Can something that's broken be fixed?
Posted by John on 06/06/2007 20:47:02
In reply to Re: welcome back posted by Eddie on 06/06/2007 10:43:45
I'm not in good enough shape right now to attempt profound responses to
these latest posts—high wind and blowing dust being my worst adversaries.
Huffing and puffing.
I'm happy to see you back again, Scot. I'm happy to see you and Eddie on
speaking terms. I'm happy to hear the gentleness of the music of these
posts, Eddie.
I'm afraid that it's only my stubbornness that makes me feel that each of
you has missed something that might have been picked up on in that past
episode of political debate. It's not about the content of what each of
you were saying back-and-forth back then that I'm driving at, but rather
in the music of it, in the context of how some of the remarks were
phrased—seeming to impugn the honesty, or the *character* of each of us,
including me for having the views that we have. At least, that's what
hurt my feelings.
However, from the looks of these latest posts, I think it is best if we
agree to disagree on *everything* having to do with that confusing era of
Classroom Talk, and move on in our searching for new understandings.
I feel grateful that you've posted again, Scot. Maybe the question I've
been suffering over the most around all this has been "Can something
that's been broken be fixed?" And with your reappearance, somehow, that
seems at least possible to me again.
Hmmmmmmmm. Seems like my game was maybe Believer—anxious dependence on
someone else for reassuring my sense of security in the world. Anyway,
I'm glad to feel more relaxed about that. Wherever it was that I was
coming from, thanks for contributing to my peace.
Love,
John
P.S. I've decided to write to Rebecca Nottingham and ask for her
permission before printing her long summary of spiritual practice in
Classroom Talk. I guess it's "good" to do the right thing by her.