title

.

Friendship
 
With various persons on Facebook

 

 

 

The following unfolded on the very popular social networking site "Facebook", in mid-2011, in response to a seemingly innocuous comment by M—. Unlike most of the "discussions" on Facebook, this one tackled the nature of friendship head-on. As the discussion unfolded (in a typical to-and-fro Facebook manner), it became quickly obvious that the socially popular form of friendship - compassion, empathy, nurturing, etc. - was little more than a superficial friendship: an exercise in mutual egotistical back-slapping, very quickly suspended for those considered enemies. In summary, this internet frolick is somewhat comical, and yet sad, too. This superficial form of friendship is all-too-common.

Kelly Jones

 


 

M—, to Laird Shaw's wall:

A true friend shares the good times and helps you out by listening during the bad.

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

In our lives, problems come and go, but true friends are a dime a dozen.

 ∞ 

Laird Shaw:

I'm finding that true friends accept your weaknesses whilst supporting you in outgrowing them. I don't know that they're a dime a dozen but if you look for them, they're there.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

For the one who aims to overcome his weaknesses, the true friend is also an enemy who fights against cherished flaws and who hates at first sight.

 ∞ 

M—:

Ooh, such negativity. Ever tried being positive for a day? You'd be surprised what a change of emotion can do. You do realize what you said came from an emotional reaction...right? ;)

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

True thoughts are my best friends.

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

"True thoughts", like "true friends", are a dime a dozen. At least the ones some people think they have. Laird, my first comment was a joke. I should know by now...

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

I was being positive, M—. Only, I suppose you see criticism of personal weaknesses and flaws, like the will to deceive oneself, as negative, rather than a positive and productive thing.

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

Hopefully Vinny's second comment was a joke as well. It was certainly very cheap...

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

David should know by now...

 ∞ 

M—:

Yes, Kelly, I have always believed that criticism of personal flaws and weaknesses is negative. Far more is accomplished (including the dissolution of the above) when the positive traits are nourished. Sophism is for those who believe human emotion to be valueless.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

Your view contradicts itself, because your post is a criticism of my view. You weren't pointing to the positives in it, were you?

 

M—:

My post was a question answered, an opinion. You see criticism, I see difference in attitude.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

You mean, when you pointed out how negative I was, you were focussing on positive differences in attitude and --- what, encouraging me to focus on my strengths? ;-)

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

Both have their place. Those who focus purely on the positives are just as much in denial as those who focus on the negatives.

 ∞ 

M—:

lol Kelly, I thought you were referring to my last post. No, when I was pointing out how negative you were I was being snide. David, it isn't about denial, it is about choice. Without making the right choices, a balance will never be found. My balance is to focus on the postive. Some people choose to teeter-totter their way through. To each, his own...

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

M—, when a teacher marks an exam paper and finds the student showed poor calculation methods as well as a wrong answer, is it negative to write, "Your methods do not work, 0%." ?

 ∞ 

M—:

No. But, life is not an exam. When a person says they choose to focus on the positive, rather than the negative, would you call them flawed and weak?

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

Life is an exam, and one is being examined every moment (the conscience). If someone is unable to face criticism, that means they are very weak indeed.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

David, if your thinking on some idea is logical and true, yet you are told by almost everyone else your thinking is illogial and wrong, then, if you had a few friends hovering on the fence and worried about your becoming a pariah in the eyes of the world, would you lie for the sake of your weak friends?

 ∞ 

M—:

This is where we part minds, Kelly. I do not see life as an test. Peace.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

Well, cause and effect means everyone's actions have consequences. That's definitely a kind of judgment.

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

"is it negative to write, 'Y our methods do not work, 0%.'?" It is, however, it doesn't mean it's a false statement. A true teacher would show the correct way.

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

"David, if your thinking on some idea is logical and true, yet you are told by almost everyone else your thinking is illogial and wrong, then, if you had a few friends hovering on the fence and worried about your becoming a pariah in the eyes of the world, would you lie for the sake of your weak friends?"

Very good question. What (in honour of M—) "y'all" cannot grasp is that very nearly always, when almost everyone thinks your thinking is illogical and wrong, it is, as it is in this instance. "This instance" meaning most of your view of human consciousness.

Let's see how "weak" according to Kelly Jones, those the above "criticism" is directed at, are in facing it. You know who you are.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

It's a hypothetical, Vinny. It's about considering the value of truth relative to being socially acceptable.

Back to the teacher scenario, the correct method comes after pointing to the error - which, as is obvious, isn't necessarily negative (or positive). It's just part of the process of learning how to do something.

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

You cannot evaluate something you can't identify. If you say it's gold and everyone else says it's manure...

I know--it's YOUR truth. But it's like peeing yourself for warmth. If you're wearing black pants, iit will give you a warm feeling, but if you're not, people are going to notice. Try doing what other people do for warmth. Employ Occam's razor.

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

If only Socrates and Jesus had you around, Vinny. They really could have used your insight. And Galileo, when everyone around him was telling him that his truths were manure, you could have snapped him out of his delusion and brought him back to the fold. Just think how different things would have been....

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

Hundreds of years from now, you will no doubt be compared to Socrates and Jesus. People in the future will marvel that we today were so blind not to see your phenomenal and historic wisdom. They'll think "How different things would have been if only they'd listened".

How does your head keep all that contained? By "that", I, of course, mean "conceit". Whatever wisdom I have, I don't think so highly of it that I spend my life peddling it. And when I choose to impart some of it, most people don't tell me it's manure. Here's a bit for you: You've got nothing. I know it's late in the game to be starting all over again, but a wise man once said "Better late than never".

The QRS position on life is akin to a man standing with his eyes two inches in front of the Mona Lisa and declaring what an awful mess of brushstrokes it is. From his perspective, he'd be right, and who could convince him otherwise if he refused to step back and look at the big picture?

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

If you feel little inclination to share your wisdom, then it can only mean that you don't find much value in it. And if others find what you do share to be inoffensive, then it can only mean that they don't find much value in it either..

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

You're pretty stupid for a genius. It can only mean??? It can't mean that unlike a certified psychotic like you, I don't need to broadcast my wisdom to be happy in my life? It can't mean that I share it with a few close friends and family who know it to be valuable?

And where did I say it is found to be merely "inoffensive"? I sad that unlike the "wisdom" you've been trying to sell to other mentally ill of your ilk, many of whom have been telling you it is, in fact, manure, mine is not. Get with the program.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

Which is more important to you: feeling happy, or knowing what is true?

 ∞ 

M—:

You question, as is, seems to infer both can not be had at the same time. Is this the case?

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

I take it, Vinny, that you don't share M—'s view of focusing on the positives in people.... :)

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

I'll let you know when I see some, but quite frankly, after all these years, I'm not holding my breath. She's something, isn't she? :)

Good question, Kelly. When you feel so good about your life that you feel no need to even ponder such a question, you're in a very good place. One needn't answer every question...even if one could.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

M—, it seems so. For example, people with cancer might ask their doctor not to tell them if their radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy wasn't successful. They don't want to know the truth, because the idea of dying makes them unhappy. So it would seem truth and happiness don't necessarily go together.

 ∞ 

M—:

I'm very sorry to hear you say that, Kelly. It means, to me, that you have missed out on much happiness in your life. I too, have had my share of unhappiness, but every day the "truth" hits me just how "happy" I can be. I am fortunate to have found that place Vinny mentioned. I have no need to question that fact.

Oh, and if I were the person in your scenario who had cancer, I would want to know the truth. That way I would know with whom and how I would want to enjoy my time left - finding happiness. ;)

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

It's just an example of how people prefer to be happy instead of wanting to know what is true. For such people, truth is happiness, and anything that makes them unhappy, is false or blocked out of consciousness.

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

Kelly, you have moved the goal posts. You went from a position of happiness and truth being an either or proposition to "not necessarily going together", which is not something anyone disputed.

I believe they are totally independent and one can have any amount of each in their life at the same time.

Question: Why do you seek truth? Can you be completely honest in your answer?

David: You stated that if wisdom is found to be inoffensive, it can only mean it is assigned little value. All the wisdom you've found useful offended you?

Some people seek a truth outside of reality because reality provides no happiness to them. They wil defend their "truth" tooth and nail because otherwise, it would mean that the (faux) world they have spent much of their life carefully crafting, woulkd come crashing down around them, leaving them standing naked, vulnerable and miserable in the rubble that is their life.

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

You"re describing religion there, Vinny, not wisdom. And yes, wisdom is deeply, deeply offensive to me.

