The spiritual conversation is difficult, and therefore, skillful

Perhaps I meet the criteria a little more by using the 3rd person "one is" rather a lot, depersonalising a view, a slanted insult, applause, whatever. I mean one does, doesn't one? Since I know I can't experience the exact experiences of others, observation has to guide a response and given the material/info one often has to go on (here, for example) it can be a pretty general observation, a consideration of how I and my experience of others experiencing in situ might act or react or be.

There's surely no problem with "you" when addressing a particular person/poster about a particular issue. Well, there could be so one tries to discern. One doesn't address the person sitting opposite them in the café as 'one' now, does one?

It's also polite to use the subjunctive mood if conditions prompt particularly if a 'you' is involved.

Just my view.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Raziel

Hmmm .



A statement that speaks to know the intention & reaction of others, a presupposition - comprehensive indeed.

Ethics is philosophical, conceptual even.

I went over this point before when saying the intent is something recognisable in human nature, and ethics largely relate to the intent, so although ethical codes of conduct are culturally defined, their underlying principle is based in actuality.

Again for the layman ethical application is not the same as morality.
Ethical decisions come from a place of conscience. For many, conscience is simply an internal source of reward and punishment.

If one does not agree or share these notions it is perfectly fine, we are not obligated to speak, act or think as others wish if we do not agree with their philosophy or code.

Killing as an example is considered to be wrong, yet I have killed multiple times via euthenasia. A Jain would simply allow the suffering to continue.

Which one is more ethical or moral?

This is how it pertains to the intent. Both you and the Jain in the example were not malicious in acting, or in the Jain's case, not acting. It perfectly illustrates how ethics related to the virtue of human nature, even though conduct is culturally appropriated in value systems/conduct.

For me I shall deal with any issue in front of me according to my heart until the very real word filled with shades of grey and hard decisions is over.

Perhaps once you have killed out of kindness & actually ended suffering as I have, the small offences taken mean little in the grand scheme of things.

.

I'm not talking about the offenses themselves, but the kind intent that impels them.

I watched a you tube video in which a popular right wing personality discusses sex, gender and identity with university students in America. He wasn't offensive in any way, and indeed, seemed to take care about people's sensitivities, but the subject itself was such that people became offended as their 'chosen identity status' was challenged. One person, who in every way appeared to be a female, accused the speaker of "acts of violence" when he referred to them as 'she'. Another person who I took to be a female (but who may be offended by that statement) approached the speaker and what like, fu.

It was all twisted around because the although speaker had conservative views on gender and identity, he was perfectly civil at all times, and seemingly had no intention to offend anyone - and the people who claimed to be offended by what he said showed clear indicators of their intent to offend. I mean it doesn't get more obvious than fu, right? I'm sure they felt perfectly justified in that insult, and considered their slurs to be well-intended, but really they were becoming overwhelmed by their own internal reactivity, and thus impelled by ill intent - that is, the intent to hurt the speaker they called 'you'.

The justification story for this abuse distracts from the real nature of intent, but fu is is so obviously mal-intended. This examples ways in which people distract themselves rather than face the truth of what is arising in themselves.

In the spiritual conversation it's not possible to distract ourselves, because the conversation requires self awareness in order to be spiritual. Many people don't realise how hard life becomes when the stories are dropped. Indeed, they believe the stories are true. But the story is not true. It's a distortion which manifests in the civil person being perceived as offensive when he never intended offense (and he had apologised for accidentally calling them 'she'), and those perceived to be victims running on the intent to hurt him.

You see how ridiculous it can become when reffering to a female as 'she' is perceived to be a more offensive 'act of violence' than 'fu' is.

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Thank you for the tip.

I rarely go into those airy regions of the CP (except to look at others' profiles). A bit up in the 5D for me. Ascension was never my strong point. I've never liked lifts especially those glass ones on the outsides of buildings. Oh dear.

Sometimes I wonder if one post per page would be easier on my addled brain!

You're welcome

Yeah I don't often venture into the ol' CP, all those sub-menus bring me out in a cold sweat Did buy me a cherry-picker though, ascension's where it's at

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

There's surely no problem with "you" when addressing a particular person/poster about a particular issue. Well, there could be so one tries to discern. One doesn't address the person sitting opposite them in the café as 'one' now, does one?

