|
 Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Some thoughts on..... 
#791409 - 08/01/02 06:58 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Disclaimer: By reading further, you agree not to give me unnecessary, bullshit replies (not that anyone here would...). You agree to not take any of this personally, as I am not aiming this at anyone in particular (Really I?m not). You agree not to be offended by any of these words as it is not my intention to offend.
Criticism?
It doesn?t have to be viewed as negative. Does it really matter if it?s sugar-coated or not? Why is it so deplorable to just drop the candy-shell and cut to the chase? Half the time is spent analyzing the intentions of the critic rather than their actual critique. This usually leads to a flame war (typically started by the party being critiqued even though it is presumed that they post their ideas FOR CRITIQUE- that?s what a discussion is and that?s the purpose of this forum).
Now I?m wondering how many people are going to jump all over me and try to analyze my intentions. I?ll make it easier on you: I?d like this forum to transcend all the namby-pamby-side-talk-battles and keep the discussions as pure as possible? it would make this forum more productive. Of course someone could always question the intentions behind that statement and so on ad infinitum. This type of bullshit is what I would expect from 1) less intelligent people, 2) those who subscribe to dogma, 3) close-minded people, and so on and so forth. I think most people here don?t fit easily into those categories. That being said, why is this intention-seeking-bullshit so commonplace here?
I really think it has to do with a primal fear that has been ingrained into the affected?s mind? every culture inundates its members with this fear in one way or another. Do you know what this fear is? I do. It forces one to take refuge in the arms of the familiar. It encourages us to seek safety, security, shelter from something. The something has no particular form. Hell, this fear may even be rooted in some sort of an instinct encoded in our genes, but I wouldn?t bet on that. I think most wild animals are familiar with this instinct. But the fact that I?ve observed many species of animals overcome this drive of sorts leads me to believe that it is not genetic and therefore must be primarily psychological in nature. Have you figured it out yet? Right on the tip of your mental tongue is it?
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
 Adamist
ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У
 
Registered: 11/23/01
Posts: 10,211
Loc: Bloomington, IN
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
 Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Sclorch]
#791485 - 08/01/02 07:35 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The fear of the unknown?
I think we ALL have that fear at sometime or another, even the "skeptical" types, not just the "believers". Yes it's something that can be transcended, like the ego, but it likes to creep its way back in when your not paying attention.
Nice post though.. I agree that this forum can be made more productive.
--------------------
 { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } }
|
Mystical_Craven
mentally illpsychonaught
Registered: 06/16/02
Posts: 439
Loc: Earth
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Sclorch]
#791805 - 08/02/02 02:13 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
Half the time is spent analyzing the intentions of the critic rather than their actual critique.
Why shouldn't we analyze the critic? More often then not the 'critiques' around here are little more then rubuttles which point out some sort of error in a post, as opposed to an error behind the actual idea of the post. (like when people jumped all over swami's ass when he was talking about percentages of sins found between atheists and christians...people seemed more concerned with getting statistics to prove his point, and less so about the intent of his message) I think by trying to understand the motives behind these so called critiques (if that's how you choose to lable them) you can understand if what was being said was meant as constructive critism, or if it was just a way to make it seem like you don't know what you're talking about. Cause in my mind there is a difference between the two.
And if you want to lable me as being fearful for trying to anylize your message - then so be it. I certainly can't help it if you misinterpret what I'm trying to convey. I assure you though, I'm not trying to poke holes in what you said. I agree 100% that a lot of people in this world need to learn how to take critism without getting all butt-hurt about it. But I also think a lot of people need to learn how to be constructive about a person without getting nit-picky over simple stupid shit like generalizations. How many times have you seen someone here say something like "you can't judge a group like that, you need to look at each person as their own individual case" As far as I'm concerned something like this isn't constructive at all. It may be true, but it also veers the conversation away from the original point being made. Why must so many people here dwell on insignificant details? It's not like we're talking quantum physics or something. Most of what's being said in these discussions is a matter of opinion or assumption anyways. So why worry so much about whether or not someone is using the proper terminology or whatever? Learn to quit being so damn technical, and learn to be a bit more helpful.
