Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Spirituality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 26-07-2011, 02:29 AM
Topology
Posts: n/a
 
A Rational Discussion.

This thread has its beginnings in the enlightenment thread. The seed discussion is as follows:


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuJanLi
i hope for the rare opportunity to actually discuss a 'Spiritual' topic rationally.. you seem like the sort that might be so inclined..


I accept the invitation. How shall we proceed? It seems that we disagree on some usage of language. Should we start there? Or tackle the meta-problem of finding an accurate ontology? Or did you have another starting place in mind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuJanLi
I facilitated a metaphysics 'meet-up' group, and a very successful format was that a single question was put forth, and discussed until a conclusion was agreed to, even if was an agreement to disagree.. the basic rule was that evidence presented stood as valid until and unless it is impeached by other evidence, and.. i assure you, i am only interested in refining the clarity of my existence, so.. if you agree, please feel free to bring the first question to the table, or suggest another approach.. i am equally interested in what you favor as a format.. thank you for the opportunity to attempt a rational discussion..

As this discussion is taking place on a public forum, there is no point in asking that it just remain a discussion between two people. If the discussion were in person, I'd pick either a talking stick format or a Bohm Dialogue or something where the format injects space in between people's interactions and responses. Since this is an electronic communication, an inherently a-synchronous medium, then the format for injecting order and space is a little more difficult.

I used to participate in an online confrontation group through email. The format had a two week cycle with weekly interaction. One person was chosen to be the hub which would compile everyone's individual responses into a single mass e-mail. On week A, people would ask each other personally directed questions and respond to an esoteric reading posted on the previous week B. On Week B, people would answer the questions directed at them and then read the new essay posted. I found the format very organized. People would mail their weekly interactions to the moderator by mid week, and the moderator would email out the digest by the end of the week. The magic of this format was that it was all done by e-mail, people did not get to see other's comments or posts until the mod released them.

Here on the forum, people are going to see a post, and whoever wants to is going to chime in and respond. In order for any format to work, all the participants would need to adhere to it, self-police. I think the question of format can remain an open question as we proceed, an experiment to find a format that works to facilitate the purpose of having a rational discussion. It may be the case that we choose a moderator and a cyclic format which requires the moderator to advance the cycles. But I think for right now we can simply see if people can be self-disciplined enough to moderate their own town and thought process so as to progress as rationally as they are capable. And the discussion of what is rational may also be an open discussion, something we learn as we go along.

I like the suggestion of picking a single question to focus on, with the provision and understanding that a first question more often than not leads to a second and third as we are searching to ground our understanding in fundamentals. For example, I'm going to propose our question be "What is self?" and a more fundamental question would be "How do we discover the meaning and definition of the words we use?" To which someone could provide the dictionary, which would lead to the question of "How do we know the dictionary is right in its definition?" All of these secondary questions come up in the context of exploring of the first question. The appearance of going all over the map in order to provide an appropriately contextualized answer seems unavoidable.

MQ1) Is this nested and contextualized questioning acceptable to you Tzu, or do you mean literally no other question could be entertained without closing the first? Essentially people would simply provide their definitions and through some minor back and forth, the definitions would stabilize (not change from one moment to the next) and if they line up or not align, so be it, but no other question could be entertained until everyone's answer was stable?

MQ2) Is it acceptable to you, Tzu, to allow others to join our discussion and let the energy and tone of our interaction stabilize others interaction and tone? We would be generators of the resonance and others would attune in sympathetic harmony.

Since you have given to me the honor of choosing the question, it will be "What is self?" but that the question will not be entertained until we have exhausted all of our meta-questions about format, interactions and participants.

***** To the mods, if this thread needs to be moved to another forum heading, that is fine. I am starting it in the same forum as the enlightenment thread since this is a spin-off. ******
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 26-07-2011, 04:17 AM
mattie
Posts: n/a
 
Various Formats Of Discussion

It seems the issue w/ a discussion w/ impeachable evidence might hinge on the criteria about how evidence would be ‘impeached’ by other evidence when discussing beliefs. What one person might consider unimpeachable evidence can often be seen by another person as implausible. Who is put in charge of determining whether this evidence is impeached or stands? If it is by general consensus or vote this can be problematic. An evidence judge would be problematic as well. Whose POV is the benchmark for acceptable evidence? Would the moderators of this group be site moderators or separate ones?

