Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have long used the old concept of "Sphere of Influence" to manage my day-to-day actions.
If an issue or problem is outside by immediate sphere of influence, then I let it go for others to worry about.
There are many occurrences that are within my sphere, but so many more that are not.
I have notice so many contributors to this forum that seem very upset and tied up in knots over issues and events that are so far outside their own sphere of influence. They try to get others to join their drama.
I can't help but think adopting the psychology of change what you can and leave the rest to others that do have the issue within their sphere, would help reduce the current world levels of anger and hatred.
THOUGHTS?
Have lived my whole life that way well , since early teens anyway.
lt became pretty clear to me pretty early on in life that we can only deal with or help or cope with things within our reach , capabilities l suppose might be another word in some instances.
And that l just have to let go of things that aren't - especially minds that will never change anyway. Which was really hard actually and for a long long time but we can only do so much or sacrifice sanity and heart , happiness. Gotta know your limitations , right.
I have long used the old concept of "Sphere of Influence" to manage my day-to-day actions.
If an issue or problem is outside by immediate sphere of influence, then I let it go for others to worry about.
There are many occurrences that are within my sphere, but so many more that are not.
I have notice so many contributors to this forum that seem very upset and tied up in knots over issues and events that are so far outside their own sphere of influence. They try to get others to join their drama.
I can't help but think adopting the psychology of change what you can and leave the rest to others that do have the issue within their sphere, would help reduce the current world levels of anger and hatred.
THOUGHTS?
First, I agree.
My 7th grade science teacher pointed out to us that he did not own a TV. I do not remember his entire explanation for that. However, it gave me permission to not watch TV (especially the News) ever since. My TV sits in the corner with a blu ray player and that's all I use it for. I do check the headlines on CNN on my laptop to have a general sense of what is going on; however, I only read or research anything that is of some particular interest to me. Because I don't watch the News I get the Information And Not the Drama. I can do what I will with the Information.
So, I am constantly having to battle with people that want to bring that information that they are stuck on into my world and the older I get the more I define and defend my boundaries. Hopefully this is food for thought for those that interact with me.
I agree there are just angry people who want to fight about something they don't even realize is 1,000 times over their pay grade. They should, instead get into investigator mode and dig into the subject (they would then realize how humongous the problem is with no real easy solutions). It's just way easier to start screaming and repeating repetitive phrases (which is totally asinine when you consider it). Idiotic really.
There is so much in that post that responding completely is impossible.
As there is some triteness, I'll respond in kind.
Your point is lost on me, I'm afraid. Sounds like something that would need to be discussed over a cup of coffee.
I have no sphere of influence that is guaranteed other than over my own behavior and thoughts. All the rest is wishful thinking and hope. And we all know what CSNY sang about hope.
Is there a judgement in there? Or a pet peeve? An assumption? Don't care to guess.
But, gosh, I'm not sure I'll ever get over being told you'll stoop to my trite level of writing. Tore out my heart and stomped that sucker flat, you did.
Your point is lost on me, I'm afraid. Sounds like something that would need to be discussed over a cup of coffee.
I have no sphere of influence that is guaranteed other than over my own behavior and thoughts. All the rest is wishful thinking and hope. And we all know what CSNY sang about hope.
Is there a judgement in there? Or a pet peeve? An assumption? Don't care to guess.
But, gosh, I'm not sure I'll ever get over being told you'll stoop to my trite level of writing. Tore out my heart and stomped that sucker flat, you did.
I'll clarify, I seemed to have confused you a bit. First, in no way was my post intended as an ad hom attack. No need to tear out a heart, and I doubt Nancy Sinatra's old boots would fit me.
Perhaps the first part of your post did hit a bit of a pet peeve. I pass a church sign that has been stuck on "God is NOT dead" for nigh onto ten years, along with an often incorrect time or date. When something like that is in my face for that long, it gets old and stupid, and storming into the church is not my style.
Trite: the definition is (loosely) not interesting because of being overused or hackneyed. The whole "God is dead" schtick and foaming at the mouth by reactionaries has been around for decades, I remember it from the mid 1960s, roughly at a time when churches were also trying to encourage visiting churches and temples of other faiths as part of an ecumenical movement. Culturally, television and a shift from insular communities to a country-wide shared experience was the real start of falling church attendance, not the relatively small "God is Dead" movement.
Any initial "judgment" comes from ministers and pastors, loosely aimed at Nietzsche, but more generally of the rational thought of enlightenment that stripped away much of the mysticism that had conveniently been used to make flocks fearful, obedient, and willing to tithe. Such enlightened antics as exposing the business of holy relics was embarrassing.