BTW Sclorch - Most of what I said at the end there was geared towards everyone in general, even though it might seem like I was aiming at you specifically. So please don't think I'm bashing on you or something. I'm just venting my frustrations about how seldom anyone ever stops to observe the gastalt of a post.
--------------------
"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go..." T.S. Eliot
Edited by Mystical_Craven (08/02/02 02:43 AM)
|
LOBO
Vagabond
Registered: 03/19/01
Posts: 655
Loc: NY
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Sclorch]
#791816 - 08/02/02 02:33 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
What a conundrum you are into!
Well it all beguines in stepping out of your shoes and getting into some one else's.
You have to remember that every one does not think, feel or see the world like you do.
After you understand that you will learn to have more tact in dealing with people.
Some people are very sensitive, and perceive intensions that you may not (whether real or not).
It is a very good exercise in self awareness to, before you answer some one, think what's your real intension, some times will be to communicate, some time will be to inflate your ego, or sometimes will have an emotional charge behind the words.
Many times this things are done subconsciously, but it comes out and some people feels it.
In the other hand, you cannot candy coat every thing and give in to the others person childish behavior.
It's reaching a middle term perhaps, and some basic etiquette and most of all leaving the ego behind.
All give you an example, and I am not saying that is your case: I there is a topic about aliens, crop circle forth dimension, or what ever you want to include in that, and you think is just plain crazy talk, but there is a lot of people into it, refrain your self to get in to the topic, ignore it, unless you have something to contribute to it, but if you go and post you guys are crazy, immediately you are putting your self above every one else, and trying to prove to your self that you are better (ego work at best).
Remember other people are different and you have to respect that, if you want to be respected.
I hope it made any sense to you.
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: LOBO]
#791832 - 08/02/02 03:02 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
...and most of all leaving the ego behind.
Remember other people are different and you have to respect that, if you want to be respected.
Respect is a need of the ego. Seems you are giving two opposing directives.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Sclorch]
#791845 - 08/02/02 03:30 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
First off, I don't like you borrowing my disclaimer idea without express written permssion (my lawyer made me say that!)...
Criticism; It doesn't have to be viewed as negative.
For most it does because the ego identifies its ideas with itself, not recognizing that the two are distant and distinct.
Does it really matter if it's sugar-coated or not? Why is it so deplorable to just drop the candy-shell and cut to the chase?
People who take offense will take offense usually no matter how it is presented because the idea that someone would have the audacity to challenge their ideas is just too much.
The ones who really want it candy-coated are the sensitive spectators trying to be diplomatic and to please everyone.
A weak, ill-thought idea needs, yeah, it is is destined to be trashed. This is evolution-in-action. The lion must cull the herd.
Half the time is spent analyzing the intentions of the critic rather than their actual critique.
Of course! This is a standard delaying/avoidance technique that prevents the poster from having to actually evaluate your reply.
This usually leads to a flame war (typically started by the party being critiqued even though it is presumed that they post their ideas FOR CRITIQUE- thats what a discussion is and thats the purpose of this forum).
The ego of the poster feels threatened, not understanding that ideas are borrowed and not a part of the self, and so blindly lash out at anything that might challenge their comfortable world view.
Now I'm wondering how many people are going to jump all over me and try to analyze my intentions.
Just why did you post this? Sounds like you are trying to stir the pot in your usual schlorch-like fashion...
I'll make it easier on you: I'd like this forum to transcend all the namby-pamby-side-talk-battles and keep the discussions as pure as possible;
Who gives a damn about what you want. Let's talk about MY desires...
Do you know what this fear is?
It is fairly simple. People usually get angriest when you get closest to the truth (which is why sugar-coating doesn't work). If another accepts new data and analysis that counters their previous stance, then they will have to admit to themselves that they previously made an erroneous assumption or were duped and have been wrong for some time. The ego is much more interested in being right than the truth and so will do anything to keep the illusion alive. The longer and deeper a false belief has been held, the harder it is to let go.
"It may be shit, but it is MY shit!"
