The Art of Discourse II

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Indeed. However, it can be satisfying with a worthy adversary

Personally, I far prefer the laughter and camaraderie. With an adversary comes the impulse to win, which can be... counterproductive.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Clemsy,

Without reading this, I posted in the philosophy thread in 1000 faces, which says almost the same thing.

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Clemsy wrote:To move this back on track:

A "higher order conversation" can only occur in an atmosphere of mutual respect where no one demonstrates a belief one is in some way superior to another, or believes one is in possession of 'special knowledge' that others are unaware of, and where, since this is a text medium, particular care is taken with the written word so that meaning is clear and concise.

Any additions?
No addition but a question here if a may, Clemsy, how do we know for sure when someone is writing from a stance of feeling self-superiority? To unleash a monologue on the board does not necessarily imply - to me at least - that the author of this monologue is condescending in his/her attitude regarding the views of others. Moreover, there are short and succint posts by some associates that answer not with reason but with personal feelings to the reasons mentioned in another post. Does that not signify that one feels lack of respect for the other poster by disregarding the significance of his/her reason? That kind of 'ad hominem' response seems far more condescending to me, than say, reading a long monologue about someones's private view. I do understand that the objection in your above post is against this attitude of self-superiority, but I don't quite know what is the distinguishing mark in a post that indicates an author is feeling superior to me or other readers. Is it not a judgment call to say I find so and so condescending, preachy, egotistical, etc.? :?
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

I do understand that the objection in your above post is against this attitude of self-superiority, but I don't quite know what is the distinguishing mark in a post that indicates an author is feeling superior to me or other readers. Is it not a judgment call to say I find so and so condescending, preachy, egotistical, etc.?
I'll address this in more detail later, Evinnra, as the rest of my day beckons. The short answer to your question is that in many cases it's not a judgement call. It's reading comprehension. One can feel quite superior to another and not let that show in one's writing. However, another will make it painfully obvious and will eventually resort to personal comments. That's why I very carefully said:
where no one demonstrates a belief one is in some way superior to another
We've banned very few from this site, but those who have been were as such, and demonstrably so.

That being said, I don't ban anyone without input from Martin and Bodhi. I also get feedback from JJ and Cindy, and Vissi and Psyche when they're around, in the Community Council Forum.

So the risk of that 'personal judgement' call is minimized. If you want to see some concrete examples, revisit just about any of Raphael's posts. He was quite confident the Forum Guidelines didn't apply to him.

Cheers,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

I think Evinnra despises me, but I don't feel that way about her.

Just saying. :oops:
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

:shock:

This is one of the problems with text only communication. No body gestures, tones or facial expressions. I know I'm guilty of choosing the wrong words that have a harsher tone than what I intended. :(
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Yes, yes, yes!

This is metacognitive process. Not only do you need to carefully consider your own thoughts, and the best way to transmit them, you also have to consider how another will receive them. I am constantly editing and reediting my posts based on how I predict another will interpret them.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

Clemsy, you're lucky that you can tell how folks will react. I have two left feet and both of them wind up in my mouth.

:cry:
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Clemsy, you're lucky that you can tell how folks will react.
Carmela, my post in no way was meant to suggest expertise. I don't know how effective I am at predicting others reactions.

I certainly didn't predict yours.

I will say that the times I do get it wrong, which certainly happens and not infrequently, is easy enough to spot. Then it's back to the drawing board. I try to take the failure as mine, not the readers.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

I can take responsibility for what I know is a problem, but in the case of some negative responses, it's not clear what went wrong exactly.....except that certain subjects are (for some individuals) "off the table".....like sacred cows?!.....I don't know......it's a difficulty for me to figure out how I can have my own authentic opinions (which I'm willing to change, btw, if it's reasonable to do so.......I'm here to learn).

I still think you are heads and shoulders above most of us in the appropriate response department. I have no experience with you doing what I do on a regular basis.

Just saying (Js).

~
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Clemsy wrote:Yes, yes, yes!

This is metacognitive process. Not only do you need to carefully consider your own thoughts, and the best way to transmit them, you also have to consider how another will receive them. I am constantly editing and reediting my posts based on how I predict another will interpret them.
Re-reading my post I think I might have asked from you more than you could possibly deliver, Clemsy. :oops: How could anyone describe a post that is so perfectly written that nobody could take offense over it? Such perfect post does not exist in reality, I'm affraid. However, if there is a method of posting that is preferred on the JCF , I would like to know about it. If there is such distiguishing mark in a post which indicates that the author is suffering from a superiority complex, I would like to know what it is in order to avoid it.

