C-PALSY Archives

Cerebral Palsy List

C-PALSY@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Kyle E. Cleveland" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
St. John's University Cerebral Palsy List
Date:
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 07:56:00 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (138 lines)
ISM,

In other words....shit happens?  I'll buy that!

(Can you take a post-dated check?  The holidays have tapped me out.)

;P

-Kyle

-----Original Message-----
From: I. Stephen Margolis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 8:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Reality; What a Concept


Thing about reality is that it isn't a concept, "reality" is a concept.
Said another way: what we say or think about reality uses
concepts--given that we also "experience" and "feel" reality.  Whatever
is reality seems a bit larger than either yours or my mind together (if
you and I ever have our minds together)--which may be why your having so
much trouble wrapping your mind around so big a shtick.

Sorry, I didn't read Trisha's post.  Recall I'm on a leave of
absence--of course, not much different than my usual state of mind,
being, or reality.  Really!  What the Hell am I doing HERE!

What I think we're talking about verges on solipsism (nearly group
onanism)--maybe fascism--New Ageism--and the World as Seen from the Eyes
of the Almighty Megacorp Consumer/Sales Mindset--said simply eat and be
eaten: consume and be consumed.  We're being set up to be put down.
This is individualism and responsibility at a near new level of
miniaturization and minimalism.

People who think attitude and outlook are the basis for what ails or
aids us don't see very deeply or clearly.  Too much grin and bear it
when somebody's smashing you over the head with a two-by-four.

Seems my idea-ology contains something of class consciousness,
economics, politics, and a glimmer of what I don't or ever will know
when given a moment I may decide to snarl or smile (assuming I have a
moment to decide).

I think people basically rationalize and look for reasons where maybe no
justification or explanation is necessary or suffices.  We do what we
do.  Maybe what's really scary is that none of this or anything we say
or do means anything.

Now, Denise, you're very smart and logical and sober.  You couldn't
mistake an egg for a stone.  Why seek logic in the illogical?

Hugs and love,

Steve M.


>From: "Denise D. Goodman" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "St. John's University Cerebral Palsy List"
<[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Reality; What a Concept
>Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:46:42 EST
>
>I'm having a bit of trouble following this "reality is dependent on our
>attitudes and thought," ideaology.  My mother subscribed to something
>similar.  Visualizations, treasure maps, positive thinking, etc bound
in
>Christian based teachings.  What Trisha describes sounds very familair,
but
>here's where I get lost:
>
>Trisha said, "We tend to forget we creat our realities dependent on our
>attitudes and what we think."  .... "Good customer service should not
be
>dependant on selling
>something but on providing good service - the end." ... "What I have
found is
>- life reflects back my attitude. I frown - they frown - I smile - they
>smile. We tend to forget we creat our realities dependent on our
attitudes
>and what we think."
>
>While detailing the exploits of retail Trisha goes on to say, "The nice
thing
>about sales work is after a while - you can size up people from across
the
>room."  Then in relation to the difficult shopper she says, "And I am
>thinking - Oh no I am going get to her - so I did drag my sale out a
bit..."
>
>That is where I get lost.  Following the original idealogy if life
reflects
>back your attitude, then by prejuding the woman who walked up to the
counter,
>by sizing her up from across the room and having the negative thought,
"Oh no
>I am going to get her," did this create the negative reality of her
rude
>behavior?  OR did it work in reverse?  Did the woman walking up to the
>counter "size-up" the sales people, prejudge and ready herself for poor
>service, thereby making her the creator of the realitity of this
negative
>experience?
>
>Now, following along this logic, what if the shopper did originally
walk in
>with a predisposed "bad attitude."  When Trisha saw her, instead of
thinking
>"Oh no...", what if she thought, "Yes!  This sweet polite woman is
going to
>be a breeze.  She will make a good purchase, and will be happy with the
item
>and my service."  Now, would Trisha's attitude reflect onto the woman,
or
>would the shoppers negative attitude reflect onto Trisha?  I get this
image
>of a Western shoot out.  Whose reflection will dominate, win out and
create
>the reality?
>
>Does "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" also include rude
people?
>  You see why I'm having so much trouble.  It's the old conundrum I
face when
>watching the Five Planet of the Apes Movies.   Who created the reality?
Was
>it the birth of the talking ape in the future, or his travel back into
the
>past?
>
>Honestly I'm not trying to poke fun at anyones idealogy, I just
wondered how
>you distinguish which person is creating the reality?  - Denise who
just
>can't seem to wrap her own twisted logic around this complicated
subject :D

ATOM RSS1 RSS2