Debate, Discussion, Condescension & Sin

In a debate, the participants are playing a game with each other. Each participant is trying to make oneself right and the other person wrong. Very seldom inroads are made into knowledge through debate. A debate is ego driven, and usually ends up in conflicts.

In a discussion, the game is very different. Here the participants are teaming up together against ignorance. Inroads are often made into knowledge through discussion.

The game of knowledge is played better through discussion. It is successful as long as attention is kept to the subject and not diverted on to any participant. This is how science progresses.

The moment allegations are introduced that are critical of any participant in the game of knowledge… the progress, as far as knowledge is concerned, comes to a stop. Ad hominem is a special case of this.

***

.

BEING CONDESCENDING

con·de·scend·ing

showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority: They resented the older neighbors’ condescending cordiality.

con·de·scend

to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity.

Origin: 1300–50; Middle English condescenden < Late Latin condēscendere (see con-, descend); replacing Middle English condescendre < Middle French [Intensive of descend, to come down]

pa·tron·iz·ing

displaying or indicative of an offensively condescending manner: a patronizing greeting, accompanied by a gentle pat on the pack.

pa·tron·ize

to behave in an offensively condescending manner toward: a professor who patronizes his students.

pa·tron

Roman History. the protector of a dependent or client, often the former master of a freedman still retaining certain rights over him.

Origin: 1250–1300; Middle English < Medieval Latin, Latin patrōnus legal protector, advocate (Medieval Latin: lord, master), derivative of pater father.

.

Can the confident behavior of another be taken as offensively condescending?

Can “offensively concescending” be part of the filter that one is looking through, while having nothing to do with the characteristics of what is being looking at?

***

.

SIN

Sin is basically an action which one knows to be wrong. It is wrong because

(1) One has been told that it is wrong.
(2) One feels that one would be rejected by others when found out.

One restrains oneself from committing the sin. Attention remains on sinful actions and their consequences. One commits the sin when one can no longer restrain oneself. There is a conflict simply because a true understanding of why some action is a sin is not present.

When one is self-determined, one naturally understands the wrongness of an action. It is an action that goes against one’s self-determinism. One would never commit such an action.

But when one is not allowed to be self-determined, and one’s thinking is determined by others, then that natural understanding of wrongness is missing. There is a constant unease at the back of one’s mind. Guilt is simply a magnified intensity of that unease.

The feeling of uneasiness and guilt evaporates when one takes a self-determined look at the conflict surrounding one’s actions. As one starts to spot inconsistencies, the understanding starts to improve, and the feeling of guilt lessens. One then knows what self-determined actions truly are, and what sin really is.

***

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Rafael  On November 7, 2011 at 10:59 PM

    Can the confident behavior of another be taken as offensively condescending?

    The problem I see with confident behavior is enforcement of knowingness, then it doesn´t matter if what you are saying is valid or not, it automatically falls into a compulsive games condition.

    What could possibly be the goal of such confident behavior?

    ML
    R

  • Rafael  On November 7, 2011 at 11:28 PM

    Confident: Feeling certainty about something

    To me, certainty is a mind phenomenon, it implies being fixed on a consideration.

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2011 at 6:57 AM

    con·fi·dent

    1. having strong belief or full assurance; sure: confident of fulfillment.

    2. sure of oneself; having no uncertainty about one’s own abilities, correctness, successfulness, etc.; self-confident; bold: a confident speaker.

    3. excessively bold; presumptuous.

    4. Obsolete. trustful or confiding.

    .

    (a) The only negative definition appears to be “3. excessively bold; presumptuous.” Is that what makes a person offensively condescending?

    (b) By being confident is a person necessarily imposing oneself over others, or is that how some people interacting with him might perceive?

    (c) By confidently stating one’s viewpoint, is a person imposing oneself over others?

    (d) Even when a person is perceived to be offensively condescending, should that be a matter of concern? Or should one simply put attention on the knowledge under discussion ignoring another’s supposed personal characteristics?

    .

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2011 at 1:22 PM

    How can one enforce a knowingness? Does that require some hypnotic process? If not then what one is confidently asserting can easily be ignored, isn’t it?

    All I see is objection to somebody confidently asserting something. What is the problem here… really?

    .

  • Rafael  On November 8, 2011 at 4:36 PM

    Brother, those are perfectly valid arguments, a tad too perfect, maybe?

    May I say a little desperate?

    Because,

    What is the case of confident behavior?

    What is the purpose of confident behavior?

    What would be the need of confident behavior?

    Is it really worth it?

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2011 at 8:17 PM

    I think that confidence simply reflects where one is at in terms of knowingness. One has tied up the troubling loose ends up to that point. One now feels comfortable about looking further.

    .

  • Rafael  On November 8, 2011 at 9:52 PM

    “I think that confidence simply reflects where one is at in terms of knowingness. One has tied up the troubling loose ends up to that point”

    Which leaves no room for discussion……

    • vinaire  On November 8, 2011 at 10:21 PM

      Not necessarily true.

      There is plenty of room for discussion if inconsistencies can be pointed out.

      .

      • Rafael  On November 9, 2011 at 12:23 AM

        Good point

        Now that means in a discussion the argument should only be supported by consistency of observations.

        I see confident assertion as an additive, including a personal effort to influence other observers. Fits perfectly in a debate, but not with independent observation needed for a discussion.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2011 at 6:59 AM

        I think that confidence is a state just like affinity. It is what it is. There is no effort involved. If confidence can be looked upon as attempt to influence others, then so can be affinity.

        I think here we are getting into the viewpoint of the observer, and not necessarily commenting on the intention of the confident person. A confident person is simply being confident.

        It looks like the observer is looking through a filter that is evaluating “how something is being delivered” instead of simply looking at “what is being delivered.” In other words, the additive could be put there by the observer.

        It is up to the observer what he wants to pursue. If he simply puts his attention on knowledge under dscussion and recognizes personality (or ego) as a distraction then he’ll be able to discuss successfully. He won’t be able to discuss successfully the moment he starts giving importance to personality (or ego).

        .

      • marildi  On November 11, 2011 at 3:02 PM

        Generally, I don’t see a problem with confidence and I like your comparison with affinity – i.e. it is what it is. As you indicate, the problem may be with the other person.

        However, the definitions you found for “condescending” surprised me as I didn’t see the concept I had in mind, which was not so much an attitude toward the subject (whatever one is confident about) but an attitude toward another or others in communicating about the subject. I looked in Random House and still didn’t see what I was looking for, just the same ones you found. Then I checked my Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate and found this: “condescend: to assume an air of superiority.” And in Encarta: “to behave toward other people as if they are less important or less intelligent than you.”

        That’s the idea I think is usually meant when someone is complaining about another being condescending. At times on such occasions, whether I was personally involved or not, I have looked back and tried to see what exactly was condescending and it was hard to spot, so it still may be a matter of – whose problem is it? On the other hand, the attitude may have been there, yet subtle – or at least too subtle for me, and more easily spotted by someone more perceptive to such. I think it may be particularly hard to see in oneself. But even when one’s comm could be construed (“objectively”) as condescending, it may not have had that intention.

        (I hope this comment doesn’t come across as condescending, LOL. 🙂 Not intended as such, by any means.)

      • vinaire  On November 11, 2011 at 4:30 PM

        No, I don’t see you as condescending, even if somebody else may. 🙂 You can never be sure!

        But I don’t bother my head about it. I am solely interested in knowledge.

        .

      • marildi  On November 11, 2011 at 4:43 PM

        “You can never be sure!”

        True, but it’s an awareness of the possibility that is needed, it seems – especially if one is “interested in knowledge” and if one has the belief that discussion will enhance it (I do!). Otherwise – foot bullets might defeat one’s own purposes. (Been there, done that. ;-))

      • vinaire  On November 11, 2011 at 5:43 PM

        My policy has been just to be honest and be myself, and to be helpful to others.