One can use a structured format, but this puts someone or a group of people in the predictably awkward position of policing the format or type of discussion. Requiring a subject be closed or reaching a mass agreement of position (stable answers) before more issues can be discussed seems rigid & perilously close to the type of mass agreement about beliefs that defines organized religion. With a general discussion all can choose whatever they want about what is discussed.

A structured exploration of issues can be productive to some, but not others. What some may see as the undisciplined approach of exploring all over the map can be very useful for some. Some may have undisciplined thinking about these matters, but it is hard to tell others how they have to think about things or reply w/o being heavy handed. It isn’t, however unreasonable that a certain civility be insisted on. It is a given that different people explore these things in different ways. It is the responsibility of the person to take from a general discussion that uses both types of exploration what works for them, a structured examination of it or the more free form one.

Discussing an esoteric reading on a regular basis by a group seems like the new age version of bible study. This could be interesting if adherence to a particular view wasn’t required. A discussion limited to certain individuals it could probably commence via PM in whatever manner they wanted. A study group or a group w/ a specific a structured format different from what exists in the forum could possibly exist if this site has separate groups.

What is ‘MQ1’ & ‘MQ2?’
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26-07-2011, 04:37 AM
Topology
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattie

What is ‘MQ1’ & ‘MQ2?’

Meta Question 1 & 2. Sorry I didn't explain that.

With regard to peaching and impeaching each other's evidence, I think this is where the conversation would go meta and turn towards a discussion of epistemology, ontology and language acquisition, how we determine what is and isn't true.

I think the goal with having a rational discussion is to assume that there is a common ground that can be reached until it is seen that the common ground is in fact unreachable. If we all join in that intent, to be willing to work towards a common ground, and to do it methodically and reaching out to each other along the way, we'll at least make more progress than if we simply throw our statements of belief at each other over and over again like monkeys flinging their feces.

I essentially agree, a discussion in a forum like this must essentially be moderator-less. And we must rely on the participants' genuine intent in working cooperatively with each other. And for those who see no value in the character of pursuit within this thread, they may simply not read or participate.

I'm still waiting on clarification from Tzu, about the focus on a single question. I think there is purpose in the restriction, but too restrictive and it would seem that progress is impeded. Perhaps another one of those things up for review after trying it out for a while.

well met mattie, welcome to the discussion.

Now where did I put my tea?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 26-07-2011, 09:38 AM
TzuJanLi
Posts: n/a
 
Greetings..

It is early, and i am headed off to work, but.. i favor concluding one question before beginning another.. that does not exclude questions relevant to Q1, but the focus should remain on Q1.. this is a discussion arranged between Topology and me (Tzu), evidence will be evaluated between ourselves and the discussion will cordially reveal the most appropriate result.. of course, participation by others is invited and welcome, but, my focus will be on the discussion between Topo and me.. time is not an issue, but i suggest no more than a 5 day interval between Q & A, or specific cordial discussion replies..

I hope people will contribute, and i hope people can respect a cordial formality, similar to Topo's 'Talking Stick' (TS) format.. where, until the poster yields the TS, we respectfully pay attention, and.. a decent interval between replies, Topo and me, to allow for interaction by others and general discussion.. a quick familiarization with Robert's Rules of Order, might be helpful..

Anyway, gotta go, i will return later this afternoon.. structure a format that suits you, i think were on the same page.. "Self" it is!

Be well..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 26-07-2011, 12:30 PM
Squatchit Squatchit is offline
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,658
  Squatchit's Avatar
I'm very much looking forward to reading this thread. Thank you Top and Tzu.

*sits at the back and makes self cosy*
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 26-07-2011, 12:32 PM
sound sound is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,972
  sound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squatchit
I'm very much looking forward to reading this thread. Thank you Top and Tzu.

*sits at the back and makes self cosy*

Likewise ... shove over squishy Squatchels
__________________
Many footfalls hollow out a pathway ....
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26-07-2011, 12:40 PM
Squatchit Squatchit is offline
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,658
  Squatchit's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by sound
Likewise ... shove over squishy Squatchels

I brought shortbread biscuits...and popcorn.

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26-07-2011, 12:48 PM
SerpentQueen
Posts: n/a
 
So which one is Plato and which one is Socrates? You both have beards... I can't tell...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 26-07-2011, 12:55 PM
Time
Posts: n/a
 
it sounds like communism......................................

jkjk LOL should be interesting
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 26-07-2011, 03:54 PM
Enlightener
Posts: n/a
 
*Jumps in between Squatch and Sound and grabs a handful of popcorn*
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums