|MMMark's Whycandoo Room: Tell Me About Me|
19 comments13 May 2002 @ 00:48 by vaxen : OK...
Without further adieu I must say that I've oft resented your seeming 'lumping' us all into projections of how 'you' see the world and wish it to be. Now I must request that you give me further time within which to think about the way that your 'views' have 'rubbed' me the wrong way. I admire this step towards unity that you have taken and illustrates for me the best part of your self which, of course, we all share...I just do'nt have the time at the moment, but I'll be back, to further answer your quest-ion. I'll leave you, for now, with a link that, if you do'nt use it already, I hope you will. Enjoy Mark;
13 May 2002 @ 02:02 by jazzolog : A Tough Request
Dear Mark, I am trying to write this without reading the 2 comments up above. I don't want to be influenced on this by what anyone else has to say. I think in the main text of this very entry is the key to what I find I have to work hard on in knowing you. "I havent beat my own drum, because I have no self interest in the energy I place on these pages." That seems impossible. (Outside of Nirvana or Messiah-hood or something.) It even seems undesireable. I like your self. The thought of you dissolving into the film of Universal Is-ness is not attractive to me and my idea of our friendship. I don't look forward to visiting you at a Temple of BlissOut where, in your garb of white robes, you will greet me in totally-centered egolessness. Of course, I'll still come and visit you there, if it comes to that, and I'll even bring you some new drum sticks. You still will be allowed to play drums, yes?
Oh, do beat your own drum, Mark. It's a wonderful sound. And practice, practice, practice. You always can clean up your act more. And you can sharpen your wit and your perception. You can pay attention. You can come out and play. And bring your family...and I'll bring mine. Let's go on a picnic! And then, refreshed, on another day, a Monday morning, it's back to work, working together. Love you, man, Richard
13 May 2002 @ 04:01 by ming : Thanks for asking
That's courageous of you, and maybe we all should ask that, at regular intervals. Anyway, to try to answer what rubs me the wrong way about you ...
1. You don't seem to believe in some of the things I would find are essential in doing something together, in being able to work through things. For me the most fruitful interactions are where there's some give and take and we throw different views back and forth and we end up learning something and achieving some kind of synthesis. I.e. we notice how we look at things differently, a little or a lot, and we then try the other person's view on for size and see if it maybe fits, or we try to both switch our views and realize that we're looking at the same thing. With you it seems like you don't believe in different views at all, so you instantly get offended or hurt or defensive when you notice there is some disagreement. Where, for me, that's where the real process starts. There's a bunch of concepts around this that are very important to me, and which are key parts of my previous education in life, such as for example Korzybski's General Semantics. I'm not going to go in great detail here, but concepts such as "The map is not the territory", "The symbol is not the thing". In other words, being conscious of the fact that our words and mental models are always somewhat inadequate and indirect in describing what really is. A buddhist way of saying it might be "The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon". Now, the reason I'm mentioning these things is because it seems like you're coming from a very different place, and you're trying to put things absolutely into words, in such a way that everybody will understand the same thing with the words. And you get sort of despondent if there's any talk of how we might possibly be looking at somewhat different realities. For me, that's an exciting and freeing thought, but for you it seems to spell disaster. Which makes it kind of hard for me to work through anything with you. If we already agree 100%, no problem. But if we don't, I'm not aware of any communication tool at my disposal that allows me to work through the process with you. And that in itself is remarkable, as I right now can't think of anybody else in my life that I have that problem with to the same degree. I can think of people that I might have difficulties with, but I can't think of anybody else that I don't have some kind of shared communication model with, which can resolve differences. I don't know anybody else right now who doesn't believe in differences at all.
2. You will often do the opposite of what you seem to be believing in, and you in many ways represent the opposite here of what you are preaching. And, interestingly, what you actually do, rather than what you say, is what I've found most valuable about having you here in NCN, in a roundabout kind of way. What I find is of use is that you're kind of challenging everything, voicing what's wrong with things. If somebody sets up a new workgroup, you tend to be the first one there, and will right away announce how it really had been named wrong, that it is misleading, and really should have been done all differently. Then you ignore any agenda or rules set for the group, and you promote your own agenda instead. Later things probably smooth out. But what I find fascinating is that you, in my view, a significant percentage of the time do something very different, almost 180 degree opposite to what you say you're about. From your words you're representing the voice of unity and positivity and collaboration and self-lessness. But you're very often the dissenting voice who's complaining about things not fitting your ideals, who's criticising any approaches different from your own, and who's mostly beating your very own drum, rather than tuning into what is going on for the group. And the ironic thing is that I think it can be very helpful to have somebody who always tests and challenges everything. Particularly when it is somebody who's in no way a jerk, but who has the very best of intentions with it, like you. You'll notice how your newslog seems to generate longer threads than most anybody else, because you're always stirring up some kind of conflict, and that creates some significant juice, which I think we often need. The only thing I think is sad is that I fear you will not accept this view at all, and probably will feel I'm being mean to you or something. The only thing wrong with it all is that you are unhappy. I just think you would be happier if you accepted your role as a rabble rouser.