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (08/02/02 05:40 AM)
|
buttonion
Calmly Watching
Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Sclorch]
#791850 - 08/02/02 03:38 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
That being said, why is this intention-seeking-bullshit so commonplace here?
The tone of the post? when the tone of an author?s post is acerbic, cynical, impatient, and sarcastic, I can?t help but wonder about the author?s intentions. Why is any of this extra crap necessary?! Is this the most effective way to get you point across to everyone? Of course not. And if your real interest is to understand some ?real state of affairs,? you would leave this crap out. No, this author is likely more interested in arousing the emotion in others who are like-minded- you?ll receive praise for your rally. And of course you?ll offend those who are opposed- you?ll probably get equally derisive responses from these people and then you?ll wonder ?why everyone is getting so emotional or upset?? You?re also probably interested in portraying yourself as a deep, frustrated, misunderstood-by-the-masses intellectual who is just plain sick of all of the idiocy. Such a tone tells me that the author is not really interested in finding any "truth," but instead, is looking for an opporutunity to stroke his ego.
--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#791934 - 08/02/02 04:59 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The lion must cull the herd.
Oh jesus christ...
...hey don't tell us..you think you're the lion right? 
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#791937 - 08/02/02 05:01 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
It is fairly simple. People usually get angriest when you get closest to the truth
No, I think people usually get angriest when you constantly ruin threads with ill thought out ignorant rubbish.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
buttonion
Calmly Watching
Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#791993 - 08/02/02 05:49 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The ones who really want it candy-coated are the sensitive spectators trying to be diplomatic and to please everyone.
I don?t think anybody is asking for claims to be ?candy-coated,? just not stated in such a way that implies disagreement means the reader is a brainwashed idiot. If the impact of stomping and shitting on somebody?s core value system (whatever it may be) doesn?t phase you, then another relevant effect you might consider is that by arousing emotion in the dissenters, you set up a self-fulfilling prophecy, ?proving? that these people are not capable of logical debate.
--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: buttonion]
#792034 - 08/02/02 06:13 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I don’t think anybody is asking for claims to be “candy-coated,” just not stated in such a way that implies disagreement means the reader is a brainwashed idiot.
When I discovered at age 7 that there was no Santa Claus, I was devastated. (A core belief was shattered.) I felt grief and pain despite my parents attempts to try to paint a rosy picture about the cultural deceit.
That's what I mean when I say candy-coating is meaningless.
Let's say I am a police officer and have to inform you that your girlfriend was just killed in a horrible accident. Do you really think I can lessen the blow by how I present the news?
If the impact of stomping and shitting on somebody’s core value system (whatever it may be) doesn’t phase you,
Is showing a glaring inconsitency or contradiction "shitting on somebody’s core value system"?
then another relevant effect you might consider is that by arousing emotion in the dissenters,
People arouse their emotions themselves. This is a basic truth and can be easily demonstrated. Call 100 heterosexual men a "fag" and you will get responses from being ignored, to laughter, to incredulity to violent rage. Now the statement was a catalyst, but the response was totally up to the listener and not the speaker.
you set up a self-fulfilling prophecy, “proving” that these people are not capable of logical debate.
Not at all. Some people are incapable of logical debate because they have not properly learned to use logic. Their whole life has been one knee-jerk reaction after another and it has become an accepted habit.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
LOBO
Vagabond
Registered: 03/19/01
Posts: 655
Loc: NY
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#792040 - 08/02/02 06:16 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
Respect is a need of the ego. Seems you are giving two opposing directives.
First I don't give directives just my humble opinion, second ego is a big part of our humanity for better or worse, most of us have a very difficult time controlling it, so some form of deterrence is necessary so we can all get along (if you look at the world we live in, it is much need it)
I do seek respect not just to inflate my ego but also to have some basic freedoms, if my life style were to be respected I woulden't have to hide every time I wanted to smoke a joint for example.
But again they are people out that they think that there way to see the world is the only one and force it upon me, I am not asking them to change to my perspective only to respect my view and let me live.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Sclorch]
#792042 - 08/02/02 06:18 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Swami has already answered this so I don't need to repeat what he said.
