--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > >
> So what does the *opposite* of this "allow the other > person to save face" mindset say about people for whom > it seems to be a recurring pattern? That is, coming > back to the subject of my post, what is the point of > "winning" in a discussion, such that one feels that > the conversation somehow wasn't "complete" if the > other person doesn't admit defeat and do his or her > mea culpas? What's up with that? I don't know. It's a game maybe. People argue, here and everywhere. It probably has to do with the common need of people to be achnowledged, a general need for confirmation. In friendship relations, people present their POV to be accepted, to get a confirmation, that they are 'right', that they belong to the group. Or else its genetically programmed, we want to win, we want to be better, no idea. In the TM context its probably a kind of mutual confirmation that you are doing the right thing, or even a demonstration, that you belong to the group. Somebody attacks your group, you defend it, flash your teeth, a sort of confirmation ritual. In the more historical context, Shankara, Nagarjuna and others, it was a specific culture of intellectual combats. It would be a means to test how your theories are logically sound, a means to actually train your intellect, to be able to present what you think in an intellectual meaningful way. And to elaborate pros and cons of a given issue. It's like little dogs bite, just to train their teeth. It's keeping your synaptic gaps active. I personally see it as the later, a way to train yourself, and explore different avenues of a topic.