 ∞ 

M—:

"And yes, wisdom is deeply, deeply offensive to me." May I ask, why?

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

It erodes everything that you believe in - and everything that you want to believe in. It flies against our genetic programming and our emotional desires. It undermines all meaning in our lives, all our hopes for the future, all our achievements of the past. It attacks the very foundations of everything that we are as human beings.

Added to this, the more you get involved in wisdom the more of a social pariah you become, the more others come to regard you as "certified psychotic" as Vinny charmingly puts it. The stress involved in dealing with people in society intensifies. So in all ways, both inwardly and outwardly, wisdom attacks you on every level.

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

"You're describing religion there, Vinny, not wisdom." Religion or perceived (false) wisdom in oneself--what's the difference? Both are an alter built of cards.

Ahahaha! I've been telling you guys exactly what you stated in your above post for years. If you actually believe that, then why did you attack my statement that I mostly keep whatever wisdom I have to myself? Shouldn't you have given me a pat on the back and said "Gee, Vin, it took me an awful long time and a lot of heartache, but I finally did also come to that same point"?

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

Eh?

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

I think he might be referring to the wisdom you described as being deeply, deeply offensive, as being *false* because it hurts so much. Is that right, Vinny?

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

The wise man doesn't shout from the rooftops (or the Internet) "Follow me for I am wise!". He's likely to get more stones than followers.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

Can't he interact with others, saying, in effect, what the math teacher was saying?

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

Personally, I haven't met any wise people who shout, "Follow me for I am wise!" But if I do, I shall certainly stone them.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

Those who want to be my disciples must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, but those who lose their life for me will find it. Matthew 16: 24

Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be." John 12: 24

The monks of that age were perceptive. They understood the Buddha's meaning. They followed his teaching, perfected their virtue, and tasted the fruit of Buddhahood. - Bodhidharma

The treasure-staff of the Tathagata
Has left traces for us to follow. - Yung-chia Hsuan-chueh

Recalling the teaching on conscientiousness and warding off drowsiness and lethargy, I shall follow the wise. - Shantideva

Enough quoting. Evidently these blokes reckoned there was something to follow - but were they referring to themselves as a person, or something deeper, like who they *really* were, like the Tao / the All?

 ∞ 

Vinny Marino:

Not one of the persons in your quotes suggested he should be followed because he had wisdom. Yes, people will follow whom they believe to be wise, but not usually at the wise one's behest. Through conversation and word of mouth, the wise ones are known.

David, first you were in denial about the fact you are no sage, and now you deny you ever made such a claim. You have found a way to "win" whatever you want to call this exchange, inadvertent, as it may be. I won't argue (long) with a persistent liar. As a matter of fact, I have more enjoyable and more important things to do these days. As my ancestors used to say, "Carpe diem". Life is short. G'day, mate.

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

I say a lot of things, often with tongue in cheek. But the last thing I could possibly want from life is "followers". I value my solitude far too much for that, and I cannot begin to describe to you how much I despise religion.

 ∞ 

Stella Saied:

David, so you would never want to be a teacher?

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

I don't mind being a teacher. I just don't want any students.

 ∞ 

M—:

David, I was under the impression that those who are truly enlightened were forever students.

 ∞ 

Stella Saied:

DQ, a teacher without students is ridiculous.

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

Who on earth taught you that, M—?

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

Stella, if people insist on being students, then I'd rather they be students of the truth and follow their own reasoning. To take responsibility for their own lives and think it all out for themselves. To truly understand reality with their own minds. To become an authority in their own right. In other words, to avoid religion in all its forms.

 ∞ 

Stella Saied:

Nat says QRS is a religion.

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

And what do you say?

 ∞ 

M—:

David, my statement wasn't something I was taught. I came to that conclusion on my own. Would it be fair to ask if you believed I may have wisdom that could be shared with you? If I could, would that not mean you were again a student?

 ∞ 

Stella Saied:

David, I wouldn't go as far as Nat does. But you are quite rigid in your beliefs.

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

I don't have any beliefs, Stella. And I rigidly refuse to have one.

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

M—, if you have some genuine wisdom to share, I will listen.