However, Buttonion also made some interesting comments. I can see how the posts made by you, Swami, and Evolving can upset others because of the cold logic that is used. I try to remember when I am answering a post that another person is on the receiving end. A real person that is trying to figure this existence they didn't ask for and now may not even want. Each one of us has been as confused as the other about certain thigs at certain times in our lives.
While logic is a comfort to me in my neverending struggle for truth it is not a comfort to others to be shown that they are wrong and perhaps misguided. They may be deep in the ego. If they are it may not be our place to show them the "error of their ways". In fact, to do so may indicate that it is we who are the insecure ones.
People are people. In other words, you cannot change their nature and as long as this forum exists the only way we can elevate the quality of this forum is to alter our posts and comments.
All of us could do better.
Cheers,
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: LOBO]
#792048 - 08/02/02 06:20 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I do seek respect not just to inflate my ego but also to have some basic freedoms...
That is fine, but you are going off on a tangent. No one here is restricting your freedom by exchanging words, so your point doesn't apply.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: ]
#792059 - 08/02/02 06:29 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
While logic is a comfort to me in my neverending struggle for truth it is not a comfort to others to be shown that they are wrong and perhaps misguided. They may be deep in the ego. If they are it may not be our place to show them the "error of their ways".
Which would be fine if this was the "Nurturing and Mutual Support" board, but it isn't. Cold logic is very much a part of philosophical discussion. Is is really the poster's responsibility to try to figure out the possible emotional responses of a thousand invisible strangers?
Can I not just say aliens crashing at Roswell is bogus because of A, B and C? Must I couch that in flowery terms with disclaimers and apologies?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#792086 - 08/02/02 06:50 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
We are not responsible for the perception that anyone has whether it is a perception of something we said or lights in the sky. However, why do you post rebuttals in the first place? I am not looking for an answer but just hinting that you should introspect on it. You give criticism where none is asked for. I, embrace your rebuttals of anything I offer but very few do that. This is not to say that I do not offer rebuttals that are unasked for as well. We both know I do. And yet, for the most part, people respond to me differently. Why do you think that is?
Aslo, your answer does seem to indicate the fallacy of the excluded middle. Your examples are extreme.
I'm sorry to be so coarse. Really, I am.
Cheers,
|
LOBO
Vagabond
Registered: 03/19/01
Posts: 655
Loc: NY
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#792217 - 08/02/02 08:10 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
That is fine, but you are going off on a tangent. No one here is restricting your freedom by exchanging words, so your point doesn't apply.
Senior Swami you choose not to use your so cherish Logic when is no convenient to you.
It make all the point, to have respect for our fellow human is in the small and big things, you can not choose I am going to respect his life style but I can trash his opinions.
You are very funny, you pick on other people writing skills and justify it as a lack of self-awareness, can you honestly tell me that you are trying to wake them up or put them down? Self-awareness is also knowing the intension or your words or actions and how they are going to affect some one else.
Look no further you stated above that my point does not apply here? Wow I did not know some one appointed you judge of what points apply or don't, isn't that a little egocentric from your part?
Swami I respect your opinions, but that does not mean I agree with every thing you say.
--------------------
|
LOBO
Vagabond
Registered: 03/19/01
Posts: 655
Loc: NY
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: ]
#792246 - 08/02/02 08:24 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
While logic is a comfort to me in my never-ending struggle for truth it is not a comfort to others to be shown that they are wrong and perhaps misguided. They may be deep in the ego. If they are it may not be our place to show them the "error of their ways". In fact, to do so may indicate that it is we who are the insecure ones.
You reflect my feelings exactly Mr. Mushrooms, and if I may add that the legend says that was due to pride that an angel fell from heaven.
A true seeker of truth above any thing else is humble because he knows he knows nothing.
--------------------
|
LOBO
Vagabond
Registered: 03/19/01
Posts: 655
Loc: NY
Last seen: 18 years, 7 months
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#792269 - 08/02/02 08:36 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
In reply to:
Which would be fine if this was the "Nurturing and Mutual Support" board, but it isn't. Cold logic is very much a part of philosophical discussion. Is is really the poster's responsibility to try to figure out the possible emotional responses of a thousand invisible strangers?
