This is beginning to sound like a bad therapy session, but please bear with me.
Colmar, a blogger who I have great respect for, stopped by this morning and ripped me a new one on three different posts. His comments, added to those of others, including my partner Kira, have convinced me that yesterday was a really bad day.
I'm caught between feeling humility and a lack of self-confidence. At least one of my subpersonalities thrives on acceptance by others, especially those he respects, and feels lost when he encounters criticism. Another of my subpersonalities, and this one may be a variation of my "higher self," sees all things as opportunities to learn.
So, I want to learn from this experience. Something was deeply awry yesterday, both on the blog and in my regular life -- including a speeding ticket. I want to identify what was happening and why and see what the lesson is.
In fact, I have been feeling out of alignment since returning from Zion last week. It feels like I got outside of my daily grind to such a degree that I cannot get back into the same groove again. So I'm stuck in liminal space, spinning in the wind, and making bad choices for lack of a new framework.
I need to spend some time sitting with all of this and stop trying to participate in the world. There is more going on here than a few dumb blog posts.
Technorati Tags: Disclosure, Subpersonalities, Humility, Low self-confidence, Lessons
11 comments:
Your yesterday was a grrrrr-RATE day, Bill -- if I may say so in the word of Tony the Tiger.
You got a speeding ticket. Good news! It may slow you down and save your life, or that of a pedestrian.
And, now, it has given you and me the opportunity to rip a couple of new ones into Colmar and fix his misapprehension and aid him in becoming much better adjusted.
Bill, Do you truly now think that satire is wrong? Certainly when it is one-sided -- the Left, e.g., tearing into Bush and bristling at fun aimed at its sacred cows.
Good satire, like any excellent comedy, is insight into absurdity we would not be aware of otherwise.
You think the world would be better if problems were tackled while being exclusively serious? Great; go see how the world was fixed when everyone was comrades in the Soviet Union. Life there was fully disfunctional.
Freedom is not only necessary, it is the only was that problems are brought out into the open air.
Your posts were wonderful, yesterday. They are disinfecting. The sun shines; the birds sing.
Um....
I don't quite know what to say. Sounds like the spiritual sensitivity police are out in full force.
Y'all know that post was from THE ONION, yes? Do you ever watch Stephen Colbert?
Colmar, dude, get over yourself. Enjoy life a little. Bill did nothing "wrong" here. Personally, I laughed my ass off at that post.
Bill,
You'll never be able to please everyone, including your partner. My only feedback for you regarding the Onion post is that you may have done better by identifying it, up front, as a piece from the Onion. The "set-up" is especially important in satire.
Clearly, you spend a lot of time on this blog, and it's understandable that you're feeling a bit shaken up by critical comments. But don't get gun-shy on us now. If you posted a photo of your bare ass, with the caption: "Is this Integral enough for you?"--I would have no less repect for you. In fact, I would probably laugh myself off the sofa.
Just keep being you, man.
--Bob
I found a lot of the criticism just kind of off. What's the big deal? Kick around a joke or two, a few ideas...
The John Dean thing sure is interesting. Because obviously there's something to the study and obviously Colmar has a point in his comment. So what's the theory that takes both into account? Any ideas? I think a lot of the examples Colmar gave might actually be examples of red level values hijacking a country and a philosophy. Which would make it the same kind of authoritarian problem. Blind followers and all. Though I am sure more is going on as well...
Point is everything was interesting.
Good work, Bill. I loved the satire. You do a great job with your blog! Keep it up.
"Anything from the Onion needs to be given a second thought, since it is SO clearly not a Second Tier source."
Why? Because it's actually funny?
Why can't you just enjoy the piece, Colmar, instead of dissecting it to death with a "second-tier rant"? This boring, dry intellectual Integral of yours is as exciting as watching paint dry on a barn on the Nebraska plain.
And for the record, I HAVE argued that Ann Coulter needs to be taken for what she is.
So nyah.
Colmar,
For the record, I am convinced you have it backwards. It is green [and MGM at that] that acts as the mean enforcer of political correctness. It is second tier to rise above this headache, rumpled-feather patrol.
But it is also first tier [in my estimable opinion, tho not in Ken's, perhaps] that guaging each other on what tier one's on and acting differently than what's in accord with what one believes and feels is OK.
So, truly, it is YOU who is the Mean Green Memester, booming boomeritis platitude with Anon while the rest of us are laughing and dancing on the second floor. [Ken is sweeping in the basement.]
I very much appreciate all the support. Thank you.
However, I think Colmar was more set off by the John Dean post than The Onion post, and all of it -- combined -- just seemed too out of character for this blog.
I have to admit a knee-jerk liberalism overtook my brain when I watched the Dean piece. I lost all critical thinking ability and just posted it "because all conservatives suck," which I know is simply another stereotype that doesn't hold up under actual scrutiny.
When it comes to politics, I am deeply infected with the MGM, which is one of the reasons I gave up my political blog back in April. I have been trying, until recently, to cultivate a life free from political stuff in the hope that whatever needs to shift will shift -- to no avail. I'm going to have to work on it directly to effect any real change.
I also see Colmar's point about the Onion post, though I suspect he would not really have said much if it hadn't come on the same day that I posted the Dean thing and the silly "ain't Christians dumb" post which should never have happened -- for that one I do truly apologize.
I would do the Onion post again, but I would do it with more context and commentary.
However, I still look back at yesterday -- with oh so much distance and objectivity (grin) -- as a rather strange day in my posting. And I take it as a sign that something is amiss.
I guess that's all I have to offer. I will let you all get back to your previously scheduled debate.
Peace,
Bill
I'm with tom -- it's the anti- responses in these threads that strike me as "green," not the pros. I'm a white male and I experienced the Onion article not as an attack, but rather a hilarious skewering of both my own shadow material and the (green) taboo against recognizing (and integrating) these kinds of sentiments generally. As for the Dean interview, he was citing an academic study that focused not on the historical movements or "great men" of history you mention, but rather on the tendencies of individuals in our own culture. There wasn't sufficient information presented to evaluate the study on its merits, but surely drawing attention to a thought-provoking presentation is no crime.
Colmar, you might be well-served by taking a few steps back and asking yourself what about these posts presented such a "hook" for your own shadow projections (to crib from the Earpster), because you seem to be mostly alone in taking such offense.
Also, I'm really not seeing this crypto-progressivism you tag the integral movement with. I've used the term "mean yellow" myself, but I was referring to the reflexive green-bashing that goes on throughout the integral movement. Green is far from integrated into the worldviews of many allegedly 2nd-tier integral types. "You/your argument is/are green" is regularly used as the ultimate insult and/or conversation ender. Flinging the "green" label around is the standard "integral" way to avoid having to engage in orange-level rational debate on the merits. Try making a "green" argument on Integral Naked, for instance, and see what kind of response you get. It won't be friendly and embracing, that I can promise.
"You know, I just can’t argue with logic like that…. "
And you are wise not to try.
Howdy,
I think that Colmar may mot realize that Ken Wilber's prediction was just flat wrong. From my reading of people's posts very few -- with Colmar being one, perhaps -- are upset with Ken's cussing. It seemed to me of those who were upset, myself included, it was because Wilber had this big unreasonable tantrum which wasn't mitigated by the idea of Earpy being a test. But then for me, and for Colmar, there is the huge problem of the cultic direction that Wilberism is headed. [All this is old news, I know.]
Fast forward to the IOC posts on 7/12 and most of us aren't upset by the edgy effort of Bill to make a few points. And I think that it is true for most of us that we don't want Bill to feel pressure to censor himself, in part because he needn't worry that we are looking for ways to be offended.
In my, personal, defense I did defend Ann Coulter the day after her book came out.
I *think* a part of seeing all sides is to see all sides, which very much includes seeing the rabid nonesense from the Republicans and Christian Right.
But I don't think political humor is supposed to be particularly fair or that we are supposed to look for "fair and balanced" reporting from John Dean. These things act as filters for us, giving us insights we cannot find in other ways, but also we should remain aware of the prejudices and trustworthiness of our sources. John Dean's book has value, for example, because nobody else has the compassionate balls to report on the fact there is something new in the last few decades about the Republicans being full-throttle amoral manipulators.
Bottomline: Blog on, Bill. Don't do some things you've done; change your focus, whatever. But I don't think you should be drafting apologies or worrying about alienating your readers.
[And for the rest of you DON'T EAT WILBER CANDY!!]
Post a Comment