Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Rose

Expand Messages
  • texasbg2000
    ... freyjartist@a... ... something ... controlled ... with ... dont ... Dear Nina: I think the lyric is intended to make us see there is something valuable in
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina"
      <murrkis@y...> wrote:
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "texasbg2000"
      > <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote:
      > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com,
      freyjartist@a...
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > It's the heart, afraid of breaking
      > > > That never learns to dance
      > > >
      > > > It's the dream, afraid of waking
      > > > That never takes the chance
      > > >
      > > > It's the one who won't be taken (or tricked or manipulated)
      > > > Who cannot seem to give
      > > >
      > > > And the soul, afraid of dying
      > > > That never learns to live
      > > >
      > > > ~from "The Rose"
      > > > sung by Bette Midler
      > >
      > > Nice poetry Freyja. People who want to run others lives or 'con'
      > them
      > > into giving up their money or freedoms lose something.
      > >
      > > That one line that one who won't be taken cannot give is
      something
      > I
      > > believe.
      > >
      > > People who want to 'take' others look at others as if they were
      > > trying to do the same to them. A person who lies is more
      > suspicious
      > > of others lying than one who does not. An honest person will
      > forgive
      > > a cheater sooner than another cheater will.
      > >
      > > The worst part is that they do not want to be controlled. They
      > want
      > > to control others. If it becomes an obsession to not be
      controlled
      > > then you probably should look to see if you are manipulative or a
      > > control freak yourself.
      > >
      > > Resisting being controlled by circumstances seems to interfere
      with
      > > giving to me. It sets one aside from a situation and interferes
      > with
      > > participation. Sure you get taken in a lot by people but you
      dont
      > > have to keep a tight asshole all the time like they do.
      > >
      > > Just some thoughts
      > > Love
      > > Bobby G.
      >
      > There is a way of viewing the world that is neutral
      > and allows that there are liers and cheaters as well
      > straight-talkers and generous people. In fact, it
      > may be seen that we each carry a mix of these manifestations
      > within us, to differing ratios. Once this is realized,
      > it is even easier to understand where another person
      > is coming from... with compassion of the sort Bruce
      > Morgan has described.

      Dear Nina:

      I think the lyric is intended to make us see there is something
      valuable in being vulnerable. I wrote a short essay years ago about
      manipulators resisting manipulation themselves and the way it
      distorts interaction, and this touched a nerve on that topic.

      It is my way to try to see the effects on myself of my actions and
      that is the direction I intended for this response to the lyrics.
      That is, if I manipulate others to my advantage, when I know it is to
      their disadvantage, what sort of fallout will I receive from that?
      My idea is that it limits my involvment in a general sense. It
      separates me and creates dualism of the fourth type (Ken Wilber- the
      Shade and the Personna).

      Acts of the Shade type are acts which I think are not typical of me.

      The "Me" acts which I think are typical of me are are the actions I
      admit to, those of the Personna.

      It is typical to believe that the things I do that I believe are
      negative is just a slip up. But in this dualism way of describing
      events they would simply be actions of the Shade, the 'me' that I do
      not admit is me.

      Of course the reverse is true too. The personna can be negative
      things and the shade are 'good' things I do that I cannot admit are
      me.

      So if I manipulate others I can believe I really am a negative person
      and the positive things I do are all faked for whatever reasons. Then
      everything gets complex.

      >
      > To suggest that because someone can recognize lies
      > or cheats they are lies and cheats, is a false logic.

      "A person who lies is more
      suspicious
      of others lying than one who does not. An honest person will
      forgive
      a cheater sooner than another cheater will." It still seems right
      to me. I dont personally know anyone who is not a cheater or a
      liar. If you did not ever encounter a lie in someone else are you so
      sure that you could lie?

      > Have you checked to see if they can recognize
      > straight-talk and generosity? What if they can recognize
      > all of those? What, then, by your logic, does that
      > make them? What, then, by your logic, are you, based on
      > your recognition that tightwads recognize other tightwads?

      > Meditation and self-study are ways of getting beyond this
      > way of viewing the world and the 'others' in it.
      >
      > You can give yourself away freely and recklessly to other
      > humans, or you can give yourself away freely and recklessly
      > to yourself. Your choice.

      It is a dangerous world. But it is reckless in a sense to become too
      protective.

      If I see others as myself then I dont mind if they get something from
      me. But if they get hurt more taking something from me (because they
      increase the shade-personna split) then I dont want them to take
      advantage. Is this giving myself to myself?

      Love
      bobby g.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.