Swami why are you trying to define what this board is or is not, is your own projection now of how things should be or not, it could very well be for some one supporting, it could be even life changing, like your story in the navy, some one could read that and wake up and change there life.
Words are powerful stuff.
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#792411 - 08/02/02 09:56 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Which would be fine if this was the "Nurturing and Mutual Support" board, but it isn't. Cold logic is very much a part of philosophical discussion.
But perhaps not so much part of spirituality discussion. The board is called "SPIRITUALITY and philosophy" remember. I think nurturing and mutual support can play a major part in spirituality. Once again, get your basic facts straight before you attempt to introduce "logic". Logic based on wildly innacurate facts is completly worthless.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Xlea321]
#792455 - 08/02/02 10:16 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well, at least I got a few good replies... then someone brings up some other shit and a quasi-flame battle ensues. I wish I could meet you all in person... your perceptions of me would change dramatically (as would my perception of you). But we're probably all too paranoid (or broke) for that. So we continue to duke it out in a forum using the limited media of written word. This is why I wish people would just take words at face value... this form of communication is so limited. We'll never know exactly who the person on the other end is or what they are like or what their intentions are (unless we meet).
We act like our communication isn't limited and attempt to share our deepest thoughts and philosophies (well, some of the time). And then something happens... Someone disagrees with what we posted. We think we communicated it perfectly and we then argue that they just don't understand (for whatever reason). So then we start dissecting their intentions because what else can we do to figure out the misunderstanding? By now, it?s already over and we don?t even know it yet. There?s another miscommunication, this time it?s on a more personal level because it postulates on the poster?s mental mechanisms. Few (I?ll leave that possibility in there) of us can read minds in person, so I?m guessing that number will dwindle further with this type of media. So of course this is bound to piss people off. Knowing all this, I?m still confused as to why the intentions are analyzed more than the original content itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah, another thing that gets more attention than it should: TONE.
buttonion: The tone of the post? when the tone of an author?s post is acerbic, cynical, impatient, and sarcastic, I can?t help but wonder about the author?s intentions.
You should try to help yourself not from wondering but from posting your wonderings. If I try to cut to the chase, I must be impatient. If I don?t like the constant arguing about etiquette, tone, or intentions, I must be acerbic, cynical or sarcastic. This is what I am talking about. Didn?t you read the disclaimer? I am trying to mend the wounds, not rub salt in them. I?m not here to offend or annoy, I?m here to clear things up for myself and to discuss philosophy and spirituality in a civil manner. I CAN butt heads (as you?ll all agree), but I?m so damn tired of it (it?s not productive).
Why is any of this extra crap necessary?
What ?extra crap??
Is this the most effective way to get you point across to everyone? Of course not.
How else can I do it? I figure that if I present it in a straightforward manner with the disclaimer that I?m not trying to hurt anyone?s feelings, that people would understand my points. No matter what way I present something, someone is going to take it the wrong way and get upset? don?t you see my predicament?
And if your real interest is to understand some ?real state of affairs,? you would leave this crap out.
Again, what crap? I don?t understand what you?re referring to.
No, this author is likely more interested in arousing the emotion in others who are like-minded- you?ll receive praise for your rally.
You?re analyzing my intentions and not my post. As such, I won?t give in to your game.
And of course you?ll offend those who are opposed- you?ll probably get equally derisive responses from these people ?? is not really interested in finding any "truth," but instead, is looking for an opportunity to stroke his ego.
More analyzation (nice ?straw man?) of my person. Why do you do this?
Swami: Which would be fine if this was the "Nurturing and Mutual Support" board, but it isn't. Cold logic is very much a part of philosophical discussion.
Alex123: But perhaps not so much part of spirituality discussion. The board is called "SPIRITUALITY and philosophy" remember. I think nurturing and mutual support can play a major part in spirituality.
Which type of spirituality should all posts be prepared for?
