The spiritual conversation is difficult, and therefore, skillful

Originally Posted by Raziel

A poster knows themselves surely?

Reflecting on a number of posters here, I'm not sure that's a usable assumption. In fact a few arrive here precisely because they don't know themselves. I'd bracket myself among them looking back at my earlier posts here but...this forum has brought incremental and a couple of enlightening changes... more so than the local magic shop and friends/associates who tend to the same broad beliefs or who simply put up with my oddities.

All anyone can do is look inwards as to why words effect them.

I'm comfortable doing so therefore I reject being admonished by any living soul who quite clearly isn't.

Again, I think it's a great spiritual lesson but is a big ask for some here.
.

[7luminaries]

Why do words matter? And why would someone find it contentious and problematic to be attacked or called names?
Particularly repeatedly, across different topics, times and places?

I think we can all google "verbal abuse", "ad hominem (personal) attacks" and "name calling" to see that these are contentious and problematic ways of communicating...

The good news is, there are other options

Here's a little background regarding the different levels of disagreement, which involve progressively moving away from personal attacks and toward focusing on the topics or points at hand in the discussion.

By removing the elements of attack or usurpation of agency (blame, judgment, speaking for another), we allow for the poster's opinion to be heard without attacking the poster, his or her character, or his/her opinions & perspectives on the topic:


Graham's hierarchy of disagreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

Graham proposed a "disagreement hierarchy" in a 2008 essay "How to Disagree",[20] putting types of argument into a seven-point hierarchy and observing that "If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier." Graham also suggested that the hierarchy can be thought as a pyramid, as the highest forms of disagreement are rarer.

Following this hierarchy, Graham notes that articulate forms of name-calling (lowest level of disagreement) are no different from crude insults.
(e.g. "The author is a self-important dilettante" is the same as "you're a [slur]")

The highest level of argument is refuting the central point without using any of the lower forms of argument (i.e., Levels 1 - 3).



The 2 lowest forms of disagreement or argument are as follows:



Ad hominem Attack - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Ad Hominem | Definition of Ad Hominem by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. an ad hominem argument. 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.



Name calling - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling
Name calling is abusive or insulting language referring to a person or group, a verbal abuse. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines from anthropology, to child psychology, to politics.

Name-calling | Definition of Name-calling by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/name-calling
Definition of name-calling. : the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts. First Known Use: 1819
E.g., "Commie".


Peace & blessings
7L

[Raziel]

Its the old "someone can dish it out but he or she can't take it". Someone easily criticizes other people but does not like it when other people criticize his or her belief.

Often those finding religion or guidebooks need those things to " be the answer". Of course life is a roll of the dice, unless your of the belief that we choose our own parents pre birth .

Nobody knows what others go through (unless they share aloud) & we should be polite of course however this politeness can be manipulated at times.

Think of examples of friends borrowing money or sleeping on sofas only to overstep or overstay.
On the one hand we should be kind on another they need to acknowledge your space also.

Here & now I'm at a place whereby the false frustrates me on others behalf.

So many false paths, false speakers - I see the car crash & I yell aloud "watch out" - only to be told to shhhh..stop attacking me personally (I.e forum handle).

Its shoot the messenger & a fear of themselves.

Elsewhere the dark Knight of the soul was spoken of - its something paradoxical for me having had it. I don't wish it on others however its essentially a deep cleanse of ones soul & extraordinarily enlightening on a personal level.

Some cannot go there, that's fine but its not reasonable to be asked to constantly pander because of it. Some insist so much of others: change your tone, alter your language why .. why does it fall upon another to change/ unlearn on a stranger or ancient scribes requirements?

If you fall into the abyss & claw your way out - why allow the lost souls to pull you back in?

Sticks & stones .. words are words .. offense is always somewhere ..

.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

However, IMO it's much more about negotiating boundaries, courtesy, and respect, i.e., how to apply the stated rules of engagement here on the forums in real-life situations. I.e., how to counter unacceptable behaviour whilst allowing for others to find their own feet. How to discuss what is and is not acceptable -- opinions vary but there are rules and they occasionally are egregiously infringed -- without getting threads closed. Etc.

As far as what upsets some folks...my guess is there are probably a range of things involved and it would depend on the person. Some may be offended by strong words or sensitive topics or outlier opinions. Others may be are offended by what to them appears to be an environment of hostility, where verbal attacks and name calling are permitted. Where folks are asked to stop and they persist or double down.