        I may not be tactful, and that could be chalked as my weakness. But I make it up by being helpful.

        And as I learn, the part of “being myself” improves too.

        .

      • marildi  On November 11, 2011 at 6:00 PM

        And I have witnessed your helpfulness, my dear Vinnie. I haven’t forgotten that you were the one who continued the ARC with me one time when no one else had the…whatever it took…to do so. 🙂

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2011 at 7:22 AM

    So, you seem to perceive an ego at the other end. Should you be giving it enough importance to let it distract you from looking at knowledge?

    Could the importance you are giving to the “other ego” be coming from your own ego? If you didn’t have an ego of your own, would you even be giving any thought (importance) to the “other ego”?

    .

  • Rafael  On November 9, 2011 at 9:33 AM

    Yes, I perceive an ego at the other end.

    Yes, I concede, that ego could be a figment of my own imagination.

    Is there, still, any ego left?

    We seek purity of observation.

    When sharing observations, we depend on the integrity of the others, as well as on our own.

    Ego interferes with the purity of observation, on both sides.

    At the end of the rabbit´s hole, where there is nothing left, we might be just looking at our own creations, if creativity (and then also individuality) remains on our side.

    Or things might just be appearing from the unknowable, if there is no individuality left.

    Which one is it?

    Is your mind already fixed on one? Or have you reached the end of the way?

    With KHTK I have learned to keep my mind´s eyes open. The moment I let my mind become fixed in one idea, I stop looking.

    So I will remain open to both sides or any other until I reach the end of the rabbit´s hole and jump.

    I believe the jump can only be made freely if we go with no preconceptions attached.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2011 at 10:35 AM

    Imagination is creation. You get what you create.

    Whether it is already there, or you are putting it there, it is the same thing from KHTK point of view.

    What persists is what you give importance too, because you are creating it again and again.

    What you recognize but don’t give any importance to, simply goes away, because you are not creating it again and again.

    In discussion, I don’t give importance to any considerations of ego. I give importance primarily to knowledge. And there too, my focus is on spotting inconsistencies, and recognizing the totality of that inconsistency.

    That’s all. That makes for a good discussion by continual as-isness of inconsistencies.

    .

    • Rafael  On November 9, 2011 at 11:29 AM

      That is also consistent for me.

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2011 at 12:07 PM

      This boils down to how do you eliminate ego.

      The simple answer is: Don’t give it importance.

      .

      • Rafael  On November 9, 2011 at 2:32 PM

        Cool with me.

        Also fits Dennis H Stephens approach in TROM (The resolution of mind)

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2011 at 3:48 PM

    Even if there is ego at the other end, a person who has no ego (gives no importance to ego) will be oblivious to the ego at the other end. He can then carry on with the discussion without being distracted by the ego.

    What is important is the discussion (the knowledge, the recognition of inconsistencies) and not the ego.

    .

    • marildi  On November 11, 2011 at 3:35 PM

      I agree here again – in a discussion, what is important is the discussion. Yet, as the facts of life would have it, ego can interfere with a discussion. I think the solution is two-part: one is that we should do our best not to allow our own ego to interfere. And the other is that we should be sensitive to others’ egos – grant their existence – and as artfully as possible skirt around them. Not an ideal, just a practicality.

      As for the “skirting,” or I should say failure to skirt, sometimes (when it’s the greatest good) it is helpful when others point out our shortcomings or when we point out theirs, helpful at least in the longer run. Anyway, this is a good subject for discussion in itself, IMO, and I’m working to understand it better.

    • vinaire  On November 11, 2011 at 4:26 PM

      Good discussion
      = improved knowledge
      = diminished ego
      = less bothered by the “facts of life”
      = improved life

      .

      • marildi  On November 11, 2011 at 4:49 PM

        Like it. But…often, the way out is the way through (the facts of life).

      • vinaire  On November 11, 2011 at 5:47 PM

        The only way I have learned to deal with the facts of life is to experience it without resistance, and to be helpful as much as possible.

