who or what validates your work?

Speaking of elephants,

If I were not already convinced of the validity of the concept of constructed reality, some of the posts on this thread would certainly get me there.

A group of people get together and say that a thing is real. They reinforce their position by defining and redefining and creating "facts" to back it all up. Before long, they have convinced themselves of the validity of this reality they have constructed. If someone comes along with questions, the group will innundate that someone with the dogma of the party line until the new someone gives in. If the new someone continues to present them with data that contradicts their carefully constructed view, the members of the group turn on the questioner, and the individual is soon banned from the group, branded as a troublemaker. This might be OK if the group simply kept to themselves, but when the "reality" is tenuous, they get anxious. It becomes necessary to go out to other groups who have different views and attempt to get them to agree. At first, they will be polite about it, but when that doesn't work, they become more aggressive, and try to - dare we say "bash" - it in to the heads of the "unenlightened." If the members of this "unenlightened" group confront them, they cry that they are being attacked and unjustly accused. They work at creating a furor where, if they cannot win, they can at least destroy.

And what does this have to do with elephants, you ask? It is as though that group's "reality" is reinforced by insisting that an elephant is only its tail. They cannot afford to listen to a group that has seen a larger portion of that elephant.

Alice, he lost.

Ann

Ann,
As usual you see the whole pcture.
The plea for foebearance etc,
The wish to get their repettiive thought accross and blame us for our replies.
The endless threats not to join our group.

This thread was supposed to be what waldates our work--Not what beliitles us and makes us mad.

Thank you for the information on Dave--good news to me.

AW is immaterial in my opinion.

I don't care what they think. I know what they think--I have had it shoved down my throat ad naseum.

We can focus on what we choose to focus on. I chose to ignore people too lazy to buy and read my book and to be grateful to the wise folks who purchased, read it and contacted me.

Why feel belittled by somene who is
smply spouting off--most likley from a sour- grapes attitude.
Talk of painting with a broad ,black brush--guess they know how to do it.

We choose who we listen to, we choose our friends and associates. I had a friend who became controlling.

She knew just what I should do about everything--she even tried to tell me how to write my book. I told her to write her own book--she is too lazy--easier to tell me what to do. You guessed it--we are no longer friends.

I miss her like I'd miss a toothache.

Opinions are just that : opinions. I can either ignore them or use them to validate my own. If they don't fit my ideas, I can simply ignore them. It is not my 'job' to convince them they are wrong about their opinion. I may, down the road, find that their opinion is more valid than my own, or I may even find there was some truth in what they said. Arguing about it accomplishes nothing in my opinion.

Zada,

Good advice.

I'll try and remember that!

Carol

zadaconnaway wrote:

Opinions are just that : opinions. I can either ignore them or use them to validate my own. If they don't fit my ideas, I can simply ignore them. It is not my 'job' to convince them they are wrong about their opinion. I may, down the road, find that their opinion is more valid than my own, or I may even find there was some truth in what
they said. Arguing about it accomplishes nothing in my opinion.

Great point! Zada,



You summed it up very well.

A person must like thier own work in order to feel any measure of pleasure in it..

If I copy "The Road`" for example---it might make me a best-seller, but hardly convey the message I want to convey

More people enjoy reading The Road than they do readng my book. That is fine inasmuch as the author is a Pulitzer Prize winner--I an clearly see why.

At some level validation must come from within--not without.

So, so sick of it--why can't I shut up about it?

I am not a writer--wrote a book because I couldn't do much else.
Had my book edited by a very proficient newsman who drummed into my head every step of the way that getting a book published was nigh unto impossible.

Had my book accepted and published was given an award for the book.
End result-- I feel like I have achieved my goal.

I am certainly glad there are better writers than I, since I am not a writer at all.

Ann's post about the elephant is great. So are the points made by Zada. So are Don's, DK's, DT's, Alice's and others. Mine are good as well, because I didn't say anything.

Marie, don't hesitate to post on any thread. All in all we are a broadminded group here (and that wasn't meant to say our minds are always on women). Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Marie, post away. My post wasn't an attack on you, far from it. I seemed to have evolved. The older I get, the less BS I am willing to let go unanswered. I like this forum and the same old stale stuff was creeping in and I didn't want to see the past repeated here.

Dick Stodghill wrote:

Ann's post about the elephant is great. So are the points made by Zada. So are Don's, DK's, DT's, Alice's and others. Mine are good as well, because I didn't say anything.

Marie, don't hesitate to post on any thread. All in all we are a broadminded group here (and that wasn't meant to say our minds are always on women). Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Mine are good too -- broadly speaking, never was very good at being bashful.