It causes those things because it stifles conversation and conversation, dialog, is important, required actually, for any interpersonal relationship, whether on an individual level or a national level, to be a healthy, productive, proactive, and effectively reactive.
Well, as far as it goes for Christians, it seems to have started from the founder. Didn't the guy on the cross say that only those who believed in him would come unto the Father? Sounds fairly divisive to me. Therefore, you really can't blame present day Christianity for being just like their 'ideal'.
I'm not sure how this serves people day to day. Seems to me, it is a self imposed exile from the world. They're right, and everyone else can go to the hot place.
This black and white thinking is what got us into trouble in the first place, didn't it? :)
there seem to be broad bandwidths of dialogue techniques
and we are always speaking on some frequency or other
regardless of whether we are very aware of our own techniques
these patterns exist in ALL languages
which includes all religious histories
and are often occurring at the same time
in other words...just as every religious system has had people who were speaking/writing from various stages
...every religious text can be understood and discussed from an entire spectrum of perspectives.
a very simple example of how i have come to notice a range of dialogue...
1) 'Selfish magic' seeks dialogue on their terms only. "Me and my experience are the ultimate guide for the meaning and use of words." Other meanings and words and ways of dialogue are primarily resisted as wrong or evil for simply "being bad to me." Peace can only be found with those who agree with my selfish needs, and the way i want to talk about them. Divinity serves me. The devil is out to get me. Language is simple and repetitious.
2) 'Group myth' seeks dialogue on their perceived group's terms only. "We have the only correct meaning to words. All other ways of explaining reality are inferior to ours." Meaning is only allowed to found and experiences of divinity can only be interpreted along strict ethnic lines. Divinity serves us. The devil is out to get us. This can be in the context of business, religion, sports, politics, etc... Cliches are common.
3) 'Rational reason’ seeks dialogue in terms of what can be proven or demonstrated. Meaning is not as important as truth. Facts and experts are important. “I have got to see IT for my self. IT has got to be proven among a group of peers.” Reductionism to some IT is a common downfall.
4) ‘Social pluralism’ seeks dialogue in terms of the common good. Everyone’s meaning of words counts, and so everyone’s story and manner of telling their story is important. And while this is a wonderful step in a better direction, it often does not know what to do when the previous frequencies of dialogue are employed, as the previous frequencies more or less shut down social pluralism.
5) ‘Contemplative silence’ seeks to listen well, most of all. Words and language is seen for what they are...very very limited and useful as temporary labels at best. Never the same as that which they describe.
6) 'Invitational nondual' is how i might describe the dialogical ways of old saints and sages and elders found common ground.
And there seem to be others, even "higher." As well as others "lower" than selfish.
But no matter what the religious textual background, lower frequencies are what can almost immediately effectively shut down any higher dialogue. As if, when we are talking about spiritual matters together (or whatever is ultimate to us), we are climbing a mountain, all roped together, and when someone reaches their uppermost limit and stops…we all have to stop…or we try to drag them up the mountain with us…which doesn’t seem to work very well, either.
The group’s needs does little to sway a person who is selfish. They simply cant see values outside of their personal values.
Just as rational thought does little to sway one who identifies strongly with a specific ethnic myth. They simply cant be rational.
Just as ‘social pluralism’ does little to sway one who is solidly rational. They simply don’t see the value of shared interiors.
It can take a long time for one to come to “play a different note.” And often, such dramatic change will not come unless something else breaks, or some tragedy befalls us, and the level of dialogue we are used to finally utterly fails to meet the need any more.
Technique is key. The technology of the human heart, as it relates to HOW we are with each other...with our tongues.
...
to add...it seems that, because the most progressive leading edge of our mainstream methods of discourse are grounded in 'social pluralism'
we have naturally come to reject any notions of technique or structure (such as levels or layers), perhaps for fear that any such thing is simply more of the same ole 1, 2 and 3.
some of you may notice this in your self as you read this post.
am i being arrogant? am i starting another metaphysical cult? am i lost in my own rationalizations?
am i using the language of 'social pluralism' like everyone else?
(for the record...i feel i am mostly writing from both rational and pluralist voices...and if i were writing from anywhere higher...there would at least be more question marks)
but it seems likely that dialogue higher than 'social pluralism' was originally discovered, practiced and developed during pre-modern times
not only by many of those who penned the scriptures, but by many of those whom scriptures were penned about.
...but the language of the day was still pre-modern
but when our 'social pluralism' does not think there is anything higher than 'social pluralism'
there is nowhere for us to go...and the conversation does quickly disintegrate into the same ole 1, 2 and 3
and we cant always tell the difference between an abusive cult and a devoted order of contemplatives
terrorists (group myth and selfish magic), for example, use social pluralist language to justify their actions.
the technique of social pluralism can mostly only talk to social pluralism (cocktail parties and coffee houses, for example)
but does not have a technique for facilitating a dialogue among an entire bandwidth of worldviews
(such as when someone wants to selfishly control the conversation at a coffee house)
Recommended Posts
cman
I hope I don't come across that way.
I just say what I'm thinking.
Not to say another is wrong in their beliefs.
I'm usually direct if I think someone is really wrong.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I never think of you that way, cman. I think of you as someone who sees things from a different perspective.
I was thinking more in a general way about belief systems..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
sirguess and i were just discussing conversing and things like that.
