Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Argue the point not the person

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,578

    Argue the point not the person

    Lately I have noticed discussions moving more and more to the personal rather than the perspective.

    I would guess that this may be causing a minimising effect on posts people would like to submit, but fear the
    ramification of personal castigation, sometimes openly sometimes subtly.

    Below is an article by Bes Zain I came across...I'll let Ben explain as what he says I happen to agree with.

    I regularly see people disagreeing over different things both online and offline. People try to prove others wrong in even the smallest of arguments. While you may win an argument by proving someone wrong, you will not actually make that person realize and respect the validity of your argument. When arguing, try to disagree with the argument in question, and not with the person arguing with you. When you focus on disagreeing with the argument at hand only you are basically telling the other person you are not attacking them directly and are instead trying to show why your argument may be valid. Such a method of disagreement will make the other person reconsider their own argument.

    Do not make an argument personal

    When you argue about something, you are basically saying the other person is wrong about that thing. Such an interpretation is natural and instant. You have to go an extra step and show that you are attacking the argument only and not the other person. If you disagree with a person instead of their argument, you make the whole argument a personal issue. When it comes to personal issues, people automatically become defensive. I have seen several relationships since childhood, both business and personal, where people in different situations focused on showing that the other person was wrong instead of disagreeing with what had happened. Most of such relationships ended in disasters. The more you disagree with a person directly, the more the other person will feel defensive in an argument.

    Only the other person can let you win an argument

    Disagree with arguments and make friends with people who have different views. If you cannot do that, disagree with issues and be a stranger to other people. That is better than making others think you are trying to prove them wrong. Talk about the issue, and focus on the arguments. Never argue to prove you are right. If you are right and argue only about the validity of your points in an argument, the other person will acknowledge with their own free will that you are right about a certain issue. That is the only way in my view an argument should be won.
    Source

    I can see people saying "yes, that is what I do", but in reality this not always the case and just by saying "dont take this personally" and then trashing another's argument as stupid or ill informed, you are still attacking the person not the argument.

    IMO attacking or retaliating is a sign of ignorance.

    If someone does this to you, do not retaliate, just point out their error.

    Re-read your post before submitting it and maybe you may change the way it is presented.

    If I am guilty of this myself please feel free to point it out.

    Thank you

    Ghislain
    Open Book
    "Dogmatic Assumption Inhibits Enquiry" Rupert Sheldrake

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,579
    Blog Entries
    1
    Excellent, and THANK YOU for this ! ! !

    Fortunately, I think I can only count no more than 2-3 'chronic' cases on AF (those who tend to place a little too much focus on how 'wrong' others are).

    The rest of us generally slip every once in a while.

    My vision has always been to share one's perspective (even if it's a strong belief that can not be backed by reason or logical argument) - but NEVER claim that one's perspective or belief is universally 'right' or 'true', especially if such claims (d)evolve into focusing on how the other person's perspective or belief is 'wrong'/'bullshit'/'silly'/'horrifying'/'far from the heart'/'wicked'/'godless'/'non-righteous'/'not in accord with god's will'/etc...

    In other words, don't act like pompous, self-righteous, sanctimoniously pontificating missionaries. Be and let be.
    I think this should really be a very important guideline for debating/sharing/discussing topics on Alchemy Forums.

    You're not Elvis performing in front of an audience. You're not here to 'save' anyone or to judge anyone, certainly not to tell anyone what's 'wright' or 'wrong' for them.

    If you think/believe you are - there are other forums more compatible with this mindset. This is how I see it.

    As an example for 'Totalitarian Salvationists' - when someone tells me they will 'pray for me' - I usually reject the offer.

    But the worst thing is they rarely (if at all) ask for permission. This is spiritual RAPE. Get it ? ? ?

    There's a story about an old Zen Master who travels a long way from home to speak to an audience of aspiring monks.

    After the long travel, he gets up there and says only one phrase, to the astonishment of the expecting monks:

    "During all my years on this earth and all my far-reaching travels, I have never encountered anything that wasn't true."

    After which he exited and immediately commenced his long journey back home.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,048
    Because All is part of the One, and the game/story will be done/completed/progressed, it really is ok to simply:
    Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy.
    Revelation 22:11 NIV

    Understand self, to understand side - respect all sides, for they each serve a point. All is as it should be, ever.

    But of course, when one does not purposefully look at the whole, but only on the personal/fragment/dual perspective, they will war with the opposition. Its natural, and i dont see the problem - nor do i see the problem with seeing from the whole and objectively ignoring the dual-sides for the purpose of discussion. Its all ok - and its all what everyone decides to make of it.

    If someone says to you (whoever reads this), that you are a "dumb, wrong, ignorant blah blah blah blah blah!!!" - you have several options to respond. You can dodge and subtly counter the attack by ignoring it (a totally passive thing, though it may not resolve anything either). You can objectively look from the whole, agree with it and disagree with it (both simultaneously), laughing the entire thing off. You can also retaliate - which is usually the case, and thus the dragons fight. Is there a wrong choice? Since all are options - no. Since which ever you pick, IS, then by all means, pick. Just understand, and understand/respect the opposition for what it is - a good time, a fun fight, and a chance for both to learn, or for those watching, to learn.




