Comment below: **
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19140641/site/newsweek/ > > This topic interests me. It is a dilemma for non believers. The > challenge of staying in rapport while being true to your own position, > which is by definition, a negation of someone else's POV. Right now > there are a few books out that aren't pulling any punches and some > come off as pretty caustic to believers. I keep reading criticisms of > these books that focus on their disrespectful tone and a claim that > the authors are unfairly lumping together fundamentalists believers > with people the reviewers consider more thoughtful,(themselves). > Sometimes the reviewers come off as just as rudely dismissive of > fundamentalist believers as the atheists. I don't see anyone spelling > out what exactly their God belief includes in any detail. Just a lot > of dodge ball, "That isn't my version, not that either, nope you > aren't talking about mine". Andrew Sullivan was the master of this > game in his debate with Sam Harris, reducing his God belief into > certain uncontroversial human emotions, (We all like puppies right? > Then my God is puppies). > > In philosophy people are trained how to argue points so that it > doesn't become a personal attack. This is difficult to pull off in > real life outside an academic setting. I find it is a rare person who > can discuss their spiritual beliefs without taking it personally and > getting upset. When it works here on this board I am really > impressed, it can be done. It takes practice I think, and a > commitment to mutual respect. > > It is possible to believe you are right about your perspective while > allowing that someone else may benefit from seeing it differently. It > would be intellectually disingenuous for me to say that they just have > a different truth. I think it is OK to believe that someone is wrong > about something while respecting their right to believe what they > want. It helps to have an awareness of all the times in the past that > I have been wrong about things and the fact that it is hard to figure > out the things I am wrong about right now, but passionately believe. > There may be a bigger category of different versions of "right". > > I think FFL is helping me improve the ability to discuss ideas in a > respectful way. It helps that many posters are mature in their own > spirituality so my skepticism doesn't stir more than a light breeze. > It often feels safe to be honest here about what I believe and don't > believe and the larger area of "I don't know". There are rough > patches here, but we are all works in progress and this project isn't > the easiest to pull off gracefully. > > I guess the bottom line is that the balance is to be true to your own > perspective without being a dick about it. Sometimes that is a fine > line, and sometimes it is pretty obvious. I know my limitations, I may > never be able to gain this balance with certain posters. But watching > the process unfold between different people is fascinating. I'm a fan > of what goes on here. Kumbaya baby! > **end** The 20th C. painter and arguably the progenitor of "abstract" art, Wassily Kandinsky, in speaking about how to look at a painting or a piece of artwork, recommended something along the lines of "looking to find what is right" about a piece of art rather than what is wrong. A painter may have gotten it wrong many times within a painting but she may also have gotten it "right", too, and according to Kandinsky, that is what the viewer should concern himself with, looking to see where she got it right. (The parallel with the "dead dog's white teeth" instruction is noted.) Everyone speaks and acts with the intention of getting it right, even though they may fail in that intention, or be mistaken from the start on first principles. But, nevertheless, from their point of view what they say and what they do must seem fundamentally right (at least at the time) or they wouldn't say it or do it. Even if immediately after, they regret or re-think their statement or action. There are lots of times while reading posts on FFL, where I have to bite my tongue, so to speak, from replying to a post where the tone is condescending or the argument fatuous or the subject just plain meanspirited -- as I see it. But I generally don't because I'm sure that the poster doesn't see it that way, or if they do, then they also feel that there's a good reason for posting it nonetheless. Some feel more readily prompted to post and point out the "errors" they see in what others write, and the character flaws they see exhibited in the other's posts. That's fine, too (I guess), but I'd endorse Curtis' perspective that "the balance is to be true to your own perspective without being a dick about it", and I always appreciate every example of that on this forum. On the whole, for the last month or so, FFL has been a lot less dickish and that's really great. Marek