Responding can be difficult. I often ask if people want a sincere response or a socially desirable one. With the former one tries to be diplomatic without feeding a problem - it's too easy just to feed the problem. It depends how a post can be read inasmuch as e.g. does the poster really want help to change things...does "What can I do?" just hide a yearning for comforting. I've tended to avoid such posts lately unless a genuine need seems evident. Usually there's too little info to go on. One poster got me into trouble with the mods simply because I asked for more detail and she unleashed a tirade against me! LOL. It really didn't matter but the language said poster used led the mod to wonder if we were quarreling.

TBH, I am not sensitive to difference of opinions...though I understand it is important to state our opinions respectfully and courteously and to affirm other's right to their opinion. But I do get that moving the discussion to the personal object (where the other poster(s) become object of derision or attack or labeling) is not constructive.

Meaning, it does not tend to create an environment where all respectful voices feel welcomed...because many fear attack and do not seek confrontation, nor do they want to have to stand up to a bully simply to put in their thoughts.

Same. Whether I'm sensitive or not matters less than my integrity and if I get bitten so be it. There are times when I've got fed up with the way things are going but now keep out when that seems likely. People are as they are. They're entitled to their beliefs. I may step in when it appears (just appears) someone is going off the rails, and always declare my words are my views alone.

I think it's fair to say there's much mental fragility here, lack of confidence, diffidence, depressions light and heavy and sometimes bordering on disorder. So 'yours truly' tries to tread warily. Not always sure that I manage it - I can be blunt and have to curb that. On one section of this forum there's almost an anti-spirituality, a set of beliefs that encourage unjustified emotional attachment, obsession, acute selfishness, jealousy, codependence, adultery. Should it even be here? Yes, it should as some posters, riddled with anguish and emotional pain, sometimes obsession and who want out can perchance find support and a degree of sympathy.

Always difficult.

And thanks again for your patience

Peace & blessings
7L

Absolutely unnecessary, dear 7L. Patience not needed.

pax luxque tecum

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Why do words matter? And why would someone find it contentious and problematic to be attacked or called names?
Particularly repeatedly, across different topics, times and places?

I think we can all google "verbal abuse", "ad hominem (personal) attacks" and "name calling" to see that these are contentious and problematic ways of communicating...

There are so many stresses in our time that online fora act as a safety valve always at the expense of others unfortunately. Social media have promoted it for better or worse, not to mention distancing people and eliminating spontaneity.

The good news is, there are other options

Always hoping that the culprits can clear themselves of their anger and stress to take advantage of them.

Originally Posted by A human Being

Tangential, but if you want to you can increase the number of posts per page (to a maximum of 40) by clicking on the following: User CP -> Edit Options [left-hand side, under Control Panel] -> Thread Display Options [third box down, second drop-down menu is 'Number of posts to show per page']

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!

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Gem

The basic idea behind the difficulty is related to the continual awareness of what is arising in one's own intents, feelings, reactions, thoughts... basically, all that's going on with oneself. It's not like we're perfect people. We're typically prone to become distracted into our reactive habits, but we only have to be conscious of these rather than mindlessly compelled by them. It's not a ban on them or any expectation that it should be otherwise. It's the mere awareness of it - nothing more.

I think once you understand yourself deeper with regards to what your sharing here gem, one has the ability to transcend and move beyond ones normal processing style/personality trait that often seeks to express itself through this means of itself more so if unable to go deeper into itself aware and more clear in the 'way' it expresses itself. Until you can and do become a more conscious self reflector through the whole range of your normal functioning/processors, especially your core 'drivers' ( that will reflect one's deeper (personal) values) then naturally you begin to notice what motivates people to express and share what is moving inside themselves, based upon these things. If we think about the many ways in which the normal functions of individual processors plays out, any conversation in a group dynamic, will end up with a myriad of interwoven personalities and processing styles all intermingled and showing what is moving inwardly and coming outwardly to be expressed 'through those functions'. We can end up with (as an example ) extroverted thinking, introverted feelers, extroverted intuition, extroverted sensing... etc etc all being utilized differently but as a means of its own expression through this means of processing and understanding itself and the world around itself. So naturally everything moving in a person if not clear in deeper introspection of itself as a 'whole' being integrated in all this, will be bound to itself (as it only is aware and knows to be) and will subject the external to this way, as it sees itself being and only knows to be. Of course it is just how life and people are and we all do our best as we know and can be aware or not..so its probably wise to just understand yourself deeper and others as they are and be more consciously aware of them in their ways of being them..

