Skip to content

Simplicity and Peace

June 16, 2009

In the past few days, I’ve been going around, overextending myself and then getting rebuffed and snapped back.

That’s just no good.

Another lesson that must be slowly learned is that overextension is the natural inclination, but it’s not the most practical. We desire to start messes, to respond, to counter, instead of just walking away or just waiting or just being quiet. We don’t want to get outdone or outshown or lose a war of shouting.

It’s tough, but we have to overcome this inclination. Because even though we think it’ll make us feel better to snap back or to get revenge, it’ll actually ruin us and make us feel worse. And it will lead to a cycle.

It is so amazing to see someone killed with kindness. It is even more amazing when it happens to you…unless, of course, you have truly been cruel to someone, you are killed, and then your wounds rot with the sensation that you should feel bad.

But the simple and peaceful path isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It’s a path of quiet suffering and endurance. You have to endure everything, because even though that’s a sucky option, it’s better than all the alternatives. It’ll make you stronger if you survive through it.

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

6 Comments
  1. My first instinct when someone gets sassy on the Internet is always to hit back. It was only after a lot of ugly verbal melees that I learned to resist that impulse.

  2. And even now, old habits sometimes die hard!

  3. it’s true. I have the same impulse offline too, but I’m generally better at fighting it there. It’s a lot easier to give in to a keyboard though.

  4. JTJ permalink

    That was quite the exchange on BCC Andrew. I take it that most on the boggernacle are really not up to speed with modern thinking, if that makes sense, just up to what their experiences reflect, and to introduce a fair, and intelligent challenge isn’t received as such, but an affront to them or their belief/belief structure. I couldn’t see that with my religious blinders on.

  5. well, in the end, they do have somewhat of a point (even if their point is muddled behind silly insults).

    They want to cling to a system of hierarchy and authority…and they call this “intellectual” (namely because the research/intellectual community is one of the last vestiges of hierarchy and authority…you move up through peer review of your ideas and you have to start out small. You can’t brazenly stride to the top by merit of your ideas alone).

    So, if they are going to pick at that, that’s the weak spot. 1) because now, things don’t work like that and 2) because the tyranny of the majority has a particularly different outcome.

    That’s a weak point of my argument. The published writers will follow traditional definitions, even though they are inane definitions. And even if not, people can just say, “Well, your definitions are very cute, but in common popular conversation, atheist means x and agnostic means y.”

  6. JTJ permalink

    I was thinking more broadly, not necessarily specific to the BCC post. It seems most LDS related blogs have fatal conformation bias when dealing with the observable reality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: