Matt:
> Now it looks like it's my turn to apologize for
> touching a nerve.
SA: Not a painful nerve, one of intellectual
stimulation.
> SA previously said:
> Matt, I'm not one to add "that's just my opinion",
> but I can see why somebody would. For somebody adds
> a suggestion, and you say, "of course these are our
> opinions", and yes they are, but a degree of
> tolerance can be also valued in the IMO or IMHO
> approach, which denotes democracy and the value of
> individuals living together, disagreeing, but
> picking fruit at the fruit stand together without
> fighting. Nobody saying your fighting, but your
> defining of IMO didn't cover this point.
> Matt:
> ...I was commenting on a pattern
> I've seen that, on the one hand looks on the surface
> like the common softening, rhetorical move that we
> all make (it's not as if I stridently assert
> everything and have never used the phrase), but on
> the other hand might seem to maybe have, in my
> opinion, a possible root in something other than
> softening.
SA: Do you mean "IMO" or trying to offer something
good, good in the sense, that the person offering this
goodness is what they perceive as good, is an effort
in softening up somebody to their way, but with full
knowing that they have already been convinced to their
own opinion and their opinion, their "IMO", is
established? Thus, by saying "in my opinion of
course" and such is a way to bait a conversation, a
seeming dialogue, but of course, it is their opinion
and they will not change it no matter what one says?
I've seen some us "IMO" in this way.
> Matt:
> I think you missed what I was talking about. I
> _like_ suggestions, as I said explicitly three times
> to help people understand my meaning. My "pet
> peeve" is a certain way of formulating suggestions.
> Hasn't a person ever rubbed you the wrong way,
> despite the fact that they're otherwise nice,
> friendly, etc.?
SA: Yes.
Matt:
> Well, I also happen to think
> there's a philosophical point lying underneath this
> particular pet peeve. I tried elaborating on it.
> If you didn't like it, why didn't _you_ just ignore
it?
SA: No, it's not that I didn't like it. It was a
wonder on my part as to why you took a suggestion as a
"pet peeve". Maybe it is in the 'missionary' type
approach. If so, this I understand, were people come
across as trying to offer something as if it is better
and don't understand why you will not accept this
'thing' or value that is better. This would suggest
the offerer thinks they are doing something better
than the one that needs, in the offerer's eyes, what
the offerer is offering (if you can follow what I'm
saying). Is this what your referring to?
Matt:
> Because the MD is about conversation, just as I
> tried continuing the conversation with Marsha by
> talking about my pet peeve.
SA: I see.
> Matt said:
> At the root of my distaste is this: what is
> secondhand about my experience of life if I never
> meditate? Are not all experiences direct? My
> experience of a book, for instance?
>
> SA previously said:
> We've been down this path before, but you didn't
> respond back to me, even though you stated you
> would, maybe our time has come?
>
> Matt:
> I'm sorry for dropping the earlier conversation.
> I'm afraid I don't remember it.
SA: This same topic. It seems we keep crossing this
same intersection about indirect/direct experience.
> SA previously said:
> As you would properly notice yourself, don't lose
> out on definitions. A secondhand experience of a
> sitting-down-closed-eye meditation would be reading
> a book about this kind of meditation. Sure it is a
> firsthand experience, and sure it is a direct
> experience, but one through a book.
> Matt:
> But to recapitulate my pet peeve which links to the
> philosophical direct/indirect distinction:
> If someone suggests that I should meditate because
> it's good to see reality directly and it's something
> that can really only be understood by doing it, then
> they are:
> 1) using the philosophical direct/indirect
> distinction to lend credence to why I should try it
> out. After all, according to their view, indirect
> experience is second-rate.
SA: I see where your coming from on this issue. I
guess the authority on any experience can be more
intuitively understood if one experiences the
experience versus reading about the experience. Yet,
my reading about what is happening in Tibet is better
than my experience, right here, right now as to what
is happening in Tibet. Thus, my experience of reading
about Tibet is a better picture than my everyday
experiences I'm having here as to what's happening in
Tibet. I don't even hear the word Tibet in my
everyday experience. So, I guess it depends on how
the context is shape and what we're trying to explore.
Matt:
> 2) using the common sense direct/indirect
> distinction to suggest that reading about meditating
> doesn't quite give one a good idea about whether or
> not meditating is a good activity.
> I have no problem with people using the latter to
> give weight to their suggestion. That makes sense.
> But the former doesn't scan because I have
> philosophical problems with it. Marsha wasn't, I
> don't think, deploying the distinction
> self-consciously. But, whereas one can always
> construe a person non-philosophically, in a
> philosophical discussion group I often trend to the
> latter construal pattern.
SA: I recognize what your saying, I think, but let me
know otherwise if it seems I'm off-point on anything.
thanks.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
