|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2014 4:45:11 GMT -5
Perhaps a good example of that lack of understanding you refer to is how a moralist might mistake this critique as an advocacy of amorality or an amoral lifestyle. It's not, and it's just yet another example of an absence not being a presence ... but there's no way to sustain that conversation without first accepting the notion of a pointer, because in a literal sense, amorality is just that: the absence of morals. Yes, that's something we encounter here all the time. As if absence of morals would mean being a savage beast from the jungle or something.  Yes, the higher the spiritual circles, the more subtle the moralistic weapons in the "I am more enlightened than you" game. Polysemy on "natural state".  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2014 5:03:44 GMT -5
This reminds me of the style talks we've had. I don't have any doubt that moralism can be used as jewel encrusted bludgeon when the chips are down using just reason and rationality. Examples are everywhere. I think one of the reasons style and moralistic arguments come to the surface is because of what you say -- the moralist or style police is seeing the underpinnings of their other argument chipped away at to pile of nonsensical dust and so they pick up a new, even more subjective weapon. And that style/moral weapon will have more bludgeoning capacity the more it is based on perceived shared truth, or mutualconditioning, perhaps.Right, association fallacy, guilt/honor by association. Exactly my point. No doubt about that. However, this only applies to personal growthers, because their focus is on behavior (or improving behavior) by default which means it's hard to keep the messenger and the message apart. There's no such dilemma in non-duality discussions where behavior is irrelevant. Which means if you preach the ideal of unconditional love and how it applies in your life and how you are making progress and then you go on a hate rampage against your archenemies then there's an obvious credibility gap. The moralist doesn't see it as a distraction though. The pattern in the conversations on this forum and others like it is: 1) A statement of direct experience 2) Intertwining of that experience with abstractions -- the entanglement of ideological identification 3) The abstractions are challenged 4) Identification with the abstractions is not noticed on the part of the identifier From the perspective of a moralist so self-identified the challenger has unnecessarily and with apparently no provocation done a symbolic violence by challenging the abstractions, which often, because of the entanglement, takes the form of personal disparagement. Unless the identifier is also a pacifist or currently experiencing a movement of pacifism they are completely self-justified in retaliating. The motivation for the retaliation is most often just reflexive ... but if the identifier also has a self-image involving that of teacher or activist, then the retaliation is going to be a bit more elaborate and the retaliator much more absorbed in the action of it. ====== The case where a moralist attempts to associate their subject with a set of ideas is, of course, another matter altogether. What we call "straw man" or "picture painting" is all about assuming the ideological identification to begin with. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 7:17:39 GMT -5
This reminds me of the style talks we've had. I don't have any doubt that moralism can be used as jewel encrusted bludgeon when the chips are down using just reason and rationality. Examples are everywhere. I think one of the reasons style and moralistic arguments come to the surface is because of what you say -- the moralist or style police is seeing the underpinnings of their other argument chipped away at to pile of nonsensical dust and so they pick up a new, even more subjective weapon. And that style/moral weapon will have more bludgeoning capacity the more it is based on perceived shared truth, or mutualconditioning, perhaps. Like manners, if the style and moral arguments are traced back, there may be a rational core. For example, the table manner of spooning the soup away from you is to save a bit of costly/time-consuming laundering and also to keep stains from distracting your compadres the rest of the evening. Similarly, some of the style/moral issues that come up are probably rooted in efficiency of communication. The reason insulting someone doesn't work is because it makes it really hard to communicate afterwards. Therefore insulting is 'bad.' So there is often a grain of truth in the moralist bludgeon, howeverso it be a desperate distraction from the original discussion. What makes matters even more murky is that the main topic of discussion here -- something about spirituality, I'm told -- has wrapped up with it the expectation of some sort of enlightened conduct by those tagged as spiritually advanced in some way. Yes, not everyone has this expectation, but I do think it is widespread. Methinks that the moral/style complaints come up because the opportunity of showing a hypocrisy with respect to enlightened conduct seems so ripe for the picking. Soitainly true. Also, inherent in speerichuality, at least in the self improvement level of it, is an internal examination of motives, projections, denial and general unconsciousness. If and when any of this is approached by another, there's a natural backlash that usually takes the form of suddenly going more unconscious and expressing more of precisely those aspects that were being approached. That reaction may or may not take on a distinct moral tone, but in some way the approacher is going to be made wrong. I resemble that remark!  Perhaps we should create a taxonomy of WIBIGO Deflection Behaviors so we can have a field guide for easy identification. There's the Creating a Distraction Kingdom....Giraffing would be a genus within the Painting Pictures family... Somewhere in there would be humor (!)... also Diversions based on classification, not to be confused with the subspecies of definition quibbles. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 24, 2014 9:56:14 GMT -5
Of course, neither of these views come very close to describing how life unfolds for couples and people everywhere in this world and um there is a balanced view of how these things work between the two ideas. Think back to arguments you might have had with your ex-husband. Was there ever one where you and he disagreed about a sequence of events that led up to the argument itself to the extent that you each concluded that the other was living in some sort of alternative reality? Or ... ever been in a business meeting and argued with a peer about the best plan of action? Sequence of events was/is never my strong point, so no. Uh no -- never been up that far on the totem pole - Ha! You're the first post I'm responding to this morning...mmmust've slept well..still bleary-eyed -- But, I signed in for max's jewels and one other post...was worth the signing on, heheheh.................Oh! The 2nd one of Max's is right above me! I wanted to say that I think that idea is excellent: a taxonomy for WIBIGO Deflection Behaviors, Diversions and such.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2014 10:26:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2014 10:36:39 GMT -5
Think back to arguments you might have had with your ex-husband. Was there ever one where you and he disagreed about a sequence of events that led up to the argument itself to the extent that you each concluded that the other was living in some sort of alternative reality? Or ... ever been in a business meeting and argued with a peer about the best plan of action? Sequence of events was/is never my strong point, so no. Uh no -- never been up that far on the totem pole - Ha! You're the first post I'm responding to this morning...mmmust've slept well..still bleary-eyed -- But, I signed in for max's jewels and one other post...was worth the signing on, heheheh.................Oh! The 2nd one of Max's is right above me! I wanted to say that I think that idea is excellent: a taxonomy for WIBIGO Deflection Behaviors, Diversions and such. Well you'll just have to take my word for it then ... "he said, she said" is a description very applicable to how: life unfolds for couples and people everywhere in this world |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 24, 2014 10:54:04 GMT -5
Sequence of events was/is never my strong point, so no. Uh no -- never been up that far on the totem pole - Ha! You're the first post I'm responding to this morning...mmmust've slept well..still bleary-eyed -- But, I signed in for max's jewels and one other post...was worth the signing on, heheheh.................Oh! The 2nd one of Max's is right above me! I wanted to say that I think that idea is excellent: a taxonomy for WIBIGO Deflection Behaviors, Diversions and such. Well you'll just have to take my word for it then ... "he said, she said" is a description very applicable to how: life unfolds for couples and people everywhere in this world What happens on this forum isn't fundamentally different from what happens in arguments, feuds and conflict between friends, spouses, families and nations. The causes and effects are essentially the same. The dynamics are a microcosm of society. The difference is that the potential for harm is limited by the format, which makes it a good way to explore these issues without anyone getting seriously hurt. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2014 11:03:22 GMT -5
Well you'll just have to take my word for it then ... "he said, she said" is a description very applicable to how: What happens on this forum isn't fundamentally different from what happens in arguments, feuds and conflict between friends, spouses, families and nations. The causes and effects are essentially the same. The dynamics are a microcosm of society. The difference is that the potential for harm is limited by the format, which makes it a good way to explore these issues without anyone getting seriously hurt. Weeelll I've said this before -- it's like runnin' with scissors ..  .. all fun an' games till someone gets an I poked out .. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 24, 2014 11:59:26 GMT -5
What happens on this forum isn't fundamentally different from what happens in arguments, feuds and conflict between friends, spouses, families and nations. The causes and effects are essentially the same. The dynamics are a microcosm of society. The difference is that the potential for harm is limited by the format, which makes it a good way to explore these issues without anyone getting seriously hurt. Weeelll I've said this before -- it's like runnin' with scissors .. .. all fun an' games till someone gets an I poked out .. Well, yes, the 'I' is put at risk to some degree, but really it's extremely well protected and there's not much danger. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 24, 2014 12:08:24 GMT -5
Weeelll I've said this before -- it's like runnin' with scissors .. .. all fun an' games till someone gets an I poked out .. Well, yes, the 'I' is put at risk to some degree, but really it's extremely well protected and there's not much danger. Wellll, now all you're doing is encouraging peeps to grab those scissors an poke their own i out -- or get a pal to do it for them.   |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 24, 2014 12:20:42 GMT -5
Weeelll I've said this before -- it's like runnin' with scissors .. .. all fun an' games till someone gets an I poked out .. Well, yes, the 'I' is put at risk to some degree, but really it's extremely well protected and there's not much danger.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 24, 2014 17:26:54 GMT -5
Weeelll I've said this before -- it's like runnin' with scissors .. .. all fun an' games till someone gets an I poked out .. Well, yes, the 'I' is put at risk to some degree, but really it's extremely well protected and there's not much danger. Seeing as some people (No one here) have reacted to getting their I's poked at by committing suicide, is committing suicide considered to be "not much danger"? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 24, 2014 18:49:58 GMT -5
Well, yes, the 'I' is put at risk to some degree, but really it's extremely well protected and there's not much danger. Safety first, I always say. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 24, 2014 18:54:56 GMT -5
Well, yes, the 'I' is put at risk to some degree, but really it's extremely well protected and there's not much danger. Seeing as some people (No one here) have reacted to getting their I's poked at by committing suicide, is committing suicide considered to be "not much danger"? I said there's not much danger of losing one's 'I'. I haven't talked about what might happen as a consequence, nor do I know that suicide is one of those consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 24, 2014 19:16:50 GMT -5
Seeing as some people (No one here) have reacted to getting their I's poked at by committing suicide, is committing suicide considered to be "not much danger"? I said there's not much danger of losing one's 'I'. I haven't talked about what might happen as a consequence, nor do I know that suicide is one of those consequences. Ah okay, I understand what you are saying there is not much danger of happening. |
|
