The Importance of Context

[Aaron]

Recently I've been inundated with people who take a portion of a text and rather than present it as it was intended, use it to prove a point or argument that has no basis on the original intent. Most of the time it happens with people who call themselves something without understanding what it is in the first place.

 

I believe in compassion and being compassionate, but is allowing someone to continue to be ignorant of a greater truth, by presenting that truth in a way that supports their own beliefs compassionate? I think it is. Context isn't the problem really, the problem is insensitivity. If I allow my own beliefs to cloud other people's beliefs, to push my own views as the true views, then what I'm doing is trying to control what people think and say.

 

The validity in an argument isn't necessarily important. What's important is what's being said. When we focus exclusively on the validity and not the meaning, then we miss out on what's being said. I am much more inclined to listen to someone who is off base but has good intentions than I am someone who is right on the mark, but bitter and arrogant.

 

It seems like we live in a world where being right has become more important than caring and understanding what other people are trying to say. If I come across as harsh sometimes, it's not because I don't care about someone else, but rather because the other person doesn't seem to care about people.

 

We all have different opinions, ideas, and beliefs, but underneath it all we are all human. When I forget that I am dealing with a human being and instead see only a moralist, taoist, or bigot, then I have forgotten what I am. I feel that there is a line that must be drawn, one that shows us that being insensitive and cruel is not only harmful to others, but to ourselves, but in the same way, once that line is drawn it should be erased.

 

In order for people to honestly understand each other and themselves, they must first understand what they are at a basic level. We each crave the same things at birth, simple things, but as we grow older, because of what we are taught and raised to believe we forgot the simple things in life.

 

When a child is born, they do not see color or race or creed. A person isn't a scientist or janitor. I remember my son called every man he saw daddy for several months and it drove me nuts, but it illustrates a point. For him every man was the same. I think the key to understanding each other is first accepting each other for who we are. As Lao Tzu said, the sage teaches by his actions, not his words. If we each behave in a way that mirrors what we actually believe, and what we believe is in the potential of the human race, then the only thing that can come from that is good.

 

Aaron

Edited January 11, 2011 by Twinner

[pennyofheaven]

Recently I've been inundated with people who take a portion of a text and rather than present it as it was intended, use it to prove a point or argument that has no basis on the original intent. Most of the time it happens with people who call themselves something without understanding what it is in the first place.

 

I believe in compassion and being compassionate, but is allowing someone to continue to be ignorant of a greater truth, by presenting that truth in a way that supports their own beliefs compassionate? I think it is. Context isn't the problem really, the problem is insensitivity. If I allow my own beliefs to cloud other people's beliefs, to push my own views as the true views, then what I'm doing is trying to control what people think and say.

 

The validity in an argument isn't necessarily important. What's important is what's being said. When we focus exclusively on the validity and not the meaning, then we miss out on what's being said. I am much more inclined to listen to someone who is off base but has good intentions than I am someone who is right on the mark, but bitter and arrogant.

 

It seems like we live in a world where being right has become more important than caring and understanding what other people are trying to say. If I come across as harsh sometimes, it's not because I don't care about someone else, but rather because the other person doesn't seem to care about people.

 

We all have different opinions, ideas, and beliefs, but underneath it all we are all human. When I forget that I am dealing with a human being and instead see only a moralist, taoist, or bigot, then I have forgotten what I am. I feel that there is a line that must be drawn, one that shows us that being insensitive and cruel is not only harmful to others, but to ourselves, but in the same way, once that line is drawn it should be erased.

 

In order for people to honestly understand each other and themselves, they must first understand what they are at a basic level. We each crave the same things at birth, simple things, but as we grow older, because of what we are taught and raised to believe we forgot the simple things in life.

 

When a child is born, they do not see color or race or creed. A person isn't a scientist or janitor. I remember my son called every man he saw daddy for several months and it drove me nuts, but it illustrates a point. For him every man was the same. I think the key to understanding each other is first accepting each other for who we are. As Lao Tzu said, the sage teaches by his actions, not his words. If we each behave in a way that mirrors what we actually believe, and what we believe is in the potential of the human race, then the only thing that can come from that is good.

