Thank you for the grammatical lesson, my English is far from being perfect, not being my mother tongue.
So you think that to give a spontaneus, simple and obvious piece of advice is a pedantic behaviour? Better ignore the other then. Is that your way for a non pedantic human relationship? I have some difficulty in believing that anything of the sort can hurt your ego.
I find it pedantic to intervene in a conversation like this to stress a minor grammatical mistake, and it seems to me that this shows your lack of serious and more interesting arguments to answer to my post.
Why are you here Sean?
To create together a friendly and thrustworthy atmosphere so that a real productive communication can take place or to entertain yourself with wisecracks?
As explained in the opening comments , the question "Why are you here? " relates to a gathering of people coming to meet a renowned speaker. Few seriously consider this question, because it is common practice to associate with people in this manner. Then the responses are really a repeat of common personal reasoning and individual beliefs. Any actual self reflection is overlooked. But if we look at this question carefully, there is a Why to being here. Not a personal Why, but the Why which is human, and the way we all live looking for comfort, safety and security. Of course we are so preoccupied with our daily needs and habits, our personal endeavours, that we don’t look at these questions seriously. It is common practice to treat being serious as a professional occupation, or an annoying distraction.
That is also my point Peter, the reason why I created this thread. But is it enough to state how things should be?
I started from your same consideration and then proceeded to ask myself and to you, given that there are a number of people who don’t share this necessary seriousness and that keep on giving “ responses (that) are really a repeat of common personal reasoning and individual beliefs.” How do we tackle that? In all the conversations I had the chance to have last year, the exploration always arrived at a dead end because of the presence of those people, and also of others who indulge in talking about abstractions. There is nothing you can discover if you are tangled in abstractions.
In the real K’s forums I’ve participated in the past, physically I mean, not only this seriousness prevailed but there was always someone who pointed out immediately when the dialogue went astray or dealt with abstractions. And the participants had the good sense and good will to take the heed and accept the observation. Here when you do that they accuse you of being arrogant. Probably I adopted a wrong approach, so that’s why I’m asking your help, yet I feel there is definitely a lack of good will which prevents any attempt at a fresh start. You can see this lack of good will in this thread too. So again, what shell we do? Are you satisfied as things are going here? Perhaps you have found a group of reasonable people with who to have a serious and productive dialogue?
I had the idea of asking this question: why you are here? So that all those people can reflect about what they are doing, what result they are obtaining in staying here. And if you read some posts above you can see how this question is being eluded. Are you not concerned about that?
Is that all the contribution you can give to this thread?
Does not interest you to tackle the huge and urgent problem of what relationship or action we must have with ourselves, with an ego which wants to survive and thrive and yet at the same time pretends to be interested in K or in any other form of spirituality? Don’t you see the danger of becoming either a cynic (like you seem to be) or a neurotic deluding himself to have attained “understanding” and coming here to find acknowledgment and appraisal for his understanding?
Your humor, I’m afraid, it’s only a clumsy way to elude my question. And when one sticks to so-called “humor” one shows all his limitations.
If you don’t agree with my post or with my way of articulating the arguments, which can always be faulty, you should have the patience and good will to state it simply, and directly without serpentine sarcasm, and employ your brain to explain why. I’d listen to you. This is real communication, the other is just hostility.
Why this hostility Sean, did you find my post offensive or unfounded? Or you have a guilty conscience and imagined that my discourse was addressed to you?
So, again, why you are here Sean?
Are you not capable of explaining it, or you don’t want to? Your friend Inquiry stated plainly that he does not want to, are you of the same gang?
Then it is a rarity to have that atmosphere as a group while we are engaged in this remote learning experiment. It takes a very special mind not to get caught in the psychological traps inherent in all forms of online communication. But it is not impossible.
I agree. Onlike communication creates obtacles, it brings a kind of “mental format” which is just the opposite of what we need. Thanks for your contribution.
Well, it seems you didn’t find my contribution interesting Voyager. I maintain that communication is really what it is all about. I think we all found what K had to say tremendously communicative and his words moved us all deeply. Communication is a vital element in learning and humour has a role to play in communication. If we don’t communicate, there is probably no point in being here.
I doubt that you ever listened to K and noticed his way of communication, And I doubt you have been moved by his words. Perphaps you were only impressed by his words, but to be moved means to have inside the same feelings and attitude of him. If you had really understood him and his repeated invitation to find a way to relationship which excluded conflict you would not have talked the way you did.
OK, let’s go back to your inital post,:
Is that “humour”? Is that a real and sincere contribution to this thread?
You ignored all the arguments I spoke about to concentrate to one short sentence of mine, as if it was the only deserving thing to be tackled. Why? You wanted to come in defence of adamsmart, thinking I was bulling him?
Whichever part we can turn that remark of yours it has no sense, no other communication than that of being forcefully critical, and with no logical justification. I’ve already replied to it, explaining my good will in addressing adamsmart, but you continued your posts with the same bitter sarcasm, the same ridiculous sense of superiority (see the remark about my mistake). Is that that you have learned from K.? Is that the way one likes to be in relationship either in real life or in a forum dedicated to K.? Is that the right mood to be constructive? I sense only cynism in your remarks, the cynism of a person who has lost all hopes to transform himself and bring about a better society and who came here only to bully those ones who (naively) are trying to find whether this possibility really exist and can be faced anew.
A cynic, Sean, is a man who is slowly sinking, who has lost all the love or pleasure for life and for his companions of misfortune. A cynic, Sean, is someone who has no passion and no compassion. That compassion K. talked about, if you have ever listened to him. That compassion which is the only thing which can prevent us to become monsters, to become creatures of the dark.
You know nothing about me. You draw wild conclusions based on assumptions. Where does your aggression come from?
Why are we here? If communication degenerates into conflict and insults, it’s clear that it’s better not to be here at all. Better to go for a peaceful walk than be in front of an electronic device typing angrily.
Yes, I draw realistic conclusions based on what you said. And I explained quite in details the reasons of my conclusions. It seems that you are incapable to understand those reasons or don’t want perhaps even listen. You are still continuing to elude the main issue and continuing your highly ineffective back and forth way of discussing. Evidently you don’t know a different and better way to tackle a dialogue.
I advice you to read, with a calm and attentive mind this post of @nobody:
Sean,
All conclusions we draw will seem “realistic” to us but as soon as you draw a conclusion, you close a door on further exploration. You have an image of me and you will interact with that image.
Are you parroting K. Sean? (you see: I’m capable of humour too)
Can you not examine the words you have written and see for yourself, without sheltering behind someone’s else words, what they convey? I offered you the possibility to explain your words and behaviour, but you never did it. I asked a series of questions to which you never replied, the main one being: why are you here?
So again, I advise you to read or reread that post about a dialogue. There are so many things one can learn.
You said you were bored of this, I thought it was your last word, but I see now thanks to Inquiri, that you have come back, to add petrol to fire, contradicting your same statement above. And - mind- you have not posted a new reply but edited this one, so that I could not know of it, eh? Another form of honesty of which you can be proud.
Please notice that:
I never insulted anyone. I only asked to you meaninful questions to which you never replied, and that can only mean that you were short of arguments. So again instead of answering you have turned to assert false accusations.
I remind you dear Sean, that you bothered to attack me first without any valid motive in your first post. And that shows that you have a guilty conscience but don’t have the courage or the capacity to face the things you resented in my post drectly and manly.
I don’t know you Sean, but you have done your best to let me know who you are.