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".
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?Community is really something wonderful and precious for Dhamma practice but I guess I've lowered my sights over the years.
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.Dan74 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:49 pmIt 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.
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?