Guest guest Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5@> wrote: > > > > >B: and if you see Nis as recourse for justification, note also > > > that he said, " Don't criticise others! " > > > > P; ha, ha! What have you been doing but criticizing > > and chastising Toomb for not living up to your > > ideals about love and courtesy. Those are your ideals, > > neither the world nor realization has to live up to > > them. > > > > Besides, " the joy of being is your problem " hardly > > sound like an insult, unless one reads into it a whole > > load of residuals issues against Toomb. > > > > You woke up on the wrong side of bed from that nap? > > B: You LOL's strike me as sneering and derisive. > > P: You have a thin skin, Bill. You are like a brother to me, > which doesn't prevent me from seeing that, in this > particular case, you are acting as a bully of extreme > love and courtesy. > > > B: It appears you missed the subtlety of the point I was making > altogether. To start off with " your problem is that... " > -- when the other has not affirmed themselves as having > a " problem " -- is high-hand, and yes, rude. It is not > a connecting-with kind of statement, but a shooting-at > kind of statement. And shooting-at I am regarding as > an insensitive/rude form of interaction. > > P: So let me be rude, Bill, you have a problem. You are > reserving the right to point other's problems for yourself, > while denying that right to anyone else in the name of > courtesy. > > B: You seem to be zipping in from out-of-context > making snap assessments and exemplifying the kind of > insensitive attack I am trying to discourage here. I think > I can fairly accuse you of sloppiness. > > P: So, I'm sloppy. I accept your criticism. No problem. > I don't think you're being rude. Just talking like a > friend to another. > > B: It was many months ago when you encouraged me to help out > with the Nis list, which at the time was SEETHING with > attacks and rants between members. > > P: Yes that's true, I ask you to come here and help, not because > of attacks, but because of verbosity and banality, and you have > done a great job to keep the list on theme. So have Werner, > and Dan. > > B: I note that you yourself > have not been part of that effort (though help has come from > others, most notably Dan). In trying to turn this list > around my theme all along has been " vulnerability " . I > believe that you do not consider that concept as one of > value or significance. > > P: What is vulnerability to you? To take offense anytime, > anyone says boo? To forbid all forms of criticism? To > turn a blind eye to all foolishness in the name of courtesy? > > True vulnerability doesn't fear criticism, but welcomes it. > > B: You seem to consider > that attacks are " healthy " and have a rightful place in > testing the real " mettle " of list contributors. > > P: Criticism is healthy. Insulting people with foul > language and false accusations is dumb. But civility > doesn't mean unconditional approval. > > B: You implied that that I am a hypocrite for citing someone for > not being courteous. > > P: Hypocrite is your word. I didn't use it, or imply it, but > certainly, you were guilty of seeing the mot in toomb's > eye, while ignoring the beam in yours. > > B: But you were merely picking at words. I > *was* courteous in what I had to say to toombaru. > > P: ha, ha, yet again! B: " strikes me as rude to attribute a " problem " > to another > in an unsolicited manner such as this. it is a low-ball technique... > in my view. " > You called him rude and you accused him of using low technique. It sure > looks > more rude than saying: " The joy of being is your problem. " > > B: Your point that I was technically criticizing him and so a > hypocrite is, > well, not a good point. > P: You certainly criticize him by saying he was rude. I didn't > call you a hypocrite, that is only your sensitive, vulnerable (meaning > hurt) reaction. > > B: Since you don't have any strategy at all perhaps you > could keep out of my way as I seek to carry out mine? > > P: True! I have no strategy, no fixed blueprint. I say, > as I'm moved to say, and when not moved, keep silent. > So, please, continue your find job. But... I can't offer no > assurances, I won't kick your behind again, if so moved. > > Your Loving brother, > Pete The interplay between the satirical and the sanctimonious seems inevitable, here. Neither seems either relaxed or relaxing. One insists on a certain guard against recklessness, the other finds this too constraining and insists on license in the name of being a " loving brother. " This seems clearly bombastic, to me. I like Bill's intelligence and clarity, its precision. But, whereas he invites others to follow, I don't know how willing he is himself to follow. He hasn't seemed willing to follow me, at least not as far as I'd have preferred. Pete, on the other hand, seems pretty much in touch with his reptilian brain, so to speak. I would invite both to take a vacation from either side. Pretend, quite literally, to BE the other. It could be fun. But then, who invited me in, huh, Ana? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.