 ∞ 

M—:

The wisdom I'd like to share with you, David, is for you to be careful not to give the appearance of being condescending to anyone, no matter how much you think they are beneath you. In your statement to me, you give the impression that what I deem to be wisdom, is likely not "genuine" wisdom. I hope this doesn't mean you doubt I possess any. Could you possibly entertain the idea that what you may consider not to be genuine, may indeed be genuine, and that you lack the wisdom to know it?

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

What does it matter what I think of you, M—. As it stands I don't really know you, so I'm open to whatever you have to offer. Just be yourself, openly express your values and your truths, and either I will pick up on it or I won't.

 ∞ 

M—:

My values and truths are pretty simple, actually. Love, Compassion, Empthy, and Understanding. I'm pretty good at Patience and Tolerance, as well. Which did you pick up on?

Btw, I am all woman [heart icon] - very little "Male"- it's spelled M—. :)

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

I'm all for Love, Compassion, Empthy, and Understanding as well. But it may be that we have different ideas of what these things mean. What do you mean by compassion, for example? As for your name, sorry about that. It comes from having lived in a local town here called M—, which still influences my typing fingers. I'm forever having to correct your name because of it. :)

 ∞ 

M— :

Compassion to me is the acknowledgement of and desire to eliminate another's pain and/or suffering. A shared sadness, if you will. My curiosity lies in knowing how you define "Understanding". You can call me M—. :)

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

How about: the ability to help someone see the core mental beliefs responsible for their suffering?

 ∞ 

M—:

I'm not one who will knock the crutches away and tell a man to walk, Kelly. If someone has a mental belief that causes them suffering, it isn't up to me to tell them they have made a wrong decision. I can show them (by example) that there is another path less painful. It means nothing if they do not walk that path and see for themselves.

I find it odd that you ask this question, Kelly. Both you and David admit that your beliefs have made you outcasts in society. As David so sharply put it: "...both inwardly and outwardly, wisdom attacks you on every level." Should I test my ability to help either of you? Maybe I could point out that your core mental beliefs cause your suffering? I think I will pass. As I said, I'm not one to knock away crutches.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

If the crutches are an analogy for the kind of emotional suffering that is preventable and unnecessary for a wise and fulfilling life, then helping a person see the core mental beliefs responsible for those crutches helps them to put them aside. At no point am I knocking them aside.

 ∞ 

M—:

The crutches are a symbol of any belief that helps one cope with life's suffering. Be it a search for 'truth' or religion. I believe they should cast the crutches aside willingly. Not because they are unable/unwilling to face criticism or judgment - rather because they have experienced (via others or self) that suffering is not necessary when seeking wisdom or truth.

If it causes you suffering, you're going about it all wrong. It's just as easy to reach peace of mind through happiness. Why choose the thorn over the rose?

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

Because it might prick one's conscience into action...?

The trouble with everything you are saying, M—, is that you are assuming that everyone is a kind of helpless infant who struggles to cope with life. This assumption is no doubt pleasing to you because it allows you to be loving towards them in a motherly way. It is the way you have personally learned to cope with life; reducing everyone to infant status gives you the feeling of being in control.

At the same time, though, it closes your mind to other modes of being and to other aims in life. For example, it closes you off from the great happiness experienced by explorers and athletes who push themselves through the pain barrier. Or from producing great works of art, which are invariably generated through sustained suffering. Or from the highest wisdom enjoyed by the sages. All of this is closed off to you because of your choice to lose yourself in the happiness of feminine passivity.

 ∞ 

M—:

A prick? Again, you believe pain to be a motivator. Pleasure can be one, just as easily.

19 hours ago you didn't even know me! You have certainly discovered a lot about me in such a short time. Helpless infants? I assume nothing of the kind. And I can assure you, if you spoke to anyone who knows me, you would discovery quickly that I treat no one as if they are helpless - or as their mother.

But I am well aware of your opinion of women, so I won't bother an attempt to defend myself - we rocks and cows have little to add to life's journey. How I have chosen to cope with live is simple and painless - something well beyond your grasp. Having said that, there is no need for me to address the remainder of your post, as it is merely an opinion based on a fallacy.

I must add, that as an artist, I embrace my pain and suffering when it helps me create. And I have nothing but the greatest admiration for those who accomplish their goals, fighting through pain and breaking though personal barriers. I am not lost, I know exactly where I am.