Speak for oneself, mate

Originally Posted by A human Being

7
Speak for oneself, mate

Well anyway the main dialogue is being addressed over (this) one's head so one'll exit dextra now. One has said one's piece about the deletion of posts and threads
so being omitted from the convo best to asport oneself to the tavern for lunch, thinkest thou not? Wishing thee a pleasant afternoon good sir, quoth she.

Oh dear.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Gem

In the spiritual conversation it's not possible to distract ourselves, because the conversation requires self awareness in order to be spiritual. Many people don't realise how hard life becomes when the stories are dropped. Indeed, they believe the stories are true. But the story is not true. It's a distortion which manifests in the civil person being perceived as offensive when he never intended offense (and he had apologised for accidentally calling them 'she'), and those perceived to be victims running on the intent to hurt him.

You see how ridiculous it can become when reffering to a female as 'she' is perceived to be a more offensive 'act of violence' than 'fu' is.

Boom!

There we have a mutual understanding via disagreeing but not being offended

- The above quoted example is - for me in any case exactly the same as the word you & also why I have continued to champion the fact that it is not my responsibility to guard my words as someone is always offended somehow.

Ideally yes - only actual clear cut insults should be taken as offensive, yet within the interpretation & the context of conversation offence is still caused.

The onus is within the offended to see why this is so.

Antifa's "punch a nazi" is a great example - once they deem a person to be a nazi it is fine to act with violence in their belief system.

What is even more baffling is that most of Antifa are communists & more people have died under Communism than ever died under Nazi rule.

Its hypocrisy - I can decide on your behalf but if you do the same for me your a fascist/bigot/toxic male/heathen/kiffar ..etc

~

The conversation is necessary to meet an understanding even if the ideology is not reciprocated.
If someone is genuinely offended it is courteous & civil to attempt to build bridges. Some personality types merely feign offence unfortunately & that speaks to larger issues on the whole.

Someone who refuses to admit to priests abusing children, sacrifices actual pain on behalf of ideology which I find morally & ethically reprehensible.

On that same token the victim years later may have a bias against Catholicism or men due to their experiences. They will tar all with that same disgusting brush & although logical - it's unreasonable on behalf of someone who has done nothing wrong except be male or Catholic.

That victim should not be in charge of policing others on how not to offend them, there is a deeper issue causing the offence as it is a reminder of past pain.

Hence my continuous stance of word policing - the intent of others may very well not be to offend yet they are punished regardless & saddled with a guilt that is not theirs to bear.

.

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Well anyway the main dialogue is being addressed over (this) one's head so one'll exit dextra now. One has said one's piece about the deletion of posts and threads
so being omitted from the convo best to asport oneself to the tavern for lunch, thinkest thou not? Wishing thee a pleasant afternoon good sir, quoth she.

Oh dear.

Yea, one's work hither is done, methinks. Adieu, ma dame!

[7luminaries]

Hello Raz -- I don't want to interrupt your convo with Gem...Gem, my apologies...I'm looking fwd to your thoughtful responses per usual.
Just a few thoughts....

I have continued to champion the fact that it is not my responsibility to guard my words as someone is always offended somehow.

Well, IMO it is a given of adulthood and of civil society that we are responsible for what we say and what we do. Exceptions may be made for situations of extreme duress or emergencies.

But getting plastered wif your mates and then claiming none of ye had a clue ye were acting the fools and talking loads of trash...well, not so much, LOL. You're still held responsible for what you did and for cleaning up your messes. This has to do with adults being presumed and held responsible for the choices they make and for what they say and do.

Ideally yes - only actual clear cut insults should be taken as offensive, yet within the interpretation & the context of conversation offence is still caused.

A "clear-cut insult" will normally be perceived as intending to offend, and this is normally a reasonable assumption, I'd wager. However, what you term a clear cut insult, (say "fu"), does not mean if someone were to say you're a "[insert prejudicial label like "flaming racist" or "skinhead lesbian" or "you're a flake or a nutter [etc]because I say so/I have inside knowledge", etc etc] that many would not equally find that equally insulting, contemptuous, and arrogant.