Things that are of a volatile nature can be handled well I believe.
Check this out, he gave me these links...
http://www.interfaithdialog.org/index.php?...3&Itemid=27
http://www.interfaithforums.com/forum.php
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
It causes those things because it stifles conversation and conversation, dialog, is important, required actually, for any interpersonal relationship, whether on an individual level or a national level, to be a healthy, productive, proactive, and effectively reactive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
***Sorry, posted by SUSHI, not Abigail***
Well, as far as it goes for Christians, it seems to have started from the founder. Didn't the guy on the cross say that only those who believed in him would come unto the Father? Sounds fairly divisive to me. Therefore, you really can't blame present day Christianity for being just like their 'ideal'.
I'm not sure how this serves people day to day. Seems to me, it is a self imposed exile from the world. They're right, and everyone else can go to the hot place.
This black and white thinking is what got us into trouble in the first place, didn't it? :)
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
for what its worth...
…a few notes on dialogue
as ive often written about before
there seem to be broad bandwidths of dialogue techniques
and we are always speaking on some frequency or other
regardless of whether we are very aware of our own techniques
these patterns exist in ALL languages
which includes all religious histories
and are often occurring at the same time
in other words...just as every religious system has had people who were speaking/writing from various stages
...every religious text can be understood and discussed from an entire spectrum of perspectives.
a very simple example of how i have come to notice a range of dialogue...
1) 'Selfish magic' seeks dialogue on their terms only. "Me and my experience are the ultimate guide for the meaning and use of words." Other meanings and words and ways of dialogue are primarily resisted as wrong or evil for simply "being bad to me." Peace can only be found with those who agree with my selfish needs, and the way i want to talk about them. Divinity serves me. The devil is out to get me. Language is simple and repetitious.
2) 'Group myth' seeks dialogue on their perceived group's terms only. "We have the only correct meaning to words. All other ways of explaining reality are inferior to ours." Meaning is only allowed to found and experiences of divinity can only be interpreted along strict ethnic lines. Divinity serves us. The devil is out to get us. This can be in the context of business, religion, sports, politics, etc... Cliches are common.
3) 'Rational reason’ seeks dialogue in terms of what can be proven or demonstrated. Meaning is not as important as truth. Facts and experts are important. “I have got to see IT for my self. IT has got to be proven among a group of peers.” Reductionism to some IT is a common downfall.
4) ‘Social pluralism’ seeks dialogue in terms of the common good. Everyone’s meaning of words counts, and so everyone’s story and manner of telling their story is important. And while this is a wonderful step in a better direction, it often does not know what to do when the previous frequencies of dialogue are employed, as the previous frequencies more or less shut down social pluralism.
5) ‘Contemplative silence’ seeks to listen well, most of all. Words and language is seen for what they are...very very limited and useful as temporary labels at best. Never the same as that which they describe.
6) 'Invitational nondual' is how i might describe the dialogical ways of old saints and sages and elders found common ground.
And there seem to be others, even "higher." As well as others "lower" than selfish.
But no matter what the religious textual background, lower frequencies are what can almost immediately effectively shut down any higher dialogue. As if, when we are talking about spiritual matters together (or whatever is ultimate to us), we are climbing a mountain, all roped together, and when someone reaches their uppermost limit and stops…we all have to stop…or we try to drag them up the mountain with us…which doesn’t seem to work very well, either.
The group’s needs does little to sway a person who is selfish. They simply cant see values outside of their personal values.
Just as rational thought does little to sway one who identifies strongly with a specific ethnic myth. They simply cant be rational.
Just as ‘social pluralism’ does little to sway one who is solidly rational. They simply don’t see the value of shared interiors.
It can take a long time for one to come to “play a different note.” And often, such dramatic change will not come unless something else breaks, or some tragedy befalls us, and the level of dialogue we are used to finally utterly fails to meet the need any more.
Technique is key. The technology of the human heart, as it relates to HOW we are with each other...with our tongues.
...
to add...it seems that, because the most progressive leading edge of our mainstream methods of discourse are grounded in 'social pluralism'
we have naturally come to reject any notions of technique or structure (such as levels or layers), perhaps for fear that any such thing is simply more of the same ole 1, 2 and 3.
some of you may notice this in your self as you read this post.
am i being arrogant? am i starting another metaphysical cult? am i lost in my own rationalizations?
am i using the language of 'social pluralism' like everyone else?
(for the record...i feel i am mostly writing from both rational and pluralist voices...and if i were writing from anywhere higher...there would at least be more question marks)
but it seems likely that dialogue higher than 'social pluralism' was originally discovered, practiced and developed during pre-modern times
not only by many of those who penned the scriptures, but by many of those whom scriptures were penned about.
...but the language of the day was still pre-modern
but when our 'social pluralism' does not think there is anything higher than 'social pluralism'
there is nowhere for us to go...and the conversation does quickly disintegrate into the same ole 1, 2 and 3
and we cant always tell the difference between an abusive cult and a devoted order of contemplatives
terrorists (group myth and selfish magic), for example, use social pluralist language to justify their actions.
the technique of social pluralism can mostly only talk to social pluralism (cocktail parties and coffee houses, for example)
but does not have a technique for facilitating a dialogue among an entire bandwidth of worldviews
(such as when someone wants to selfishly control the conversation at a coffee house)
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.