--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > And yet, is it our business to somehow convince > > them that this is what they're doing? > > . . . > > I ask because one poster on this forum suggested > > as much yesterday. The implication (possibly unin- > > tended) of the post was that if she encountered a > > friend who had come to believe something that she > > considered untrue or even insulting to certain > > minorities, she'd *have* to say something to set > > the person right and change his or her mind, to > > make (not stated, but definitely implied) some > > kind of stand for "the truth." > > > > If one feels that, doesn't that imply that they > > feel that they KNOW the truth? > > > > I can't speak for you, Doug, but I DON'T know the > > truth. About *anything*. All I have is opinions, > > which as far as I can tell based on past perform- > > ance (no scientific tests so far...sorry, Off), > > are sometimes accurate, and sometimes not. > > Not arguing, just some points your post triggered. > > Sometimes we seem to be trying to convince others of our POV -- > but it is in the context of friendly debate -- taking our > opinions out for a drive and see if they hold up at 90mph as > well as they do parked in the garage. Whether the person > changes their mind is immaterial.
I have no issue with this kind of discussion, although I might call it a discussion rather than a debate. It's when one party of the discussion obviously has a heavy emotional investment *in* changing the other person's mind or in proving themselves "right" and the other person "wrong" I had in mind. Like the recent attempt by Rick's friend to do just that. > A second, separate point, I liked Judy's post yesterday, it > was a good counter that made me think a bit. The gist -- > parapharsing "racism IS bad and I will speak up against it > and try to uplift weak and/or irrational views." I would suggest that this is a rather superficial example of the phenomenon, designed to support the case that we *should* try to change other people's minds. The example given is racism. Yeah, sure... everybody likes to think they're against racism, and that they'd speak up if someone said some racist remarks in their presence. But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about (as far as I can tell) is the attempt by one person, unsolicited, to convince another person that his beliefs about a spiritual teacher are wrong. Ummmm...do you really think that relates to hearing some racist remarks and "speaking up" about them? Well, no, it isn't related at all. It was an attempt to distract attention from the actual situation. > Your counter -- there is no TRUTH I never said that. There might be. I don't know. All I know is that I have never been privy to the TRUTH, and expect never TO be. Therefore I don't delude myself into thinking I "know" it. :-) > -- with the implication possibly > (perhaps not intended) being to not speak up against things like > racism and not bothering to try to uplift weak or irrational views > becasue they may be right. You're making the leap you were intended to make here, dude, thinking "racism" when you should be thinking "trying to convert someone else of the unquestionable correctness of your spiritual beliefs. It's EASY to justify impassioned debate if you can pretend you're "fighting racism." But it's not quite as easy to do so when what you're defending is an active attempt to impose one own spiritual beliefs on another person.
