Judy > Mental illness or personality disorders run a gambit (run the gamut)
Me Excellent correction, thank you. Been saying that wrong all my life. Me > > I am saying that this is just my opinion about the guy. Any attempt > > to be more "right" about this topic than I am will not get any > > traction with me. > Judy > Well, I know that. "My mind's made up, don't confuse > me with the facts." > > What I'm pointing out is that your conclusions > just aren't logical. Me Claiming that someone is not being logical works better on people who didn't study logic. We have different premises so our conclusions are different. Logic has nothing to do with it. We are both expressing an opinion about the facts and looking at it from different perspectives. Your belief that your opinion is more factual is one of the important differences in how we view these discussions. > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > "Yes, but you're starting from the assumption that > > he was a mentally ill homeless dude. My point is > > that to run a Shankaracharya outfit, he couldn't > > possibly have been. > > > > Shankaracharyas aren't chosen for their > > administrative and political competence, but > > they're under a tremendous amount of scrutiny, and > > if they foul up in those respects, you'll hear > > about it." > > > > Mental illness or personality disorders run a gambit > > (run the gamut) > > > from non functional to very functional. > <snip> > > The main thing is that leaving home at 9 is not > > normal > > But you don't think *anyone* with a religious calling > is "normal." As far as you're concerned, millions > of highly productive people throughout history haven't > been "normal." Martin Luther King wasn't "normal." > > > and I don't see any reason to view it as a super normal > > quality in him. > > I never suggested he had a "supernormal" quality > in the sense of anything supernatural. But he was > clearly an overachiever; most people who become > leaders are. > > > I am just forming my opinion on the facts that we have, just > > like you. > > You are focusing on his achievement as Shankaracharya and I am > > looking at him more personally. There is something wrong with a guy > > leaving home at 9 and spending his life away from society. > > There's something *different* about such a person, > no question. I don't know how you can categorically > state that this difference is "wrong." That just > strikes me as incredibly arrogant, as well as > ethnocentric. > > > Even when > > he rejoined society he would not be in the presence of women. We > are > > all drawing our own conclusions from these simple facts of his life. > > > > I am saying that this is just my opinion about the guy. Any attempt > > to be more "right" about this topic than I am will not get any > > traction with me. > > Well, I know that. "My mind's made up, don't confuse > me with the facts." > > What I'm pointing out is that your conclusions > just aren't logical. > > > > I think we are just both expressing different ways > > of looking at an interesting life. >