13 May 2002 @ 07:07 by martha : Ergodicity- CE
I have been reading your comments with great interest on evolution and I don't entirely disagree with you. but I do look upon the subject with a different perspective.
To be very brief- My basic premise is this- nature is very efficient when it (god, energy, whatever label one chooses) created (evolved) the species. The operative word is efficient. There is no waste in nature. Every bit is used efficiently and than returned to the earth to be used again. In marveling at the efficiency at which nature can operate (without man's interference) I question one aspect concerning humanity. Why does man only use 10-15% of their brain. These findings are confirmed in numerous studies on brain research. This is not efficient. What this tells me is that we have not reached our full capacity as intended. We have not fully evolved into our bodies yet. So my concept of man's evolution is that as we learn to use more of our brains abilities, we humans will shift our thinking, and possibily our bodies also. I believe this is the evolution- to reach the full biological capacities we were built for.
Now we woman already are using at least 25% of our brains. Stop-my sexist side has suddenly popped out. Sorry about that. Man this evolution stuff can be tricky.
13 May 2002 @ 07:24 by martha : Semantics
Hi Honey, bet you didn't think I would post here. Surprise.
As most of you know and for those that don't, Mark is my sweetheart. Sometimes our matching energy isn't in the positive arena. What!! All is not sweetness and light at home. If I said it was than no one would believe me or anything more I might post.
This is a household of two first born strong minded and aggressive individuals. While I believe fundamentally Mark and I are on agreement on beliefs we still bump heads at times. Ouch.
My personal take on it is that 95% of the time it is the words that get in the way. He uses words in one manner where as I come from a different direction. So often we will discuss something coming from completely different directions and driving each other crazy at times.
No mystery there- And oh those Virgos can talk in such a detailed logical way that at times my Aries mind could possibly burst with frustration. Get the picture? Everyone does it.
Bottom line is all of us must learn to honor all viewpoints. It doesn't mean we always agree. It's the words more often than the intent, which trips us up, and I continue to see this on NCN.
Which brings me back to matching energy. Sometimes your sentences are too over worked for the energy you are sending. I believe that one can sense in the words the energy attached with it. I see it in all posts. You write beautifully and I would never dream on telling you to change. I believe you need a bit more practice matching the energy you feel to the words you write. How does one accomplish this. Through loving practice and honoring.
And for those interested out there- Im usually right 95% of the time only Mark doesnt see it that way! Darn that sexist, unconscious evolving, self-serving side of me. I better leave now before I thoroughly discredit myself.
13 May 2002 @ 08:20 by scottj : Have I been around long enough
to have anything useful to say? A lot of what I read of yours, Mark seems to relate to historical events here I was not witness too. I have to say I do, now, struggle with your problem with Ming and the way it has developed of late. I am a deeply suspicious type by nature (survival tactic in a mean world maybe) especially of people in authority or control. They have to be on the make, there has to be a hidden agenda. That made me prejudicially suspicious of Ming at the outset but I have to say having read Mings words and seen what he does I find that suspicion receeding daily to the point where I can say that I trust that Ming is doing his Thing and that it is very ok. I see that all is not working out on NCN but less and less am I seeing that Ming is responsible and that the solution isn't to get Ming to change things. Interesting situations for me as every where else the Top Man is on the make in some way or working for the Devil or whoever. Now I see most of the Ming related problems at NCN as coming from his efforts to avoid becoming *THE WEBMASTER* which means they are mostly down to the group as a whole (which then includes Ming) failing to work out a solution. Against all this I am left with a ? as to why you haven't reached the same conclusion, some of your criticisms of him seem wide of the mark on the basis of my further reading of where he is coming from. Its like I read your posts criticising Ming and then I read his and there seems to be a mismatch, he doesn't say what he should have said if you had been right (if you see what I mean). Other than that I have some problems understanding your posts. That they contain a great deal of wisdom and sincerity I know because I have understood that much at least but I think they could be communicated more *efficiently*. I might also have some problems with the philosophical structure behind but not sure as I haven't studied your work in sufficient depth to fully understand it. Maybe you tend to come across as more dogmatic and uptight than i experience you when we chat and email, that is difficult to be sure of as well because I am aware that this is a public forum and there must always be some residual "Being for others" going on in all of us.
Hell of a courageous thing to put yourself up for this kind of feedback, huge respect. Hope this helps. Your bro Scott.
13 May 2002 @ 09:48 by shawa : Hi, Mark!
My, you´re brave!...
I feel that you could be more relaxed, people obviously love and respect you, but it´s not for your words, or your thoughts, it´s for the human being behind the mask, that I think we can sense, we have an intuition about.You don´t really need the pedestal you appear to be standing on, sit down with the people, and smile.
13 May 2002 @ 10:49 by simpleman : GUTS! GUTS! GUTS!
Mark, I comend you on your quest for truth amongst our faithful. I myself have very little conflict with your ideas and views, but being a less educated and perhaps more practical being I do have my questions. I can relate to your views most of the time, but question whether as a race, us humans will ever fully achieve them. On the other hand, if those of us who have similiar views lived our lives with them in mind, perhaps the world would be a better place. I do find you extremely stubborn at times, not that being stubborn is a bad thing, but don't allow your stubbornness to blind you to other ideas and views. I found what Martha said to be very interesting about saying the same thing, but approaching from opposite directions. Tricia and myself do that alot. What Martha didn't point out is that sometimes approaching from a different direction can accomplish the same results easier, or faster, or with less chance of conflict, or all the above. As far as never bending in your beliefs, perhaps Ming is right, or perhaps you just don't find other ideas to compare with your own. I truely believe that alot of people at NCN are set in thier ways, and are not really willing to change for the most part, myself included. If an idea or an action sounds appealling to me, I will give it a try. It is very hard to get others to change, especially if they are satisfied with the way they live now. I myself find that it doesn't hurt to keep trying, and I believe you to feel the same way. In my eyes you are a very valuable asset to NCN and those of us who see that will not be blinded by any light.
13 May 2002 @ 10:54 by martha : ergodicity
You made the following two statements which support my belief that we are an evolving species.
1. "We're a very young species, appears that we've been around much less time than virtually all other
2. "It is our capacity to learn that is already here that needs cultivation."
We have the conscious choice to choose our evolution. I believe evolution is survivial of the fittest and it is very efficient in that process. Can humanity grow into that other 85% of our brain that we were built for but don't use yet? And yes we are evolving when we have parts of ourselves no longer necessary for survival. That is the process.
13 May 2002 @ 11:50 by martha : I like this part of you ergodicity
I very much like the last post above. It is a very big step to relook at one beliefs and possibly reconsider. That is the evolution, that is the shift, that is the capacity to grow. It's why I rise each day and face the world. Do it with love and humor and as shakti ma said: smile.
13 May 2002 @ 12:45 by scottj : Chip, Lovelock was the guy who
started Earth System Science and so called Gaia Theory: "Think of Gaia as the name of the Earth, a name that makes it a personal prescence for all of us." It is a very much more thoughful and holistic approach than Darwin's. Another name to note down somewhere is Dorian Sagan a collaborator with Lynn Margoulis. Whether or not you go all the way with their ideas they do at least offer a starting point for ones own thoughts which is a long, long way further down the road than Darwin.
I dig what your were saying up above about evolution not being in the least bit efficient. Maybe the way, though, to bring yours and Martha's views to some sort of convergence is to say that evolution is indeed very efficient once an Earth system as started out but their have been some pretty weird systems not least the one that puts us lot in the driving seat. That really was a mistake Gaia, old girl, and hasn't it given you one hell of an indigestion for your trouble, better luck next time (if you survive.)
13 May 2002 @ 13:15 by swan : Good going
It is fun to watch how this question about Mark Evolved into a dialog about evolution. I am new to NCN, having just posted my news log a week ago. I feel like a butterfly just testing my literary wings. Sometimes I look at what I have written and want to fly..and some times I post my news log and peak around the corner to see if anyone is reading them and wonder what they will say and wonder if I should return to my safe coccoon. It can get pretty steamy around here, I have seen. So hats off to you Mark for standing naked in the fire. Great model for evolution. Swan-hummingbird
13 May 2002 @ 13:15 by magical_melody : Mark, such courage and open to love!
Well, I commend you as you are really opening to love bro. Whenever you are willing to hear from your community like this, it opens so much heaven and hell to break loose. Right away when I read your post, it came to me. This "WE" thing. Conscious Evolution is a very deep and personal process Mark, AND it is very much a social process too. Please speak for yourself Mark, as you seem to have a judgement and philosophy about not wanting to focus on the self, because it is tied to negative associations from the past. What do you feel, want, need, experience as Mark? I feel that when you start talking "WE," you try to speak for the group and I would prefer you let the group speak for itself as an orchestra of individual instruments.
I am here to encourage you, to be the example of what you lecture about, and I ask for the same support from you. I want to learn about you through your personal sharing. Please share your experience, and shine your beauty and wisdom, through "I" statements. The old perspective or paradigm, is that it is not okay to focus on self. We can only know life as each individual speaks and shares and then the "WE" comes to be affirmed. I would like to help you bust free from the "WE" perspectives that stand as barriers, and in so doing, support you to be open to receive more of the gifts you may have been barricading through this wall of philosophical lecturing. Gees, I see parts of myself in you, and how I still have that crop up from time to time too. Let us be the WE!! Shining individually!! Love, Alana
13 May 2002 @ 19:10 by tdeane : Mark, You Are Beautiful
and you have set such a beautiful example. This is what "Pairing" is all about, and you read it the same way as I. One thing that I know for a fact, and it is not just an impression after the hours we have spent on the phone, your writing implies a rigidity and inflexibility that does not apply in personal dealings. I'm not saying that you aren't dogmatic, because I believe anyone who believes in something as strongly as you do has a tendency to sound dogmatic, and perhaps sometimes you don't see how the same thing can be accomplished by including individual needs, but I empathize because I have the same problem with my words sounding like dogma and a seeming unwillingless to consider other possibilities. I agree with Alana, your "I" is beauty and wisdom that needs to shine through -- what a gift! Much love ~ Tricia
14 May 2002 @ 01:44 by jazzolog : Just a Note to Swan
I hope the test flight of comment on the Logs was fun and successful for you. It might be more worrisome how habit-forming this comment stuff can become. I'm sure, from the gorgeous reactions you're getting from us at I M Hummingbird, that we just can't wait until you click in the groove, leave the nest, and fly through our lives even more!
14 May 2002 @ 13:41 by swan : May we all soar to greater hieghts
To Jazzolog:Yeah, this is fun. Who needs a coccoon. My wings are dry and stretched out beautifully and I am ready to fly. TO MARK: again thanks to opening yourself to this important dialog. I believe when we give one another feedback there are kernals of wisdom for ourselves within our words.
15 May 2002 @ 08:19 by jstarrs : Criticisms...
Hi Mark, I hear what you say. But I'm not sure I can offer anything constructive apart from the fact that I'm listening to you.
Any other thoughts are just my own projections and don't need to concern you...;0)
15 May 2002 @ 22:31 by shawa : I would appreciate...
... a Newslog´s entry with th results of this inquest, as seen by you. What did you do with the comments ???? :-)
10 Jun 2002 @ 18:37 by maxtobin : Late comment (can't resist)
It has all been said above, but I agree with Alana that we must evolve a new level of respect for the I AM maniifest and in so doing will evolve the new levels of understandin WE which you are seeking. The threads regards evolution are interesting and I relate through an experience of ancient lemuria from dream time. I was dwelling and reflecting upon the times and age of humanity and was considering 50,000 years. The voice in dream which I call godself spoke and showed me a pewter skull (as a symbol of ancient man/woman), the words were as a question, 50,000, 500.000 try a billion, and I awakened to a knowing that we are eternal!! This is my conviction and we are merely suffering an ebb in the great ebb and flow, BUT the tide is coming in and we awaken through conscious evolution to a new age of peace and harmony , and with time that may come to pass and the species will devolve as well. We can see this evolvution /devolution all around, devolution is accelerated by abuse, eveolution is accelerated by love. its all a part of the great ebb and flow of divine consciousness. So lets just get on with the work of being ourselves dancing the joy of our awakened divinity. Bless you Mark and continue with you beautiful ways, just let it be as it is and see that your only response-ability is to enjoy and express divine delight in your creation!!
Other entries in Projects
3 Oct 2008 @ 02:43: What 4
31 May 2004 @ 00:13: Memorial For America
24 Dec 2003 @ 18:22: Seasons Greetings
2 Dec 2003 @ 15:12: Shared Purpose
8 Jun 2003 @ 00:27: Namasté = Respect
22 Jan 2003 @ 20:59: Doers & Democracy
10 Jan 2003 @ 14:47: NEW STYLE THINKING
22 Dec 2002 @ 13:22: Wonderful Winter Holidays To You
4 Jun 2002 @ 02:13: Relationships
16 May 2002 @ 04:02: Thanks For Telling Me