Once again, it's not on any one of us to determine how others receive what we say. It's on us to strive to be and do, to speak and act, from a place of lovingingkindness and equanimity. If we do slip up and say you're a nutter and let me tell you how I know etc...then IMO it's clearly on us to hear others out when they call us on it, to make amends where possible, and to take that going fwd.

If we honestly didn't know folks are offended when we label them as nutters or otherwise tell them who and what they are, then we can embrace our experiences as learning opportunities on our path.

The onus is within the offended to see why this is so.

There's no onus IMO. Rather, everyone has a right to determine what is acceptable or not for them, and to speak for themselves. That said, probably 99% of humanity will agree that ad hominem attacks and name calling are problematic and contentious.

Check out this diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:G...sagreement.svg

Antifa's "punch a nazi" is a great example - once they deem a person to be a nazi it is fine to act with violence in their belief system.

What is even more baffling is that most of Antifa are communists & more people have died under Communism than ever died under Nazi rule.

Its hypocrisy - I can decide on your behalf but if you do the same for me your a fascist/bigot/toxic male/heathen/kiffar ..etc

~

Any form of totalitarianism is misaligned IMO. One is not more hypocritical than the other, or, rather, I am unable to rank them in any order of preference, LOL...as both extremes are just so untenable and incompatible with realising our full capacity for humanity, IMO.

In general, any attempt to "resolve" a situation with violence is delusion, and obviously destructive. Violence and hatred tend to breed more of what they are. Likewise, so do lovingkindness and equanimity. That's what Graham's hierarchy of disagreement is proposing...disagreement that refrains from personal attacks and name calling will be more rational, more focused, and will also tend to be kinder and/or less mean or aggressive.

The conversation is necessary to meet an understanding even if the ideology is not reciprocated.
If someone is genuinely offended it is courteous & civil to attempt to build bridges. Some personality types merely feign offence unfortunately & that speaks to larger issues on the whole.

I can't speak to personality types. I agree that it is civil to build bridges, and also that it is civil to refrain from personal attacks and name calling, which could tear down those bridges.

Someone who refuses to admit to priests abusing children, sacrifices actual pain on behalf of ideology which I find morally & ethically reprehensible.

On that same token the victim years later may have a bias against Catholicism or men due to their experiences. They will tar all with that same disgusting brush & although logical - it's unreasonable on behalf of someone who has done nothing wrong except be male or Catholic.

That victim should not police others on how not to offend them, there is a deeper issue causing the offence as it is a reminder of past pain.

IMO...that's neither your place nor mine to say, unless we are those who were abused by the priests (many of the victims were male and Catholic as I recall, just like their abusers). If those folks feel violated and if they take action and speak out, that is their right to seek acknowledgement and redress and I support that. Many of them are seeking truth and a sincere statement of contrition from the church, which is necessary for a deeper reconciliation, even if they have forgiven their abusers.

The bigger issue is why is it anyone would feel the need to tell others how to feel or respond? I'm not sure I can understand where you're coming from here.

Hence my continuous stance of word policing - the intent of others may very well not be to offend yet they are punished regardless & saddled with a guilt that is not theirs to bear.

IMO, things like "word policing" are inflammatory labels designed to incite prejudicial and negative emotional responses toward those who have received verbal insults, name calling, and/or who have experienced something. They have a right to draw their boundaries and name their experiences.

To deny them this right, or to seek to portray them in a bad light when they speak up -- this may or may not indicate a lack of compassion toward these folks but I wouldn't presume that it indicates the presence of compassion. I think we need to let others speak for themselves and if we find that we are resistant or unwilling to let others speak to their own perspective and their own experiences, then we can always take that as an opportunity to reflect.

Again, this is why I think it's good to let folks speak for themselves, and then to have further, ongoing dialogue about ways to communicate in which we are all treated with a baseline of courtesy, respect, and lovingkindness. I realise this is a relatively new thing in the annuals of human history...as no one mattered but the elite and the powerful in times past. Certainly no one cared about abuse of any kind...it was widely perpetrated as a means of enforcing oppression and hierarchy. So we are indeed forging new ground.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Gem

I watched a you tube video in which a popular right wing personality discusses sex, gender and identity with university students in America. He wasn't offensive in any way, and indeed, seemed to take care about people's sensitivities, but the subject itself was such that people became offended as their 'chosen identity status' was challenged. One person, who in every way appeared to be a female, accused the speaker of "acts of violence" when he referred to them as 'she'. Another person who I took to be a female (but who may be offended by that statement) approached the speaker and what like, fu.