Feminine passivity? I thought you said I needed to be in control? Again, you see this as a bad thing, as for me, I thank nature for allowing me the great honor of being born a woman - and all that comes with it. Oh, and it isn't a 'motherly type' Vinny wants or desires - and it most definitely is not what he gets. Are you not equally as grateful for being born a man? Or could the real issue be that, you are incapable of loving? Or should I be asking, why do you think you can't be loved?

Btw, David. How is it that you know better than mother nature? Women's mothering instincts are a perfection of nature.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

Yes, the crutches of attachment to false views will only be discarded willingly. They can't be knocked away --- but another can point out the poor support they provide. That can be the needed stimulus to put them aside.

M—, suffering doesn't necessarily indicate a method is wrong. It often happens during the process of becoming enlightened, because that involves abandoning false views, to which one has formed strong habitual ties. Abandoning those cherished views involves a certain amount of emotional discomfort and agitation --- but only initially.

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

It's all there in your words, M—. For example: "Compassion to me is the acknowledgement of and desire to eliminate another's pain and/or suffering. A shared sadness, if you will" - this is the essence of motherly love. The values you list - Love, Compassion, Empthy, Understanding, Tolerance, etc - reinforce this.

The human race becomes a race of infants and mothers. Or rather, we are all infants whose highest goal should be to mother one another. Anyone who deviates from this is automatically deemed to be ruled by religious belief and is using crutches to cope with life.

It is easy to see why you would find such deviance - as expressed by Kelly and me, for example - to be bewildering. Why on earth would a person contemplate leaving the infant world behind and chase a fictitious truth ("a truth outside of reality", as Vinny puts it), with all the unnecessary suffering this entails, when heaven already exists right here in the infant world?

This is women's spirituality in a nutshell and speaks directly to a darkness of mind.

 ∞ 

M—:

And if this is caused (discarding the crutch) by one seeing another way (by example), rather than forcing one's own belief down their throat, it is a beautiful thing.

If you are willing to suffer, then do so. We each choose our own way. I am well aware that all suffering can not be avoided, I have never said otherwise. I am saying that if one believes through suffering they gain wisdom, they are doing it wrong (unless they have a martyr complex, which could indicate mental illness). Discarding anything that has given us false hope always hurts. But once the search is over, there is no need to continue to seek more suffering.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

Expressing my opinions isn't forcing beliefs onto others, but querying through discussion the worthiness of what is expressed. It's about stimulating more reason, and more truthfulness. Suffering isn't something one directly seeks in this process: it's a symptom of a problem. That's all.

 ∞ 

M—:

David, I feel so sorry for you. That you have such disdain for women tells anyone who reads what you believe that your words come from a heart that has yet to be touched by a genuine love.

I hope your enlightenment brings a smile to your face on waking, comforts you when you are not well, longs to share your joys and sorrows, reaches for your hand to feel your touch, and weeps when you have passed.

Peace

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

Why do you think drug and alcohol addicts in rehabilitation often turn to Christianity, often saying things like "Jesus loves me, and shares all my sorrows and pain"?

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

Ooh, such negativity, M—. Instead of focusing on the negatives that you see in me, try concentrating on the positives.....

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

Well, that's the maternal compassionate instinct, David. It wants to keep everything light and fluffy, no harsh words, everything positive and sweet - the baby's world must be kept protected and safe against threats. And, naturally, mamma bares her teeth viciously against any baddies who'd harm her little bubba. There's no contradiction - M— is promoting being positive and kind and fluffy, but speaking negatively against baddies who'd harm the fluffy world.

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

So in other words, she behaves just like any other egotist - being positive towards what she likes and negative towards what doesn't like. Given this, what becomes of all those grand sounding values - Love, Compassion, Empathy, etc? They start to sound very hollow.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

I don't think M— ever presented herself as different from most people; and most people can't be justifiably expected to use such ideas in any other way than egotistical, given most people don't know that it's possible not to be egotistical at their core.

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

But she did start off in this thread criticizing you for being "negative" and extolling the virtues of being positive about people, patting herself on the back in the process. Since then she has shown that she is just as negative towards people as you are. Where she differs is that she is in denial about it.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

Vinny, I missed your question, until re-reading over the thread just now: "Why do you seek truth? Can you be completely honest in your answer?" Yes, I think I can be completely honest: before I understood profoundly what truth is, I sought it for egotistical reasons (naturally enough). I wanted a permanent knowledge freeing me from confusion and suffering.

 ∞ 

M—:

Negativity? Nothing in my posts was negative, David. I pointed out that Kelly was speaking negatively, then asked if she had tried being only positive. And I admitted I was being snide. How do you mistake my admission of looking for the positives in people as 'patting myself on the back'?

I embraced my femininity. Is that the negative you speak of? Unless you have become so used to being attacked for your views, that my refusal to debate the issue is a negative. But, that has no bearing on you as a man. Other than that, it was compassion for your sorrow at never having experienced true love, and a hidden reminder to you that there may be things you needn't mention if you want others to listen with open ears. Added was a genuine expression of the feelings I hope your quest's ending may bring to you. Admittedly it was written in a way to shine a glimmer of light on what you may be missing, but this would not be negative unless you indeed missed these things.

I will apologize if I have said something that has offended you as a man, but I can't apologize for offending you by being female. And I have concentrated on your positives, David. You make it a difficult task, at times. :)

One little thing...David said:

"So in other words, she behaves just like any other egotist - being positive towards what she likes and negative towards what doesn't like. Given this, what becomes of all those grand sounding values - Love, Compassion, Empathy, etc? They start to sound very hollow."

Your negativity toward women - This proves you, too, to be an egotist. What has become of your values because of this negativity toward what you don't like? No changing the rules mid-game. You have shown us that not only are your values hollow, but that the foundation of your beliefs is grounded in your ego. Let it be noted as well that you never answered my questions.

And Kelly, I find it a bit disturbing how quickly you jumped into the boat with David and grabbed a paddle, after speaking of his hypocrisy elsewhere. I suppose the pack mentality is harder to dismiss than the ego. Battle on.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

I haven't jumped into a boat with David. I speak for my own values. I realise David is not perfect, and I do believe he is compromising in some areas. But I have extremely high standards (and don't forget, I'm nowhere near ideal either); so we have to get this context in perspective. David is a superior mountain-climber who knows the terrain and has long experience. I'm not following him, but my own path - and by that personal experience I judge him, and others. You haven't even looked at the compass to start your journey, and David's gentle criticisms are really very accurate.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

Everything you write to point out what you disagree with --- is that being negative, or simply pointing out what you disagree with? Similarly, that is what I have been doing. You need not see it as either positive or negative.

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

"Nothing in my posts was negative, David." Oh come on, M—. You basically paint me a miserable old fuck, a sick misogynist, unloved and incapable of love, who resorts to using mental crutches to cope with his lot. If that isn't you being negative, then I certainly don't want to be around when you are! :)

For the record, I actually lead a rich, satisfying life, which is full of joy, insight and nirvanic moments. In fact, I couldn't ask for a better kind of life. But I thank you for your pity all the same....

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not the least bit offended by what you write. If anything, I find it amusing. Just watching the contrast between your claims of being understanding, loving and empathic with people and the complete lack of understanding and empathy for people such as myself is very comical.

It is like watching a priest, with tears in his eyes, giving pious sermons on a Sunday and then throwing himself into a week of debauchery in brothels and gambling dens, before standing up on the pulpit and delivering yet another moving sermon. That this priest is wholly unconscious of the absurdity of his life makes it even more comical....

But then again, it isn't really about loving, understanding and empathizing with people. That's merely a smokescreen, a front. Rather, it is all about using feminine wiles to herd everyone back into infant mode where they can gurgle harmlessly and ogle lovingly at their mothers. That is to say, it is all about you feeling the need to be in control.

 ∞ 

Kelly Jones:

You know, I think women would pity you even more for what you wrote above, David. If you're appealing for a conventional love-laden woman to understand you, she'd see it as begging for her understanding and acceptance - for her mercy. This is especially the case when you present a reasoned analysis about love and emotion: she can't possibly hear what you're saying, but thinks you're a sick man begging for her help (as an skilled administrator of love, empathy, etc.). Comical, yes, I suppose so. But what's your aim here?

 ∞ 

David Quinn:

Primarily, to flesh out the egotism behind her swirly feminine aura. And to laugh at it. What M— expresses is standard womanly/New Age condescension, which is a force we all have to deal with in this world.

 

 

 ∞ Back to Top ∞ 


return.JPG