    ~Seth-Ra
    One fatal tree there stands of knowledge called, forbidden them to taste. Knowledge forbidden? Suspicious. Reasonless. And why should their Lord envy them that? Can it be sin to know? Can it be death? And do they stand by ignorance, is that their happy state, the proof of their obedience and their faith?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,567
    Blog Entries
    4
    the four agreements - don miguel ruiz's code for life

    agreement 1
    Be impeccable with your word - Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.

    agreement 2
    Don’t take anything personally - Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.

    agreement 3
    Don’t make assumptions - Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.

    agreement 4
    Always do your best - Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse and regret.


    There is an NLP agreement or presupposition that people already are always doing their best.
    http://www.achievingexcellence.com/p-a_nlp_presup.html

    And the first presupposition enforces the 2nd agreement of Ruiz.
    http://serpentrioarquila.blogspot.com/

    "To conjure is nothing else than to observe anything rightly, to know and understand what it is." - Paracelsus

    "Why, then, don't you act when you see the danger of your conditioning? The answer is you don't see... seeing is acting." J. Krishnamurti

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,349
    Some quotes by my favorite anarchist & musician & writer: John Cage... maybe the first quote should be more than enough!

    (all of them from his "Indeterminacy" book).

    I felt these 4 were related to this thread... they are also fun to read.

    Xenia told me once that when she was a child in Alaska,
    she and her friends had a club and there was only one rule: No silliness.
    An Indian lady invited me to dinner and said Dr.
    Suzuki would be there. He was.
    Before dinner I mentioned Gertrude Stein.
    Dr. Suzuki had never heard of her. I
    described aspects of her work, which he said sounded
    very interesting. Stimulated, I mentioned
    James Joyce, whose name was also new to him.
    At dinner he was unable to eat the curries
    that were offered, so a few uncooked
    vegetables and fruits were brought, which
    he enjoyed. After dinner the talk turned
    to metaphysical problems, and there were
    many questions, for the hostess was a
    follower of a certain Indian yogi and her
    guests were more or less equally divided
    between allegiance to Indian thought and to
    Japanese thought. About eleven
    o’clock we were out on the street walking
    along, and an American lady said to Dr.
    Suzuki, “How is it, Dr. Suzuki?
    We spend the evening asking you
    questions and nothing is decided.” Dr.
    Suzuki smiled and said, “That’s why
    I love philosophy: no one wins.”
    A very dirty composer was attempting to explain to a friend how dirty a person was whom he
    had recently met.

    He said, “He has dirt between his fingers
    the way you and I have between our toes.”

    You probably know the one about the two
    monks, but I’ll tell it
    anyway. They were
    walking along one day when they came to
    a stream where a young lady was
    waiting, hoping that someone
    would help her across.
    Without hesitating, one
    of the monks picked her up and carried
    her across, putting her
    down safely on the other side.

    The two monks continued walking along,
    and after some time,
    the second one,
    unable to restrain himself,
    said to the first,
    “You know we’re not
    allowed to touch women.
    Why did you carry that woman
    across the stream?”
    The first monk replied,
    “Put her down.
    I did two hours ago.”

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Central Illinois U.S.
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    You probably know the one about the two
    monks, but I’ll tell it
    anyway. They were
    walking along one day when they came to
    a stream where a young lady was
    waiting, hoping that someone
    would help her across.
    Without hesitating, one
    of the monks picked her up and carried
    her across, putting her
    down safely on the other side.

    The two monks continued walking along,
    and after some time,
    the second one,
    unable to restrain himself,
    said to the first,
    “You know we’re not
    allowed to touch women.
    Why did you carry that woman
    across the stream?”
    The first monk replied,
    “Put her down.
    I did two hours ago.”
    This quote was my favorite of the group, it seems to be appropriate for more than one of our recent threads of popular interests..
    Still Searching.............

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,578
    Could you explain the monk story...I must be a bit slow.

    Is it that the first monk wasn't listening to the second, or that he heard what he expected the second to say?

    Ghislain
    Open Book
    "Dogmatic Assumption Inhibits Enquiry" Rupert Sheldrake

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    571
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghislain View Post
    Could you explain the monk story...I must be a bit slow.

    Is it that the first monk wasn't listening to the second, or that he heard what he expected the second to say?

    Ghislain
    no
    he finished with her as he put her down


    the other is thinking about it till now ;-)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Central Illinois U.S.
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghislain View Post
    Could you explain the monk story...I must be a bit slow.

    Is it that the first monk wasn't listening to the second, or that he heard what he expected the second to say?

    Ghislain
    Lol!! Thanks for that Ghislain

    Quote Originally Posted by Nibiru
    Sorry, would you mind explaining this to me in a different way. I don't quite understand the analogy.
    I apologize in advance if your question was not meant to be a humorous response to my above quote from yesterday.
    Last edited by Nibiru; 05-02-2012 at 11:28 PM. Reason: the second quote was listed as from Ghislain, rather than myself as it was intended.
    Still Searching.............

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,578
    I have it now

    Thanks

    I was not reading "put her down" as an instruction, but rather a repetition of confirmation of what the
    second monk had said and hence it made no sense to me as the second monk hadn't said it.

    I guess that goes to show how one may jump to a wrong conclusion if looking in a different direction.

    Ghislain
    Open Book
    "Dogmatic Assumption Inhibits Enquiry" Rupert Sheldrake

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts