Comments on: sun don’t shine, the gods look down in anger

By: Denise

Denise — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:04:00 +0000

(To MJM) I also believe what you say makes sense. The only thing I can think of at the moment however in response to your words is: scotts we know will come and go but rogers are the ebb and flow.
[sure, you can quote me on that:)]

By: AlmostKatherine Hepburn

AlmostKatherine Hepburn — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:41:07 +0000

I appreciate your “sage”, if not philosophical, comments. They always allow for new consideration and perspective with regards to what (I) deem to be “reasonable” from another’s point of view. And is that not the entire point? It is the reason I started my endeavor into the world of “The …Doctrine.”

By: clarkscottroger

clarkscottroger — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:17:31 +0000

‘…perhaps it is not the influence of other people but rather the way we react to that so-called influence that shapes who we are and who we have become…’

Current thinking agrees with your statement on one level. We are all responsible for how we feel, no one can ‘make’/force us to experience an emotion. Emotion is a personal, internal process like your damn blood pressure. But like bp, most people choose to think, ‘you are making me mad/glad/sad/excited/depressed.

That is simply not (necessarily) true. But then, part of this thing of ours forces us to recognise and accept that everyone lives in a slightly (and sometimes not so slightly) different world. And the only important thing to knowing this is (for us) to be able to accept that certain things may be ‘true’ for one person, even though we know that it is not necessarily true. (Run-on alert!!Warning!! Remain calm…allow your eyes to drift slowly and calmly to the bottom of this page…)

..dit

…dit

(there, better)

Consider that you ‘select’ everyone around you on the basis of a set of expectations that you may not be fully aware of…(to be continued.)

By: AlmostKatherine Hepburn

AlmostKatherine Hepburn — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:06:02 +0000

Wow! Robin Trower! It has been 30+ years (always weird to realize how long ago we “were”). Brings back many memories (and “they” said that smoking pot was hazardous to your memory.) Anybody out there remember the British band “Curved Air”? But I digress…
First of all I’d like to say Bravo! What an excellent post. Speaks to my core. Throughout my life I’ve known a lot of people. But knowing a lot of people and having good friends are two different things. So, being a loner and marching to my own drum as it were, I have a handful of people who I can say, to a point, have been and are influential. That is to say, they emote more of a reaction than anyone else. They will always be true friends who care about my welfare as I do about theirs. And of course there is family and an entire spectrum of possibilities. But that’s an entire other book(s). So, without hashing it out, I will simplify. Think about this: perhaps it is not the influence of other people but rather the way we react to that so-called influence that shapes who we are and who we have become.

By: clarkscottroger

clarkscottroger — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:28:29 +0000

‘Tho this Roger has been known to be drawn to the “others”. Does this make sense to anyone-’

Yes, yes it does.
There is a thing going on with this blog and the people (involved) in it. We have said that we all posess the ‘potential qualities’ of all three, which we retain that throughout our lives.
But some clarks, scotts and rogers are more of a ‘pure form’ than others. A ‘pure scott’, would if I walked up to him/her and started to explain the Doctrine, would listen (for a fairly short time) then shake their head (in that quizzico-comical way that dogs do) and run off.
A fairly roundabout way of saying that those of us here at this blog have the capacity to ‘see beyond’ our own forms. I am as surprised as anyone how rare this quality is, but and especially among rogers, the willingness to imagine that there are worlds co-existing with your own is not that common. My compliments on this point.

Now your question about when we become (clarks, scotts or rogers), that will be a very interesting discussion. And a fairly long one, exceeding the scope of this Reply.
I will say that we become who we are after birth but before 5 years old. I will add that which we become is a function of both nature and nurture.
(to be continued…)

By: mjm

mjm — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:38:35 +0000

Okay – took a few minutes of reading and will have to do it a couple of more times. To your last point why would we want to be one of the others – we are happy being what we are. And I think the people we are drawn to (for the most part)are of the same “kind”. Tho this Roger has been known to be drawn to the “others”. Does this make sense to anyone – and I really don’t think ROGER left the room. And who we are now was determined at the absolute beginning.