>>> [Marsha] >>> Discussion? Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. This isn't a debate >>> club. Sometimes it depends on the style of the questioner/questions? For >>> instance, I don't consider one should have to defend oneself against being >>> called a "bad mystic" or an "anti-intellectual". And a discussion, as far >>> as I am concerned, requires both sides to answer questions. This is not >>> the place for a one-sided interrogation. I don't consider that a yes/no - >>> black/white answer can be demanded when there is wide range grey or >>> alternate possibilities. I could go on: no straw dogs, no begging the >>> question, &etc, &etc, &etc, ... "I do not know" is a permissible answer. >>> And sometimes there will be no agreement. Sometimes there will just be >>> different opinions based on different people having different static >>> pattern histories and differing circumstances. I like the discussion, >>> though… >> >> [djh] >> >> You're more than welcome to ask questions of me. So I apologies if I ask too >> many questions but I'm just interested in your values. >> >> In regards to this - what if you have better values than me and I simply >> fail to see it because as you say 'we have different static pattern >> histories and differing circumstances'. I want to become a better person >> right? How do I see the potentially higher quality of your values without >> having your personal life history and different circumstance? As far as I >> can see the only way I can see your values if at first appearance I cannot >> see the quality in what you say - is explain how I see things and >> alternately - you can explain how I may be wrong in my understanding. Isn't >> this the great thing about intellectual discussions? By working *through* >> our different understandings like this - we can both become better people >> and learn about values we might not have understood due to our 'different >> static pattern histories and differing circumstances'. Yes? No? >> >
> [Marsha] > I do not relate to your point-of-view. I am not here to be a better person. > I have made my view on being a person (self) perfectly clear. For me being a > better 'conventional' person is the natural fallout of a deeper understanding > of reality, one where experiences of interconnected values reign, not > aggression. [djh] On the one hand you say that you're not here to be a better person - then on the other you say that becoming a better person is the natural fallout of experiences of interconnected values. How else can our values 'interconnect' if we do not work through our differences by trying to understand one another and how our values are different? > [Marsha] > Do you think that a Buddhist, who has experienced any level of awakening, > thinks of Buddhist philosophy as no more than an intellectual exercise? No! > Well, that is how I think of RMP's writings. Are they intellectual? Yes, > often they are. Are they merely an intellectual exercise? No! That is why > I can appreciate Paul Turner's two-context paper. It illuminates the > difficulty and complexity of the RMP's task and the accomplishment. [djh] I have heard a Buddhist Monk say that Buddhist Philosophy is *not* Buddhism and I'd agree. Buddhist philosophy is not Buddhism and is an intellectual exercise. RMP's writings do indeed describe a whole bunch of things which aren't just intellectual. They describe biological values and social values and mystical values and cultural values too.. But all these descriptions themselves *are* intellectual for they are not the values themselves but a representation which we can use to manipulate and represent within a metaphysics. > Though we have different views, I do agree there can be a benefit to trying > to exchange ideas. Though in the end I value the advice of the Buddha who > said "Place no head above your own". By this he meant, don't accept somebody > else's words. Find out for yourself. I am quite sure RMP would agree. [djh] I agree with the Buddha's sentiments here as well. However, as you say - that's not to say we shouldn't *try* and understand one another. It's all about how long we're willing to do this for. And indeed how we do it. As I've said - I think we can really only do it by being honest and explaining our understanding and respectfully disagreeing and then trying to find the underlying values and a better understanding of where the difference in values lie. As I've said to dmb and many others - I don't think we can do that by implying sinister motives of others or ignoring their values. What we value is the whole thing - not the logic we use or the lack of it.. > Djh, I am still miffed at the bullshit you tried to pull about my supposed > 'not caring'. I remain suspicious of your motives. To me that episode > represents aggressive and deceitful tactics. If you want to make a fool of > me, I will simply admit that I am a fool and the discussion ends. I am not > interested in that type of game. I have never claimed any authority, not > even in terms of my meditation practice, though I will continue to proclaim > its value. Also, I would like others to be able to add their perspectives > and questions without being insulted (online or offlist) and without being > discredited by indiscriminately being linked to the denigrated halfwit that I > have come to be labeled. [djh] Well I'm sorry that you feel that way Marsha. Sadly, I think the 'bullshit' which you are referring to was the result of a miscommunication. I was making the point that to openly claim 'you don't care about x' is contradictory as clearly anyone does care about something - even by giving something a name, or mentioning it is a form of caring. In other words - I do think that you care about what dmb thinks or says; regardless of whether you claim to or not. 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/md/archives.html
