Barry, I know your heart was in the right place with this post, but there's no need for you to update us on your behavior (other then for someone who just arrived, from outer space; although I've never heard overseas described that way) we're all up to speed.
PS: Please tell Judy that as she knows, I make a lot of things up, and, in fact, when I grow up I want to be someone who makes things up; one of the reasons I love her is that when I get too far into the sea of my darkness I can use the light of her love of the truth as a beacon to guide me back to port. --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > So what does the *opposite* of this "allow the other > > > person to save face" mindset say about people for whom > > > it seems to be a recurring pattern? That is, coming > > > back to the subject of my post, what is the point of > > > "winning" in a discussion, such that one feels that > > > the conversation somehow wasn't "complete" if the > > > other person doesn't admit defeat and do his or her > > > mea culpas? What's up with that? > > > > I don't know. It's a game maybe. People argue, here and > > everywhere. It probably has to do with the common need of > > people to be achnowledged, a general need for confirmation. > > In friendship relations, people present their POV to be > > accepted, to get a confirmation, that they are 'right', > > that they belong to the group. > > > > Or else its genetically programmed, we want to win, we > > want to be better, no idea. In the TM context its probably > > a kind of mutual confirmation that you are doing the right > > thing, or even a demonstration, that you belong to the group. > > Somebody attacks your group, you defend it, flash your teeth, > > a sort of confirmation ritual. > > Excellent points. Possibly a lot like you, I have been > away from "groups" so long that I don't really identify > with that "wanting to fit in" mindset any more. I'm a > bit of a loner, and enjoy life that way. > > > In the more historical context, Shankara, Nagarjuna and > > others, it was a specific culture of intellectual combats. > > It would be a means to test how your theories are logically > > sound, a means to actually train your intellect, to be able > > to present what you think in an intellectual meaningful way. > > And to elaborate pros and cons of a given issue. It's like > > little dogs bite, just to train their teeth. It's keeping > > your synaptic gaps active. I personally see it as the later, > > a way to train yourself, and explore different avenues of > > a topic. > > Excellent points again. And believe me, I understand > the "throw your ideas against the Internet refrigerator > to see if they stick" approach. I pursued it myself for > many years. I probably argued as doggedly -- and as > stupidly -- as anyone here. > > It's just that I've tired of that lately. A lot of that > "intellectual combat" interaction was, in retrospect, > during a period for me of walking away from multiple > cults, and trying to sort things out for myself in my > head. I think I'm a little farther along now, in that > I don't really see any need to sort things out such > that I think that what I come up with is any kind of > "truth," or even true for anyone but myself. I spout > opinion, cuz that's all I got. :-) > > But clearly not everyone sees things this way. You > keep hearing things that reek of "Poster X has no > balls because he/she won't 'take me on' and debate > things ad infinitum with me until one of us 'wins'" > on this forum. For me -- these days -- that's just so > Been There Done That. Ho hum. Boring. > > If they feel so attached to their views that they feel > the need to prosyletize and debate them, well...whatever > floats their boat. I don't have to come aboard. :-) >
