--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > I've been intentionally staying out of this, > because I'm just back from a fun mini-vacation > and don't feel like diving back into the mud, > but I'll make two comments and then post a few > examples and then bow out.
(Of course, he *didn't* bow out.) > As I see it, the concept of a forum like this > one is intellectual *exchange*, not intellectual > *debate*. To assume that the latter is appropriate, > one has to assume that one is "right," that one > "knows" the "truth" about something. In fact, while that is the *position* one must take to debate anything, it does *not* mean that one is actually convinced it's the case. In a debate undertaken in good faith, it's the positions themselves that are being debated, not the debaters' adherence to those positions. The goal is a kind of dialectic in which the strengths and weaknesses of the respective positions become clearer, and the positions are modified and refined accordingly. Ideally, the end result is that two initially opposing positions, through this process of modification and refinement, become agreement. In practice--even good-faith practice-- that rarely happens, but what *should* happen is that the most fundamental areas of disagreement become evident and are seen to be evenly matched. This process of refinement and getting down to basics tends not to occur in mere "exchange," so it's less threatening to people who don't want to have to modify their positions or understand their weaknesses. I do not assume > that I have that ability (to know the "truth" about > situations regarding spirituality), but obviously > some here *do* assume that about themselves, and > try their best to turn almost *every* pleasant > discussion into a head-to-head battle to prove > who is "right." That strikes me as pretty unevolved. And what strikes me is that if you didn't have a major investment in your own positions, you wouldn't automatically assume that every challenge to them could be characterized in this manner. You use this characterization, moreover, as a thought-stopper to put down the challengers and avoid actually examining your positions. > The other thing that strikes me as pretty unevolved > is the tendency on the part of these people (which > is barely even *disguised* at this point) to avoid > any discussion of the intellectual *points* that > their "enemies" bring up, and just go straight for > the throat, in the form of insulting or demonizing > them. (Just to remind everyone once again that "enemies" is *Barry's* term, even though he puts it in quotes as if it's one used by the folks he's attacking.) And another thought-stopper, the characterization of any criticism as "insulting or demonizing." The underlying assumption of Barry's here is that *no* criticism of TM critics is valid. TM *supporters*, in stark contrast, are the constant targets of Barry's criticisms. He sees absolutely no problem with insulting and demonizing *them*. And if you actually pay attention to his posts, you'll find precious little in the way of discussion of the intellectual points made by TM supporters. Lately Paul has been the main victim of this, > but of course others have been targets of it in the > past. I personally see it as "last ditch" panic on > the part of a few people whose intellectual world > is crumbling about them, and who don't like that > much, so they put all their energy into trying to > demonize the people who have come to believe the > very things that *they* are coming to believe, but > are still afraid to *admit* that they believe. Another comforting thought-stopper, again with the underlying assumption that no criticism of TM critics by TM supporters is valid. But turn it around. What does Barry's constant vicious personal attacks on TM supporters, and his refusal to discuss their substantive points, say about the state of *Barry's* intellectual world?