The first two paragraphs of your post were the only ones I consider to have an element of trite in them, and for me they collapsed upon themselves. I've written oodles of trite stuff myself over the years, and tend to have a certain amount of dispassion when I see it in my own writing. It happens.
"We killed God. Now, we have to be Him. LOL. Funny but in a very real sense true. We have a lot of people in this society who want to dictate our thoughts and feelings to us.
It's hard to live without faith in something. Have too much faith in yourself and it's a set-up for feelings of failure."
Put preachers first among the people in society who want to dictate thoughts and feelings. In fact, that has been the stated purpose of preachers since long before Christianity. The paragraph in effect bemoans that the supreme deity, as defined for people in the U.S. by preachers since the early 1700s, is gone; and at the same time distrusts the influence that was used by them to put that particular version of a deity at the forefront. Logically, it doesn't quite work.
Having too much faith in yourself as a set-up for failure: That is also trite in that it has been used, in various forms, to knock down dissidents to "the one true faith" since pre-history. Martin Luther suffered with being saddled with the phrase, as have countless others. Nietzsche himself was an example of someone who lived without a faith as defined by religion.
The words "Have too much faith in yourself and it's a set-up for feelings of failure." have too much vagary to pin down, and the multiple interpretations cause the statement to be not only trite but self-contradictory. If you are equating "faith in yourself to "egotists," that contradicts the interpretation of it meaning "Self-actualized individuals." Feelings of failure may or may not indicate actual failure, so the statement is ambiguous enough that there are easily four possible interpretations.
With the above comments in mind, compare the style of your first two paragraphs to the style of the rest of your post. The balance of your post has the ring of authenticity, of coming from introspection. Those first two paragraphs are very much a "WE" "OUR" "US", followed by a "YOURSELF" (not MYself).
When you say "We killed God," I am not part of that "we." Nor do I have to be "him." The part of your reading audience that is Buddhist never killed that deity either.
The rest of the post is in first person, authentic and thoughtful, and works quite well.
Now I better understand your point of view, harry. Perhaps in typing it's difficult to differentiate the facetious me from the more serious me.
My viewpoint of the general flow of humankind doesn't mandate everyone to subscribe so by all means feel free to excuse yourself..
Glad to hear you didn't kill God. Way to go!
Oh, I recognize hyperbole (hence the Nancy Sinatra boots reference). However, other readers and moderators might not. I've been in trouble before when jousting with repartee, where a mod misunderstood. When I post on CD, I tone things down.
I've been battered around in life enough that destroying boxes others might try to put me in is second nature, no permission needed.
I have long used the old concept of "Sphere of Influence" to manage my day-to-day actions.
If an issue or problem is outside by immediate sphere of influence, then I let it go for others to worry about....
THOUGHTS?
I think as far as what you've said, I would agree, but I wonder at how you calculate the size of this sphere. When I look back over my nearly 67 years of life, the number of people that have influenced how I see the world are too numerous to mention. Something as small as a word of encouragement from a stranger in my dark times has made a difference in my life. Listening to our librarian telling us about the realms of discovery in all sections of books; my godfather teaching me how to tie my shoes when no one else could (we were both lefties); seeing a hate-filled face -- there are millions of times that I've encountered a different way of seeing something by people I don't know. Each has made me who I am today.
Your sphere of influence could be as far-reaching as global, and as close as the person next to you.
Everything matters. The flap of a butterfly's wing ....
I think as far as what you've said, I would agree, but I wonder at how you calculate the size of this sphere. When I look back over my nearly 67 years of life, the number of people that have influenced how I see the world are too numerous to mention. Something as small as a word of encouragement from a stranger in my dark times has made a difference in my life. Listening to our librarian telling us about the realms of discovery in all sections of books; my godfather teaching me how to tie my shoes when no one else could (we were both lefties); seeing a hate-filled face -- there are millions of times that I've encountered a different way of seeing something by people I don't know. Each has made me who I am today.
Your sphere of influence could be as far-reaching as global, and as close as the person next to you.
Everything matters. The flap of a butterfly's wing ....
I think it does. But I think you have to be certain you have that influence in order to claim it. One hopes and tries to be a positive influence and sometimes they are but there isn't a living human who can set out to change someone's viewpoint any given day and guarantee they can do it.
There are illusions of power over others sometimes aided by violence, psychological manipulation or by kindnesses but in the end they will decide when they've had enough.
You can have a lifetime of kindness to offer and may never know whether it made a bit of difference.
It mattered to you because you have the gift of appreciation. And maybe hindsight?
What you've said is why I think it's so important to tell people when they have had a positive effect on you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