There are probably different ways of dealing with each type of spirituality. Since philosophy uses the common debate language of logic, wouldn?t it be counterproductive to translate your post into several different styles?
I don?t think logical argument form and spirituality are inherently at odds with each other. That being the case, why is logical argument form assumed to be so non-spiritual? Logic is a way of communicating precisely. Even if there are certain aspects of your spirituality that cannot be explained by logic, you can still use it to communicate with your peers (fellow posters) in a civil manner. Or am I missing something?
Once again, get your basic facts straight before you attempt to introduce "logic". Logic based on wildly inaccurate facts is completely worthless.
A diagnosis needs a prescription. 
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Sclorch]
#792481 - 08/02/02 10:28 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Depends on whether your logic is worth anything. And bad logic with an atitude is pretty counterproductive.
I think we need more nurturing and less bad logic.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: LOBO]
#792496 - 08/02/02 10:39 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You reflect my feelings exactly Mr. Mushrooms, and if I may add that the legend says that was due to pride that an angel fell from heaven.
A true seeker of truth above any thing else is humble because he knows he knows nothing.
Yes, the way I put it is; I know a lot about a lot of things but I know very little for certain. I have spent so much time in the lab and made so many simple errors that I cannot begin to think I have all the answers. All that I know is capable of revision and I am always open for that.
If someone posts something that stirs something inside of me like anger, or whatever, I quickly look to see why that is, knowing that it is myself that needs to change.
Cheers,
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Sclorch]
#792502 - 08/02/02 10:42 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well, at least I got a few good replies...
And of them Swami's explanation was the most accurate as far as I can tell.
He big wisdom.
Cheers,
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: LOBO]
#792646 - 08/02/02 12:10 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Senior Swami you choose not to use your so cherish Logic when is no convenient to you.
I am not sure to what you are referring, but everyone here chooses their own words and responses.
It make all the point, to have respect for our fellow human is in the small and big things, you can not choose I am going to respect his life style but I can trash his opinions.
Mi amigo, there is a HUGE (gigante) difference between questioning a post (BTW, why is questioning someone's facts equal to "trashing"?) and forcing someone to adopt someone else's life style (i.e. your pot smoking example).
I do seek respect not just to inflate my ego but also to have some basic freedoms, if my life style were to be respected I woulden't have to hide every time I wanted to smoke a joint for example.
The fact that you equate the questioning someone's beliefs on a forum with putting someone in jail for a drug offense speaks of the emotionalism of which I frequently lobby against. This type of tangential rant occludes a clear exchange.
Look no further you stated above that my point does not apply here? Wow I did not know some one appointed you judge of what points apply or don't, isn't that a little egocentric from your part?
Should I preface each line with IMHO? Isn't it understood that everyone's post is strictly their opinion? This is nothing new.
I am not the judge, but your statement about imposing on another's lifestyle just does not apply here. We make no laws, your life continues uninterrupted as before.
Please explain how your personal life has been adversely impacted so that I may better understand.
But again they are people out that they think that there way to see the world is the only one and force it upon me, I am not asking them to change to my perspective only to respect my view and let me live.
Does any form of counter-view or questioning or pointing out of fallacies automatically become disrespect?
You are very funny, you pick on other people writing skills and justify it as a lack of self-awareness,
Without clarity how can one give a reasonable response? I have great respect for you, for communicating so well with English as your second language. You have not come so far by being lazy and sloppy, but through diligence and study. Is that not so?
can you honestly tell me that you are trying to wake them up or put them down?
Each will take from it what he will regardless of my intention.
Swami I respect your opinions, but that does not mean I agree with every thing you say.
Nor is it desired or expected. Each of us carries a little piece of the total puzzle; together we may one day understand the picture.
Self-awareness is also knowing the intension or your words or actions and how they are going to affect some one else.
You may be able to do that with one person that you know well, but can you realistically state that you know what impact your post will have on thousands of disparate minds? That is ludicrous.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: LOBO]
#792662 - 08/02/02 12:19 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Swami why are you trying to define what this board is or is not, is your own projection now of how things should be or not,
I think this line exemplifies part of the reason why schlorch started this tread. You are reading things that aren't even there. Let's see where I define the board as you state:
Which would be fine if this was the "Nurturing and Mutual Support" board,
This is a true statement. This IS the "Spirituality and philosophy" board.
Cold logic is very much a part of philosophical discussion.
Once again a true statement.
I fail to see any definition here.
Words are powerful stuff.
They can be, but are much like the mushroom experience itself. They are merely tools and each will take something different from them.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
buttonion
Calmly Watching
Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Sclorch]
#792668 - 08/02/02 12:23 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I would rather not engage in one of these page-long, dialectic debates so I am going to rewind here just a bit, and try to convey to you the gist of what I am trying to say.
Obviously, out of frustration and defeat, a person can effectively exit the debate about the real issue at hand and start making speculations about the author?s intentions (or the attractiveness of his mother for that matter). I don?t doubt that this can and does happen and I think it is a shame.
The assumption that I am working on is that we are all here (i.e., our intentions are) to basically get some information on the topic ?spirituality and philosophy?- maybe to iron out our ideas on life with a little peer critique, maybe to help others out (or something like that). When I read a post and it is proclaiming some idea using a harsh, demeaning tone, I am led to think that the above is not the author?s intention. I think to myself, ?hmmm self, there are several ways that the author could have used the English language to convey that idea, I wonder why he chose to do it in a way that implies that those who don?t agree with him are thoughtless morons.?
It is win I read a post with such a tone that I can sympathize with the respondent?s rebuttal alluding to the author?s intentions. What does this negative tone serve?- I won?t speculate about what psychological function it fulfills for the author (although this is indeed interesting) but I will note that it often pisses off the dissenting reader greatly. Is this your goal? If it is, well done. If your goal is to debate issues solely on the merit of the ideas themselves, then leave the negative, derisive tone out. And no, you are not responsible for the emotional reactions of every reader. But you do know that a degrading tone greatly increases the odds that someone will come back with emotion, thus devolving the conversation to a game of who has the wittier covert ego-attack, precluding any progress on the real issue.
--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein
|
Peaceful_Nomad
On the Path ofthe Feather
Registered: 06/23/02
Posts: 447
Loc: Sometimes Kansas - Maybe ...
|
 Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Sclorch]
#792679 - 08/02/02 12:32 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
If someone posts something that stirs something inside of me like anger, or whatever, I quickly look to see why that is, knowing that it is myself that needs to change.
Very well said Mr Mushrooms. The human condition makes it very easy to
give in to emotion without taking stock of why we feel the way we do.
If this world were more prone to being responsive rather than reactive, we
would be a few steps closer to a panacea.
Peace to Everyone
Peaceful Nomad
--------------------
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: buttonion]
#792688 - 08/02/02 12:39 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Good post even though I am only in partial agreement.
And no, you are not responsible for the emotional reactions of every reader. But you do know that a degrading tone greatly increases the odds that someone will come back with emotion
I tried to remain a very neutral, toneless (tone being highly interpretive) stance in the the beginning of the "Why people take offense..." thread and still there was a vicious and unprovoked attack. Off-balance people will find a reason to go ballistic because that is there nature; like a drunk in bar waiting for the smallest provocation.
precluding any progress on the real issue.
Does progress come about with reassurances and mutual back-slapping? Has any single thread here shown any progress in your opinion?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
buttonion
Calmly Watching
Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#792750 - 08/02/02 01:30 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Does progress come about with reassurances and mutual back-slapping? Has any single thread here shown any progress in your opinion?
(I can?t get this scene out of my head in which all of the posts in this forum have to contain some sort of affirmation of the other?s value as a person. ?Before I begin, I would like to say that I have greatly admired your work for some time. That aside, your God does not exist and never has?? That?s funny)
I?m only speaking about an aspect of a post that can inhibit progress. I?m not saying that hugs and friendly greetings are a necessary condition for a ?progressive post.?
--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein
|
Murex
Reality Hacker
Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
|
 Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: buttonion]
#792771 - 08/02/02 01:51 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
BLAH! Too many words.............too many!