        .

      • marildi  On November 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM

        I’m not sure if “passive resistance” is always enough. 😉

      • vinaire  On November 11, 2011 at 7:12 PM

        I did not say anything of that sort.

        .

      • marildi  On November 11, 2011 at 7:21 PM

        Sorry. Did I incorrectly interpret “experience without resistance”?

      • vinaire  On November 11, 2011 at 9:42 PM

        Yes, there is resistance in “passive resistance.” I am talking about no resistance at all. That is the KHTK approach.

        .

      • marildi  On November 11, 2011 at 9:55 PM

        I think of that phrase, passive resitance, as being a misnomer – since there in fact as no actual resistance.

        But my point is actually that although there may be no resistance on one’s part and thus no problem for oneself, there yet may be a problem for the other person that can then derail the discussion.

      • vinaire  On November 26, 2011 at 12:20 AM

        It is ego that puts up the resistance. An egoless viewpoint simply looks, understands, and communicates on the subject, and it is not bothered by the characteristics of the participants.

        Any problem in a discussion comes because of ego primarily. Discussions will be derailed as long as there is ego. The solution is to put the ego aside.

        It is not simple to put the ego aside. One learns to give up the ego on a gradient, mostly by trial and error.

        .

      • marildi  On November 26, 2011 at 1:31 AM

        Hi,Vin. All you say in the above makes consistent sense. 😉

        The only thing I might add to it would be that one should also be cognizant of the egos of others in the discussion as well. Two reasons: One is for the purpose of helping those others along in their own increasing ability to put ego aside – by allowing them a workable gradient to do so. And the other reason is to provide a better chance for the discussion to be continued at all, with all its consequent benefits.

      • vinaire  On November 26, 2011 at 8:08 AM

        Ego is simply an additive (incorrectly included datum) where a discussion is concerned, It comes from nowhere and tries to derail the discussion. One may try to point out that incorrectly included datum, but that is all one can do. There should be no blame because blame simply puts the ego more there. Blame is an additive itself.

        If pointing out of the incorrectly included datum does not work then today’s technology allows one to take the discussion elsewhere. One may even discuss with the Wikipedia. After all, the purpose of such an effort is to pierce the veil of ignorance farther and farther. The more participants are there the better it is.

        From my experience, ego can be overcome mainly by trial and error while using KHTK. There should be no regret or blaming oneself either.

        .

      • vinaire  On November 26, 2011 at 8:16 AM

        I think that the trick is to point out the incorrectly included datum in a discussion as accurately as possible.

        Success comes with the accuracy with which it is pointed out. It doesn’t hurt the ego. It simply helps erase it.

        .

      • marildi  On November 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM

        “I think that the trick is to point out the incorrectly included datum in a discussion as accurately as possible.”

        Hey, that computes! Because truth indicates to individuals and as-ises what’s there.

        It would be interesting to now make this less abstract. For example, as regards recent instances where you were involved – looking at all flows (or at least flows 1 and 2), what incorrectly included datums do you consider could or should have been pointed out or pointed out more accurately?

      • vinaire  On November 26, 2011 at 2:49 PM

        Well, in the instance you are referring to, the discussion went off the rails here:

        http://isene.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/ideology-and-responsibility/#comment-9923

        To me, the idea of unknowable seems to present a challenge and it generates eternal curiosity. Geir maintains that the idea of unknowable generates eternal boredom. For a long time Geir has been rejecting the idea of unknowable, while I have been trying to clarify it. By now there are quite a few essays on my blog on the concept of Unknowable. Recently, I discovered that the key undefined concept in mathematics is zero, which, to me, is a cousin to Unknowable.

        First of all, Unknowable is not my idea. It is my understanding from Vedas and Buddhism. Geir seem to reject that aspect of Vedas and Buddhism as well. My interest is in exploring the unknowable, whereas, Geir’s interest is in exploring the free will.

