[Gem]

Originally Posted by Ground

Well if someone has a capacity or a talent to do something but never is taught how this 'something' is done then her/she will never notice this capacity or talent.

Yup.

First thing is definition. Just saying 'this is not that' and 'that differs from this' is mere arbitrariness. So either you provide your own definitions or you refer to a source.

I don't recall saying that which you enclosed in quote marks.

'we know people who'
This appears to be an appeal to people's preoccupation about other people using the seductive 'we'.

And this appears like a prophylactic suggestion against counter-argumentation.




See as soon as you express verbally what your awareness notices you are necessarily in the province of 'right or wrong' because you may say that you notice a tree whereas another might say that what you call 'tree' is rightly called 'horse'. So who is right and who is wrong?


But distraction from what?
If you desire a sphere of 'neither right nor wrong' you can establish that for yourself and when you get involved in positions of others that may distract you from your desired sphere. But why should your preference negate that there are valid/right and invalid/wrong positions in specific contexts?
If one takes up a position that does not necessarily involve to lose "touch with 'what is going on with oneself'".


There is no need to fix or correct 'what's going on with' anybody. There is no need to fix or correct 'what's going on with' oneself.
However this does not negate that a car is called 'car' but not 'house' and that if someone claims a car to be a house one can state the right view that a car is called 'car' and that calling it 'house' is a wrong view.

I don't if you heard what I said about fixing and correcting, but it seems as though you misheard, and might reference that again.

I'm not interested in arguments and challenges and so forth, but I know you can contribute in a more expansive way, and would genuinely appreciate that.