Let me just go to sleep.........................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: buttonion]
#793241 - 08/02/02 06:15 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
“Before I begin, I would like to say that I have greatly admired your work for some time. That aside, your God does not exist and never has…” That’s funny)
It is quite funny that most everyone here wants to transcend the ego and mollycoddle it at the same time. Nothing like a good paradox and a sugar-coated, politically correct jab at the same time...
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... *DELETED* [Re: Sclorch]
#793274 - 08/02/02 06:36 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by Swami
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#793339 - 08/02/02 07:21 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
It is quite funny that most everyone here wants to transcend the ego and mollycoddle it at the same time.
Really? How revealing. The only person who does this is you. Perhaps you are dealing with your own personal issues rather than anything that exists on the board.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Murex
Reality Hacker
Registered: 07/28/02
Posts: 3,599
Loc: Traped in a shell.
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
|
 Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Xlea321]
#793375 - 08/02/02 07:48 PM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Give away the stone.
Let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and fated anchor.
Give away the stone.
Let the waters kiss and transmutate these leaden grudges into gold.
Let go.
--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Murex]
#793590 - 08/03/02 12:56 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks murex, but with the board rapidly disintegrating and people leaving in droves because of swami's bullshit we either call him on his crap or stand by and let him destroy the board.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Shroomalicious
You may say I'ma dreamer...
Registered: 06/20/02
Posts: 319
Loc: The Shire
Last seen: 22 years, 4 months
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#793594 - 08/03/02 01:05 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
For most it does because the ego identifies its ideas with itself, not recognizing that the two are distant and distinct.
I think it is dangerous to let your opinions and your Ego mingle, because then you tend to get offended because you think people are attacking you when all they are doing is attacking your opinion. I think/I hope I have done my best to seperate the two. Also, without a counterpoint, I don't see a point...critisim is one of the best things in the world when handled with correctly. 
--------------------
Shroomalicious -  I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... *DELETED* [Re: Swami]
#793724 - 08/03/02 05:02 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by Mr_Mushrooms
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: ]
#793773 - 08/03/02 05:56 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Relax Plato.
The schlorch reply was a pre-agreed upon joke. Schlorch is a good bud.
Not really a joke so much as an experiment in reading "tone". The tone was light-hearted, yet no one perceived that.
The point being, that NO ONE can read your intentions behind the words. Words are all we have.
It will be deleted shortly.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (08/03/02 06:00 AM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#793781 - 08/03/02 06:01 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Can you save your pre-agreed jokes for personal mails instead of inflicting them on the rest of us and polluting the board?
Thanks.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#793787 - 08/03/02 06:06 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Swami,
I did not know it ws preagreed upon. My post was a joke as well. I was just mimicing yours.
Sorry to have caused any confusion. I was laughing so hard at yours and mind I had tears streaming down my face!
I thought where I said "Why can't you have peace like the rest of us" was a dead giveaway. I also thought you should have known by now that I enjoy your posts more than most others.
LOL 
Cheers,
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: ]
#793803 - 08/03/02 06:12 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I thought it was so "over the top" that it would be obvious I was kidding. But then again, I couldn't tell about your post. So the experiment taught me something as well about "reading" someone else's "tone". From words alone, we don't have enough to go on. Perhaps, even in person, it is easy to misread another's intent.
I loved your prose about the "scurvy little spider". You should be a writer!
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: Swami]
#793850 - 08/03/02 06:36 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
LOL!
I didn't take it to be "over the top" but I had a familiar context to help me detect the humor in your post. I know that you are Sclorch are friends and therefore you wouldn't have written that to him in that way. Other than that there would have been no way I could have known it.
The scurvy spider bit is from, It's a Wonderful Life with Jimmy Stewart.
I enjoyed the jokes though but decided that others might misunderstand me more than they already do so I deleted mine as well.
Cheers,
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Some thoughts on..... [Re: ]
#793901 - 08/03/02 07:08 AM (22 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Dammit... I missed out on something didn't I?
Forum pollution?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
Anonymous
Swami
tak