It was all twisted around because the although speaker had conservative views on gender and identity, he was perfectly civil at all times, and seemingly had no intention to offend anyone - and the people who claimed to be offended by what he said showed clear indicators of their intent to offend. I mean it doesn't get more obvious than fu, right? I'm sure they felt perfectly justified in that insult, and considered their slurs to be well-intended, but really they were becoming overwhelmed by their own internal reactivity, and thus impelled by ill intent - that is, the intent to hurt the speaker they called 'you'.

The justification story for this abuse distracts from the real nature of intent, but fu is is so obviously mal-intended. This examples ways in which people distract themselves rather than face the truth of what is arising in themselves.

I had to come back to this as I feel that we are on a roll ...

It occurs on the Right & on the Left - from Ben Shapiro to Cenk Uygur or within any us vs them mentality.

They fail to see the hypocrisy in "don't tell others what they can or can't say/feel" - it just does not compute regardless of multiple examples (in my experience)..


Lets see what we have so far within this mindset:

# Don't label me unless I agree with it. (the speaker is somehow free to label at will).

# Don't speak of or for me as you don't know my life. (even if autobiographical tales being used as an example are aplenty)

# Don't tell others how to feel. (even though the speakers own tone suggests that another should feel guilty).

# Don't stifle others ability to speak. (The speaker in this mindset .. never ..stops..trying to change others ..)

# Don't insult me in anyway as I choose to interpret it. (The speaker is free to label, "call out", scold & be derogatory)

# Don't question the logic of something that I find comforting. (The mindset is allowed to question any logic not in line with their own)


~


That's probably enough.

It is for me certainly - as the raven said: nevermore.



.

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Perhaps I meet the criteria a little more by using the 3rd person "one is" rather a lot, depersonalising a view, a slanted insult, applause, whatever. I mean one does, doesn't one? Since I know I can't experience the exact experiences of others, observation has to guide a response and given the material/info one often has to go on (here, for example) it can be a pretty general observation, a consideration of how I and my experience of others experiencing in situ might act or react or be.

"observation has to guide a response"
Indeed.
How you "read" another and what they are saying, says a lot about "how" you respond in those observations with what you only know in each given moment. So in observing another, what I often do is open up how I am in the observation first and sometimes I am clear in myself to respond "aware" of them, other times I know I am not clear in myself because it comes up after the fact to get more clear because I am aware and open to notice myself in this way..

So in some ways the art of conversation is much like an unfolding process where by you, yourself hinders or distracts through your own observations and response. Or you yourself are open to the other as they are and allow yourself to be present more so with them as they are, unhindered by them in any way.

If one is truly listening to another and clear to be in understanding mode for them as they are, without you in the way of their expression, then often you find there are no limitations in the relating on your part. Of course people as they are, might be self absorbed, acting out, playing games with themselves, dancing in their fears, any number of things. The key is really imo, listening to all that and being ok with the your way to relate or not to relate. Discernment is not always about conversation and people making noise. Sometimes it is about silence and what moves in the silent spaces between words. For me that is a more direct knowing and awareness of myself and others through this view. Until you are more able through a whole range of understanding yourself deeper, more open and aware of others as they are deeper, often the cracks will open to provide an opportunity to go deeper if one is open to notice themselves in all this. Again discernment will decide the way and how's. And listening decides through more than itself in this way. :)

There's surely no problem with "you" when addressing a particular person/poster about a particular issue. Well, there could be so one tries to discern. One doesn't address the person sitting opposite them in the café as 'one' now, does one?

I don't take offense by the use of 'you' but my awareness is quite acute when the person is using 'you' as a means to avoid themselves deeper. So as you show its all about listening and discernment Lorelyen. And if you cant discern for yourself, you wont be able for another in your vicinity.

It's also polite to use the subjunctive mood if conditions prompt particularly if a 'you' is involved.

Just my view.

It all becomes just our view. Because it all just is, for most of us as it is for now.

[linen53]

I always premise my opinions by bringing up not how "one" acts, feels or thinks but how "I" act, feel or think. That way no one gets the impression I am attacking their values.