It's simply true that we are aware of our own minds, although somewhat distracted at times.

The little animosities that arise here are not caused by the other - they are laced with our own intent. To categorise this intent in a very general way, we oppose it as good will and ill will. From that crude classification there are more precise nuances, and all we say contains some measure of it, for we speak to communicate, which is to have an effect and be affected.

When you are able to take out of cause as being about the 'other' and can self reflect deeper through your many subtle and not so subtle nuances, the intent is more clear and able to affect the situation more positively. Self preservation intermixed will and can affect one with itself, but if its tied to an 'unwilling' to notice itself in all that, then naturally what will transpire is the change one is seeking, through the external means, bringing itself to light. This can be tricky to someone who is valiantly trying to uphold the world in its values and core beliefs of "right and wrong" when all the while it is oblivious to its own change seeking through this means of external drivers pushing outwardly to make 'right' something it sees as part of itself. If we see that 'self first'
aligns the intent more clear when we ourselves are more clear (from reactions), it can actually support a more positive and productive discussion, where we are more in directly connected to ourselves and more directly connected to what is.

I notice it was mentioned somewhere in the posts about being a 'free spirit'. To me if one is truly aspiring to become a free spirit in the context of true authentic being or as 'not self', then it takes a very conscious and mindful practice beyond just freedom to express anyway and anything it sees as valid and truthful to itself and (for) others. If open and aware to this, it will become an ongoing mindfulness and self directed awareness back to the emptiness of itself, which then, allows the relating, to be more clear and coming through an open state of being. It will be felt as such if you are aware of yourself more clear. The context of freedom is then validated through clarity and openness and its own spiritual nature, then becomes more clear and aware of itself more complete. The other or external doesn't impede or distract the foundations you know of yourself and how to be. The conversations are less inclined to be on the defensive or in reactionary mode in this way of being.

There is no time between the intent and the result thereof, because the mind moves in the moment of intent. There is no duration between the urge of intent in which we can prevent our minds from moving accordingly. The mind moves within intent's immediacy. Hence, things are 'like this' - already happened - so we have to face the fact of what is. There is only the awareness of this or distraction from it - and in distraction we can become imagined selves living in the reactive aftermath of our real lived experience - distracted from the reality of life.

Yes, this makes sense.

The inevitable is already here.

Yeppers.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Raziel

I understand the power play in the spiritual conversation unfortunately (having been one of 20 "Christian" kids at a majority Muslim school).

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...d.php?t=121439

It's never one size fits all yet many desperately cling to the idea that it must be to have a fair & peaceful world.

Its always on their terms of course.

Apologies for the break in transmission - back to the subject of banning the word you is it?

On the contrary, I said of course we all use 'you', but the aim is to be aware of the intent with which we do so, considering how it can set up defensive relational positions, let alone adverse outcomes of verbal abuse. I further elaborated by saying that any person can speak for and of themselves while no other has any right to do so, and rationalised it by explaining the ethical nuances of consent in this regard. I was quite comprehensive overall.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I think once you understand yourself deeper with regards to what your sharing here gem, one has the ability to transcend and move beyond ones normal processing style/personality trait that often seeks to express itself through this means of itself more so if unable to go deeper into itself aware and more clear in the 'way' it expresses itself. Until you can and do become a more conscious self reflector through the whole range of your normal functioning/processors, especially your core 'drivers' ( that will reflect one's deeper (personal) values) then naturally you begin to notice what motivates people to express and share what is moving inside themselves, based upon these things. If we think about the many ways in which the normal functions of individual processors plays out, any conversation in a group dynamic, will end up with a myriad of interwoven personalities and processing styles all intermingled and showing what is moving inwardly and coming outwardly to be expressed 'through those functions'. We can end up with (as an example ) extroverted thinking, introverted feelers, extroverted intuition, extroverted sensing... etc etc all being utilized differently but as a means of its own expression through this means of processing and understanding itself and the world around itself. So naturally everything moving in a person if not clear in deeper introspection of itself as a 'whole' being integrated in all this, will be bound to itself (as it only is aware and knows to be) and will subject the external to this way, as it sees itself being and only knows to be. Of course it is just how life and people are and we all do our best as we know and can be aware or not..so its probably wise to just understand yourself deeper and others as they are and be more consciously aware of them in their ways of being them..

It's simply true that we are aware of our own minds, although somewhat distracted at times[i].



When you are able to take out of cause as being about the 'other' and can self reflect deeper through your many subtle and not so subtle nuances, the intent is more clear and able to affect the situation more positively. Self preservation intermixed will and can affect one with itself, but if its tied to an 'unwilling' to notice itself in all that, then naturally what will transpire is the change one is seeking, through the external means, bringing itself to light. This can be tricky to someone who is valiantly trying to uphold the world in its values and core beliefs of "right and wrong" when all the while it is oblivious to its own change seeking through this means of external drivers pushing outwardly to make 'right' something it sees as part of itself. If we see that 'self first'
aligns the intent more clear when we ourselves are more clear (from reactions), it can actually support a more positive and productive discussion, where we are more in directly connected to ourselves and more directly connected to what is.

I notice it was mentioned somewhere in the posts about being a 'free spirit'. To me if one is truly aspiring to become a free spirit in the context of true authentic being or as 'not self', then it takes a very conscious and mindful practice beyond just freedom to express anyway and anything it sees as valid and truthful to itself and (for) others. If open and aware to this, it will become an ongoing mindfulness and self directed awareness back to the emptiness of itself, which then, allows the relating, to be more clear and coming through an open state of being. It will be felt as such if you are aware of yourself more clear. The context of freedom is then validated through clarity and openness and its own spiritual nature, then becomes more clear and aware of itself more complete. The other or external doesn't impede or distract the foundations you know of yourself and how to be. The conversations are less inclined to be on the defensive or in reactionary mode in this way of being.




Yes, this makes sense.





Yeppers.

There is a great nuance to all this, because that one aware is prior to everything that arises, so everything that happens is as though in a realm of motion that is known by the stillness of that awareness. When we are under the impression that we ourselves are being moved, then we take all these experiences not as experiences alone, but as things that happen to me, making oneself the subject of everything that happens. Hence we become reactive to it all because it involves 'myself'.

There is skill of detachment where we remove ourselves from the experience as the mere observer thereof, which is a handy skill in being objective about our lives, but the removed person also becomes other than the experience in a very remote way. The nuance is so subtle here because we are not what we experience, but we are not exactly apart from the experience. On the contrary, we are with the experience as the conscious knowing thereof. The issue here is the kind of knowing, because we know things we learn and we know things purely 'as they are in the way they are experienced'. This latter form of consciously being aware has no knowing of the former learned kind. We don't know what we experience other than our direct conscious awareness of it. We don't know why and how or have any reason or explanation. It just is.


The first knowing by learning is where the right and wrong come in, because the structure of that facet of knowledge is wholly constructed on right opposed to wrong. When we talk of the direct conscious knowing, 'this is', there aren't any answers for it, so our entire framework for discussion changes... it loses it's structure because there are no placeholders established as the knowledge of being right.

Then we have to be more acute because we have no knowledge that be clung to, as the knowing is immediate, momentary, There is no way to be knowing in this sense other than to be consciously, momentarily aware. We can slip out of this place, where we actually live, and and become lost in the realm of motion of the mind... but in the instant we notice what mind is doing, we have returned to that conscious knowingness - yet not by becoming detached as a separated objective observer, but as the one knowing the experience.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Gem

On the contrary, I said of course we all use 'you', but the aim is to be aware of the intent with which we do so, considering how it can set up defensive relational positions, let alone adverse outcomes of verbal abuse. I further elaborated by saying that any person can speak for and of themselves while no other has any right to do so, and rationalised it by explaining the ethical nuances of consent in this regard. I was quite comprehensive overall.

Hmmm .

Originally Posted by Gem #481

'You' is near-enough always used in verbal abusing a person.

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

Ethics is philosophical, conceptual even.

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.

This is all comparable to a stamp collector throwing a fit over someone using one of his collection to post a letter - what is fundamentally valued & important to him, is merely practical to another.

~

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

Which one is more ethical or moral?

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.

I'd rather stay a sin eater myself.

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.

.