Rex link said:
[quote author=brookiegreg link=topic=180868.msg229751#msg229751 date=1245922223]
But does this fact mean we turn our eyes away from separate issues where Max has acted - be they concerning the Manly club or without - and choose not to debate such issues?
Implicitly you've decided the answer to that question is "Yes". But it's not just an examination of the issues, it is an examination focused on judging, criticising, fault-finding. So "we should debate these issues so we can all judge who is right and who is wrong" is the thought. And we have. And what difference has believing and acting on that thought made so far? To Max? Scott? the League club? the Footy club? The team? To our internal world?
And is it possible to examine these issues without being judgemental, critical, fault-finding? Is it possible to accept the owners, warts and all, just as we would like to be accepted warts and all? They've given us the gift horse and we're busily examining the teeth to tell them we want a different horse ... yet that's the only horse offered or available. We can clean the horse's teeth ourselves but we don't and demand the owners provide us one with self-cleaning teeth.Â
So is it possible to let the owners get on with their business and get on with our own business, as if we don't have enough on our plate without worrying about their business. Would they sort it all out themselves or do they need us to tell them exactly what to do?
Good question to consider, brookiegreg. I'd be interested to know what you find out.Â
brookiegreg link said:
Surely the things we are debating are separate issues not connected with the original thanks and praise we feel towards Max for his generous support of Manly in the first place.
Are we not mature or wise enough to be able to address these recent issues like a judge would, focussing just on the issue at hand whilst not letting other past issues cloud our reasoning and judgement??
The desire to separate what is fundamentally interconnected. Where does that come from? We'd like to have all the icing without the cake please. All the eating without the sh*t.
I'm not sure a judge is a good example. Judges decide what is consistent with the law, not what is effective, or logical, or reasonable, or even fair. We implicitly assume judges apply common sense, and common sense flies out the window with those constraints.
But a damned good question, Brookiegreg. Are we capable of focussing
just on the issue at hand whilst not letting other past issues cloud our reasoning and judgement?
We're stressed. We worry about our job, Manly's form, our finances, the world financial crisis, Manly's form, office politics, Stewie's court case, Manly's form, the wife's criticism the other night, the tax return, Manly's form, the skeletons in the closet, the weeds in the garden, Manly's form, our kids' futures, etc, etc. Most of our stresses and worries we aren't even consciously aware of. And they've never been critically examined. But they're by default treated by our conscious or subconscious minds as if they are indisputable reality.
And if we lost all this memory, that is all our past issues, we'd have nothing to remember to be worried about would we? We'd feel ourselves breath in the air, perfectly. We'd feel the tingling life in our hands, our arms, every cell of our bodies. We'd see the chair support us and the floor support the chair and the ground support the floor. and ... And everything is here and now and is perfect. And we feel free and easy. Bliss. But instead our unexamined thoughts take us perpetually into the past and future with all their regrets, guilts, worries and anxieties and we lose contact with everything here and now. We live a virtual reality of our feared and desired imaginings and lose contact with what is. Yet the only issues really at hand are those right here, right now. And to lose the bliss and freedom of here and now living - would we really do that if past issues weren't clouding our reasoning and judgement?
So, yes, are we capable of focussing
just on the issue at hand whilst not letting other past issues cloud our reasoning and judgement?
brookiegreg link said:
Is it not right to address these as separate, and debate the issues on their merits?
Is this the way it works Rex - or maybe I'm getting carried away too? :-\
A shopping centre model is not a shopping centre. In the same way, a thought is not reality. Until we can become aware of our thoughts and deeply realise that they are only thoughts - gross distortions, limitations, abstractions, simplifications - not reality - we have little hope of being able to see what is there except through the distorted filters of our unexamined beliefs. Until then, we see what we believe. So until then we are not really seeing, just believing.
With our distorted belief filters on, are we capable of examining issues on their merits and does it free or entrap us when we falsely believe we can?Â
[/quote]
Geez Rex, why use 5 words to explain something when you can use 500. Make you feel smarter?