        Anyway, I got the impression that my talk of unknowable on Geir’s blog was getting on Geir’s nerves, and it was increasingly unwelcome. Since I was more interested in exploring the Unknowable, I returned to my blog. I can explore the unknowable on my blog without feeling obligated to someone else about what they want. Geir can explore the free will on his blog, without feeling interrupted by me.

        The incorrectly included datum was Geir pointing out that I am condescending. That definitely contributed to the end of me discussing on his blog.

        .

        .

      • marildi  On November 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM

        I have to admit that I didn’t totally follow the thought processes being communicated back and forth. But that is still beside my question of what could or should have been pointed out. Do you know?

        Because here’s my idea. It’s reasonable that a discussion can end with people still having different viewpoints. That’s obvious. But the conversation here between you and me is more about why – not “the” discussion – but just “discussion” has seemed to end.

        As serendipity would have it I just watched a short video about ego getting in the way and how and why one must remain detached. This is the same guy who was talking about the unknowable on the other video I posted for you (on another thread here). He’s the physicist (Tom Campbell) who has created a TOE that incorporates both physics and metaphysics (and btw quotes Buddha here and there).

        Check this out:

      • vinaire  On November 26, 2011 at 4:55 PM

        I think I must have aggravated the situation by not giving enough respect to the OT VIII status. To me it seems that the OT levels of Scientology simply serve to boost up the ego of a person.

        .

      • vinaire  On November 26, 2011 at 4:28 PM

        Tom Cambell expresses it very nicely. One should be detached in the sense of ego. That should not affect the sense of love and caring. One can be very loving and caring while detached in terms of ego.

        I stopped discussing on Geir’s blog because I was told that I am boring, I am condescending, and that I am socially inept. If one is looking at me through those filters then it is very difficult to communicate my thoughts on anything. Such indications can be classified as ad hominems; and I think that they are. Such ad hominems are product of ego. When ego comes in, the discussion peters out. It is better to move away from such a situation and not aggravate it further.

        I must have contributed to that situation in some way. My main offense seems to be being passionate about unknowable on someone else’s blog. That has now been corrected. Right now I am more interested in following my own research on my blog and not be constrained by other people’s expectations on how I should be behaving. I may sound selfish in this regard, but I need to carry on with my research. Sorry, if that seems like my “ego.” For now it is there.

        .

      • marildi  On November 26, 2011 at 5:38 PM

        Geir doesn’t think that YOU are boring, just the subject of Unknowable because he sees no point to it. And actually, he didn’t say he didn’t want you to discuss it. On a couple of earlier threads, I recall that he was merely saying that it wasn’t being put across very well by you. I thought that observation might act as a good challenge for you to sharpen up your presentation, simply because the effort to give a clear explanation to others and answer their questions will do that.

        I was actually looking forward to it as I think there is something to this concept of Unknowable but I don’t fully understand it. And when there’s a group blog discussion, some posters may articulate questions and comments better than others – a benefit for all of us, including the one being questioned.

        No, you don’t sound selfish at all to want to carry on with your research. That’s entirely up to you. But discussion with others can actually help with research, as I’m sure you know. And there are other benefits as well, IMO, some more subtle than others.

        I don’t think it was your passion that was the problem. Apparently, it was your wording, which was thought to be condescending. As I’ve indicated, I personally wasn’t always able to see that your comments were condescending (sounding). But at times I could –. whether those comments were a reflection of your actual attitude or not. Better TR 3 and 4 may have been necessary at times to resolve the matter. Whether or not there needs to be respect for status (such as OT VIII or blog owner) may be part of what has to be taken into account in good TRs, i.e. good comm cycles.

        The other thing to consider is that, besides oneself, it might benefit the other person(s) to follow through on even touchy things that have to do with the dynamics between people. They might have something to learn too!

        But it’s entirely up to each individual as to what his/her purposes are in blog discussions. I have the feeling, though, that unresolved conflicts, such as those to do with interrelationships, will come back to haunt one sooner or later, with someone or other. So I’m trying to deal with them as they come up, just one of my many purposes in participating in blog discussions. 😉

      • vinaire  On November 26, 2011 at 6:41 PM

        I am sorry, my purpose is not to convince anybody of anything. If the subject that I feel passionate about is boring to another, then that’s that. I shall continue with what interests me. Others may jump in if and when they find any value in it. It is up to them. As you yourself mentioned there was criticism on Geir’s part instead of a discussion. Geir has nothing to contribute to the discussion on unknowable, and that is fine, I am just happy to be discussing with myself.

        Unknowable is hard to understand simply because it is unknowable. The value that I see in it is that one discovers one’s own assumptions when one starts to dig into the unknowable with the “neti, neti” process. The word “unknowable” is used to make one keenly aware of the inevitability of assumptions. The word “static” of Scientology Axiom #1 failed in avoiding assumptions. I have seen most Scientologists attach the assumption of beingness to “static.”

        One will get benefits out of the process of “neti, neti” depending on the effort one puts into it. If this statement sounds condescending then so be it. My attitude (actual or otherwise) doesn’t matter. What matters is the subject of unknowable, and one’s own ego attachment to knowledge (not somebody else’s), which inevitably produces assumptions.

        The subject of conflicts to do with interrelationships has always been boring to me. And if you want to start a discussion on that subject, count me out. 🙂

        .

      • marildi  On November 26, 2011 at 7:15 PM

        It’s not any statement about neti-neti or Unknowable that is condescending. If my understanding is correct, it’s the way it is presented or prefaced, or the way others comments (about it or otherwise) are acknowledged or mis-acknowledged. But I’m somewhat in the dark about that aspect myself, as I’ve said. If I hadn’t felt I was butting in I would have asked!

        In any case, one reason I see interrelationships as a valid and necessary subject is that they seem to act at times as barriers to one’s own purposes if one doesn’t deal with them. It’s a matter of what is the ideal vs. what is practical or at all workable.

        And besides all that, I miss you in the discussions. 😦

        I was just getting to understand (as a Westerner!) your viewpoints in general and their value. And I am sure that others feel the same about your views – probably even Geir..: But I know you men… 😉

        Actually, I’ll bet that the viewpoints all around have shifted to some degree already, as a result of what happened, and a more productive exchange would occur if you decided to give it a go. 🙂

      • vinaire  On November 26, 2011 at 8:48 PM

        Frankly speaking, attention in a discussion should be on the subject of discussion. Attention on any aspect of the participants, whether they are pleasing or not, or whether they acknowledge properly or not, has to do with ego. That is just a waste of time. I would put all this aside for the sake of a good discussion. If somebody is bothered by various aspects of participants I would recommend them to do some KHTK excercises..

        This last comment of mine may be taken as condescending but I am not saying it in any mean spirit. I really think it would help. The underlying premise is that it is much easier to detach from one’s ego than try to change others. I am not trying to change anybody around me. I am just going about my business. If others are interested in what I am doing they’ll also start focusing on it, whether with me, or on their own. Either way it is fine.

        I am interested in the subject of education. Maybe this subject can be revolutionalized, so it becomes a potent tool for self-improvement in any area of endeavor. This is my focus. Research into unknowable is there only to dig up basic assumptions and to examine them and to change them as necessary. I am discussing with you right now so I don’t understand how could you be missing me in discussions.

        It doesn’t matter whether it is Geir’s blog, my blog, or somebody else’s blog. It is the interest in the subject of discussion that matters. I shall choose subjects that interest me. Others should choose subjects that interest them, wherever they find them.

        Right now it is mathematics that interests me. 🙂

        .

      • marildi  On November 26, 2011 at 10:01 PM

        Yes, Vin, I’m glad we can still discuss here. But I meant on the group discussions is where I miss your input. Maybe you will still contribute from time to time, when the subject interests you.

        And I’m glad you feel good about your choices of what you wish to focus on. Education is a great one, btw, IMO too. My current interest is in this physicist/philosopher,Tom Campbell. I’ll keep you posted as he seems to think a lot like you do. 😉

      • vinaire  On November 26, 2011 at 10:23 PM

        Sure! Thanks. 🙂

        .

  • vinaire  On November 26, 2011 at 8:37 AM

    Quote: “I think of that phrase, passive resitance, as being a misnomer – since there in fact as no actual resistance”

    Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagraha may be taken as an example of passive resistance, but I think it is better interpreted as “not contributing to a wrong motion.” The word satyagraha simply means, “insistence on truth.” There is no make wrong there.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

    Chris, I shall respond to your post on Geir’s blog here, because Geir is blocking my posts on his blog. Here is your post from Geir’s Blog:

    “Vinaire, I would like to say that you have censored my posts where Geir has not censored my posts. You feeling singled out is inconsistent, inaccurate, and a reverse-ad hom as many have been warned here to display a modicum of manners. After all, this is a social blog. I follow the implicate rules on your blog and as I learn them keep returning and follow them. We should do that here as well.”

    I don’t think I have ever blocked any person on my blog. In the beginning I edited out those portions from your posts that had nothing to do with the discussion but were simply complaints about not feeling acknowledged by me. I feel that any comments that are personal to participants should be kept out of the discussion, otherwise the discussion derails. I have mentioned that on Geir’s blog also several times.

    To me it is discourteous to stray from a discussion and start focusing on the participants. Geir has been discourteous towards me on his blog that way, and then he has tried to impose his brand of courtsey, which amounts to not disagreeing with his viewpoints too much. Geir has been quite personal about commenting on me, and when I have responded to that he has not liked it.

    The policy on my blog is not to block any person, but to edit out portions from posts that stray from the discussion and are directed personally at participants. The purpose here is to simply stick to the discussion at hand.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 26, 2012 at 11:25 AM

    Here is my response to Geir on his Blog post TRANSCEND EXCHANGE, which will probably remain in the moderation queue or simply be deleted:

    “I prefer to be myself. And I don’t much care if you don’t let my posts through on your blog.

    “Geir, I don’t find you to be genuine or sincere. You seem to validate KHTK, but I find that as merely pretentious.

    “A simple disagreement with your viewpoint is being “rude” to you.

    “Well, who is arrogant here.”

    .

  • vinaire  On May 26, 2012 at 12:10 PM

    Ego leads to debate and not to a discussion. Debate distracts one from knowledge because the ego wants to ‘win the debate.’

    To make any progress with any discovery, one needs to disregard ego, and simply proceed with the discussion. Ego drops off by itself when it is not made part of a discussion. By demanding that the participants in a discussion on a blog be ‘courteous’ by some arbitrary and fuzzy standards, the blog owner is focusing on ego.

    The focus should be on the topic of discussion and not on the participants. When that protocol is precisely implemented, the behavior of the participants straightens out by itself. The blog owner must set up an example by following that protocol himself or herself. The most extreme action required would be to simply edit out (from a post) sentences that focus on participants.

    The best way to eliminate ego in a discussion is by not giving it any importance.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 26, 2012 at 12:31 PM

    When a person ridicules another person’s statement or belief, instead of stating the exact inconsistency that he sees, then he is putting his ego there.

    As an example, Geir ridiculed the concept of ‘unknowable’ presented by me on his blog, instead of simply pointing out the inconsistency. I then wrote several essays on my blog explaining the concept of ‘unknowable.’ I don’t think Geir ever commented on any of them. He didn’t like me putting on his blog any links to essays on my blog. He started to accuse me of selling my ideas on his blog. It became impossible for me to discuss on his blog.

    It seems like Geir took my ideas being in competition to his. He simply rejected my idea of ‘unknowable’. To date Geir has never commented on my blog, even when he thinks KHTK to be brilliant. This is a major inconsistency in my view.

    Geir has been putting his ego there on his blog, which made the things go South regarding my involvement.

    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: