--- In [email protected], "Kenny H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Judy > What a crystal clear response detailing the levels of thought that > are behind your posts. If everyone were as well versed in the > exigencies of language including dialectec, infinite regress, etc. > I suspect the battles would still rage but in a very different way. > You are to be marveled at for having the mental stamina to carry > though in the fashion you do.
Thank you, I think. Or maybe not. All this isn't anywhere near as esoteric as it may sound; it's really not much more than common sense and paying attention. As I said in a follow- up post, many here do superbly well in these respects, IMHO. It isn't a matter of being "well versed"; any reasonably literate person is aware of this stuff more or less instinctively, whether they use fancy names for it or not. But too many times we go off on unproductive tangents because somebody hasn't bothered to put much effort into thinking through what they have to say or communicating it clearly. They're more interested in showing off or playing games or constructing a clever putdown, or they're just plain lazy. No doubt I'm guilty of this myself from time to time. > Ken > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A major part of the difficulty in talking about > > enlightenment, it seems to me, is that folks-- > > *especially* you, Barry--don't bother to think > > through what they're saying. > > > > Describing enlightenment is problematic enough > > when you knock yourself out to be precise in the > > way you use words. When you use them *sloppily*, > > when you don't respect the exigiencies of language > > or the nature of dialectic, you introduce all > > kinds of unnecessary obstacles (especially when > > you allow personal animus to make putting somebody > > down more important than communicating). > > > > Even when you use paradox or contradiction or > > infinite regress--or imagery, analogy, and > > metaphor, for that matter--as pointers, you need > > to do it with awareness and precision and > > attention to context. If you break a rule of > > language or logic to try to get around its > > limitations, you need to know that you're doing > > it and *why* you're doing it. It has to be done > > purposefully if you want it to further rather > > than impede communication. > > > > It isn't possible to describe enlightenment > > precisely, but that doesn't mean it can't be talked > > about at all. It does mean that precision and care > > in the *way* you use language to communicate about > > enlightenment is crucial if the discussion is to be > > at all useful. > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
