Excellent mind exercise. Judging by how I enjoyed hanging out with movement people with whom I have little philosophically in common at George's lecture, I'd say jocularity would prevail. I like most people, especially people who see the wold differently from me. I always prefer rapport over confrontation.
But online we get a chance to interact in a away with less social buffers and that is a valuable intellectual resource IMO. Sometimes nice gets in the way of getting to the bottom of philosophical differences. There is such a different agenda when I am with someone personally. And most people hide what they really believe because our society doesn't teach how to disagree politely for the sake of intellectual interest. People are so identified with their ideas if they don't practice how to have a philosophical conversation. I don't believe that everyone would be able to hang comfortably, but I'll bet most would. I can think of some who would storm off in a huff at the first sign of disagreement, since they even have trouble being civil in print. Some people who post are definitely high maintenance people. But people surprise me all the time so I shouldn't try to predict that. Cool thought. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : If the regular posters on FFL were to fortuitously meet at a social gathering - and the conversation was to gravitate towards "spiritual" topics and meditation - and it gradually dawned on everyone that the strangers they were face to face with were the very people they had been having heated arguments with on the FFL site and exchanging gratuitous insults with . . . well, you get the picture . . . Do you think everyone would simply relax, let their hair down, exchange humorous stories, find themselves getting on in a perfectly civilized manner, and end up as new bosom buddies? Or do you think it would end up in a bar-room fight?