Wrong vs disagree

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
binocular
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Post by binocular » Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:08 pm

Dan74 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:00 pm
After a brief reflection I realised I didn't do binocular's posts justice. She was aiming for community and I just mentioned 'a pleasant environment'.
To be clear, I wasn't aiming for community in just any sense of the word. The word "community" tends to be popular nowadays and it is often used to refer to almost any accumulation of people, and in an apparent effort to replace the much-baggaged word "society" (and both have a vague, ambivalent meaning).

The word "team" has more of a meaning I'm refering to, although a team is usually smaller than a "community".
Community is really something wonderful and precious for Dhamma practice but I guess I've lowered my sights over the years.
But perhaps a "Dhamma team" and a "Dhamma community" are theoretical impossibilities to begin with ... Or possible only within Mahayana and Vajrayana (with their emphasis on lineage and initiation into one), but not in Theravada?

Dan74 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:49 pm
It also should go without saying that our interpretations of the tone and the intention of the posters are extremely prone to error. At the very least, we hardly ever scratch the surface, i.e. understand what's really behind the words, the unique individual history. That's also something I try to keep in mind.
When it's apparent that someone just hasn't got any clue of communication studies and hasn't thought or read up on communication styles, that's one thing.
But what is one supposed to do with people who clearly demonstrate to have the requisite vocabulary of communication studies, who manifest knowledge of a wide range of communication topics and problems -- but who seem to ignore all that and speak like the people who haven't got a clue about those things??
What else can one conclude other than that they are deliberate in this ignoring, or that they are deliberately using those insights from communication studies for the reason to obtain power?

binocular
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Post by binocular » Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:31 pm

Hold on.

Has this thread always been in the suggestion box, or has it been moved there?

I've been replying to it as if it would be in General Discussion, or other subforum.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 22081
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Post by retrofuturist » Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:27 pm

Greetings binocular,
binocular wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:43 pm
You gravely underestimate social bonds and the things that can be accomplished in terms of spiritual practice only when particular social bonds are in place.

Admirable friendship, insofar as it pertains to friendship with particular people can facilitate an understanding and practice of the Dhamma the way isolated, solitary attempts don't.
You might over-estimate what I under-estimate, but none of what you have said (here at least) is any way contradictory to my accurate statement that...
retrofuturist wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:11 pm
In actuality, a "community" is simply an aggregate of individuals and their interactions with other individuals.
Furthermore, the Buddha spoke of criteria by which to determine whether someone is suitable as a friend... and that evaluation is made as an individual, assessing the merit of interactions with other individuals. We can go into those criteria elsewhere if you could be bothered.
Has this thread always been in the suggestion box, or has it been moved there?

I've been replying to it as if it would be in General Discussion, or other subforum.
It's always been here. The OP made it as a "suggestion" for members.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

Dan74
Posts: 3230
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Post by Dan74 » Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:28 pm

I think it was always in the Suggestion Box.

I don't have any specific knowledge of communication studies, except maybe what I had to sit through as part of my teaching degree. But since my German was really poor at the time, I think little had rubbed off. You probably meant someone else.

I don't know about other people's intentions. My experience on the fora has led me to surmise that most people have similar intentions here. Consciously, we are here to learn, share and for mutual support. And most member engage to some extent in such activities, some even overwhelmingly so. Unconsciously, we are also here for validation and protection of their egoic needs, i.e. a self of being someone superior, special or at least OK, someone who's got it, as opposed to someone who is clueless, someone who is a good and interesting person, etc etc. But this is only a theory and like I said, I don't really know.

In general though, the balance, that is, how much of the former (share, learn and support) and how much of the latter (egoic needs), would vary, and hopefully correlate with how much and how strong one's Dhamma practice is. Early on in Dhamma practice, we tend to be pretty unself-aware, i.e. in the dark about our unconscious motivators. After a while, they sort of float to the surface and begin to lose their grip on us. Or so it seems..
_/|\_

binocular
Posts: 6951
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Post by binocular » Tue Nov 26, 2019 6:50 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:27 pm
Furthermore, the Buddha spoke of criteria by which to determine whether someone is suitable as a friend... and that evaluation is made as an individual, assessing the merit of interactions with other individuals. We can go into those criteria elsewhere if you could be bothered.
No, you wasted that chance long ago.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 22081
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:06 pm

Greetings binocular,

Strange response (or suggestion?) given that the Dhamma is timeless, but OK.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

User avatar
Bunks
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 2:31 am
Location: Geelong, Australia

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Post by Bunks » Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:25 am

Typing “you are wrong” (as someone did recently to a comment I made) is just rude.

It’s just common courtesy not to speak like that.

Carry on...
Stop thinking and start living!

Dan74
Posts: 3230
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Post by Dan74 » Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:02 am

Bunks wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:25 am
Typing “you are wrong” (as someone did recently to a comment I made) is just rude.

It’s just common courtesy not to speak like that.

Carry on...
You are wrong. :D

(well, you are kind of, about it being common. at least online, it isn't. I agree that civility and even better respect, and even better active listening are what we should strive for)
_/|\_

char101
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:21 am

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Post by char101 » Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:47 am

My initial premise is that if someone is going tell other people they are wrong about their interpretation of dhamma, that person should better be someone who have known the truth by experience (ehipassiko), otherwise how do one know what is true or false. Because it is written in the text? If the other party have also read the text, then it is a case of differing interpretations and not about facts, thus: disagreement.

Of course, if one have known the true meaning of dhamma by practice, then please do tell people that they are right or wrong. That would be a blessing.

User avatar
Bunks
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 2:31 am
Location: Geelong, Australia

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Post by Bunks » Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:07 pm

char101 wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:47 am
My initial premise is that if someone is going tell other people they are wrong about their interpretation of dhamma, that person should better be someone who have known the truth by experience (ehipassiko), otherwise how do one know what is true or false. Because it is written in the text? If the other party have also read the text, then it is a case of differing interpretations and not about facts, thus: disagreement.

Of course, if one have known the true meaning of dhamma by practice, then please do tell people that they are right or wrong. That would be a blessing.
I would suggest the person who made the comment to me was a fair way away from enlightenment.

Just the impression I got from other posts they made in the same thread.
Stop thinking and start living!

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 946
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:08 am

.





A way of politely commenting someone's opinion on DW ... :tongue:






Image
.


🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐

Self ...
  • "an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" :D ~ MN22

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 212 guests