My method of posting here involves avoiding topics that will upset me and avoid conversing with those associates who frequently upset me. It does not mean that topics I avoid are generally speaking irrelevant or that those associates I avoid are impossible to converse with, it only means that I have foresight of 'steam coming through my ears' IF I engage with some topics/associates. I was under the impression that we are not only allowed to be selective this way, but positively encouraged to be selective about what /who we get engaged with in conversation.

To be perfectly honest, I have difficulties knowing how my words are received even in normal daily conversations where body language and tone is clearly discernible, let alone here where we must use emoticons to convey irony for instance or joking. I think I often over analyse or under estimate reactions, never quite getting the right picture of how my meaning is received. I even managed to offend some of my favorit associates in the past - Bodhibliss being one of them :oops: . Other times my post seem far more friendly than I actually feel about a person and since I hate insincerity, I'd like to avoid looking friendlier than how I actually feel. As a suggestion, could we have a larger variety of emoticons available on the board? One that says: 'thinking hard' one that shows 'impatient ' and 'grumpy' and 'enthusiastic' and 'doubting' and 'excited' and 'respect' and 'admiration' and perhaps for 'steam coming through the ears' ? Don't laugh, but for a long time I thought the emoticon :P represented a kind smile instead of glee. :roll:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu »

Evinnra wrote: My method of posting here involves avoiding topics that will upset me and avoid conversing with those associates who frequently upset me. It does not mean that topics I avoid are generally speaking irrelevant or that those associates I avoid are impossible to converse with, it only means that I have foresight of 'steam coming through my ears' IF I engage with some topics/associates. I was under the impression that we are not only allowed to be selective this way, but positively encouraged to be selective about what /who we get engaged with in conversation.
Speaking from my experience, Evinnra, it is when we learn to address those topics which upset us with equanimity that we really learn to converse "at a higher level". Emotions mislead us from the path to truth, in my opinion. They are totally untrustworthy (except perfect Happiness, I suppose - then has any one of us felt that emotion except in fleeting moments?)

Do I sound superior and condescending in the above paragraph, Clemsy? :?

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

My method of posting here involves avoiding topics that will upset me and avoid conversing with those associates who frequently upset me. - Evinnra.
That is not good in my honest opinion. There should be nothing in this world that upsets you. I have been a victim of this many times but there is an idea there floating in my mind that none is out there to destroy my happiness but instead everyone is looking for their own happiness.

Of course through conflict you can learn a lot about yourself and the other and thus by avoiding subjects or experiences that should evoke your higher nature you miss the opportunity to learn.

Here are a few links that have helped clear up things in my mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_%28emotion%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

I think once there is a clear idea of the forces that exist on the plane of consciousness, it is easier to understand and assimilate.

Of course these are just wiki and internet articles so let me know what you think about them.
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

Emotions mislead us from the path to truth, in my opinion. They are totally untrustworthy. Nandu
That is sacrilege :D. And they are not the emotions I want to have. The mind is just a tool but before you can harness its power you need to be emotionally balanced. huh?
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

Emotions mislead us from the path to truth, in my opinion. They are totally untrustworthy (except perfect Happiness, I suppose - then has any one of us felt that emotion except in fleeting moments?) -nandu

Hmmm...with all due respect nandu, I think that human emotions are something that it is ok to try to understand and exercise some mindful control over, but we certainly cannot overcome them completely. Sometimes our emotions allow us the necessary "venting" needed to move on. Emotions are expressed in so many different ways depending on one's personality, right? I have friends who can yell and scream at each other and then be "fine" 5 minutes later. Then there are cultural differences. Some cultures express their emotions very openly, while others see it as a sign of weakness.

Some emotions, are so linked with cognition that I think they are imperative in human interactions. Emotions like empathy and compassion, for example. We need to feel empathy and compassion in order to give them expression in our actions. So, in my view, we need to trust in some emotions, as well.

Before we had spoken language, we most likely relied on body language and the conveyance of emotion through facial expressions, bodily gestures, and guttural sounds. In this sense, emotions are most likely the very base on which we have built our human systems of communication. In addition, if we look to the world of art and literature, the highest forms are the ones that evoke our emotions, are they not?

As to how this all relates to discourse, there is certainly a benefit to try to contain one's emotions in the forum interactions. But we are also, generally, passionate beings with what are frequently strong emotions about certain topics. We have every right to our passions. We are experiential beings and it is exceedingly difficult to take the emotion out of our experiences. The key, in my view, is making an effort at respect, while being true to our view. We are going to make some angry. Some will make us angry. Some will generally agree with us, and some will primarily disagree with us. Civil conversation is a high ideal, and a worthy goal, indeed. Getting there...takes real effort.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Locked