (2003): The roots of attachment are consumptive (like greed, lust, gluttony, vanity-the usual self-aggrandizing desperations), aversive (hatred, envy, simple anger), and ignorant (shirking the responsibility of self-examination). A translation from moral terms to psychodynamic strategies is approximate but telling: vanity may well inbue narcissism; gluttory and greed may mask deprivation; lustfulness may shy from vulnerable intimacy; and hatred may serve complacency. Whether and how such links apply to a particular person or a particular time is open to examination, which is the dispelling of ignorance. I suggest that those who here show so much anger and yet at the same time are lifelong meditators, might necessarily be showing signs of meditation induced complacency. That complacency coupled with heightened awareness might produced heightened anger. Or, they could simply be major assholes, who would undoubtedly be the same way whether they meditated or not. Sal The thing is, Nabs words are so pure, so purifying, that those with mondo stress naturally come unglued (did you know that before unstress there was ungluing) and naturally act out against the source of purification. Nabs IS heaven walking on Earth. And the devil within the commonors and ignorant -- well the devil is going crazy as he, err I mean Heaven, struts his stuff. Nabs IS heaven walking on Earth. Sounds like a movie promo. If Nabs is heaven, you can guess which door I'll choose!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Everything I need to know about FFL I learned from Psychoanalysis
On Apr 13, 2009, at 11:21 AM, grate.swan wrote: The thing is, Nabs words are so pure, so purifying, that those with mondo stress naturally come unglued (did you know that before unstress there was ungluing) And before that there was...what? Just being fucked up? and naturally act out against the source of purification. Nabs IS heaven walking on Earth. And the devil within the commonors and ignorant -- well the devil is going crazy as he, err I mean Heaven, struts his stuff. Sal