 

Aaron

 

Actions do speak louder than words. On a forum it applies to. Except the action is the way in which we post. People only ever behave in accordance with what they hold to be true within themselves. If they take discussions out of context it may not be an intentional thing. Their reaction or response is only a reflection of what they have within. Taking a post out of context means they are making their own conclusions based on what they "think" the other is saying. When really these conclusions come from their own parameters of perception. Not necessarily the conclusion that the writer or speaker had in mind. It is more useful to ask instead of assume or conclude before replying if one doesn't understand fully what is being said in my view.

 

Compassion does not require one to not share their understanding. Compassion is understanding that whomever you shared with may not see it the way you do regardless of whether it is valid or not.

[Aaron]

Actions do speak louder than words. On a forum it applies to. Except the action is the way in which we post. People only ever behave in accordance with what they hold to be true within themselves. If they take discussions out of context it may not be an intentional thing. Their reaction or response is only a reflection of what they have within. Taking a post out of context means they are making their own conclusions based on what they "think" the other is saying. When really these conclusions come from their own parameters of perception. Not necessarily the conclusion that the writer or speaker had in mind. It is more useful to ask instead of assume or conclude before replying if one doesn't understand fully what is being said in my view.

 

Compassion does not require one to not share their understanding. Compassion is understanding that whomever you shared with may not see it the way you do regardless of whether it is valid or not.

 

 

Hello Penny,

 

I think someone can share someone's understanding without believing in what that person believes. Compassion to me isn't simply understanding that someone might not share your views, but rather understanding that others have a right to their own views. I think the Sage will generally not care so much about what other people believe, but rather how he treats other people.

 

Aaron

[pennyofheaven]

Hello Penny,

 

I think someone can share someone's understanding without believing in what that person believes. Compassion to me isn't simply understanding that someone might not share your views, but rather understanding that others have a right to their own views. I think the Sage will generally not care so much about what other people believe, but rather how he treats other people.

 

Aaron

 

Yes agree.

[三江源]

Recently I've been inundated with people who take a portion of a text and rather than present it as it was intended, use it to prove a point or argument that has no basis on the original intent.

 

Aaron

 

This does rather happen when people write very long posts. Internet attention span often is quite short. Being concise is a great art.

[Marblehead]

Interesting topic. And I think it is along the same lines as Devoid's recent thread.

 

Internet communications is difficult because all we have is words. Therefore it is very important as to which words we use and the manner in which we use those words.

 

I try to keep my posts short and simple. This is based on what Cat said above.

 

We will not all be in total agreement all the time. That's a given. But we need respect what others have said even if we totally disagree with what they have said.

[TaoBee]

Interesting topic. And I think it is along the same lines as Devoid's recent thread.

 

Internet communications is difficult because all we have is words. Therefore it is very important as to which words we use and the manner in which we use those words.

 

I try to keep my posts short and simple. This is based on what Cat said above.

 

We will not all be in total agreement all the time. That's a given. But we need respect what others have said even if we totally disagree with what they have said.

 

 

Good Morning!

 

Unfortunately any written form of communication does not come with the benefit of what the speaking word has...facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice...you get the idea. I believe we lose something without those things. It is too easy to misinterpret what we are reading. On the opposite end of that is the fact that for some people the written word (and the "anonymity" of the internet) gives them the courage to say the things they would not say in person.

 

I sometimes feel that written communication is quite hindering But then again that might have something to do with having gotten in trouble regarding my emails before (work)!!!

 

I agree with Twinner "It seems like we live in a world where being right has become more important than caring and understanding what other people are trying to say." The need to be right...not very Tao IMHO.

 

Peace and Love <3

[manitou]

So many things can be handled by keeping the Three Treasures of the sage in mind.

 

One of them is Never Be The First. I believe this goes directly to what we're talking about here, to be the one with the answers. To be the kid whose hand shoots up first when the question is asked, to be the know-it-all. This was my pattern my entire life. It still is if I don't keep it tamped down.

 

To never be the first involves a diminishing of the ego, a painful process at best. Life gives us a choice of whether we want to do this voluntarily or involuntarily. Voluntarily is the best. Those who have all the answers or who want to jam those answers down another's throat do not possess that particular treasure. I believe the way to possess that particular treasure is to practice that particular treasure. To practice Never Being The First, which does involve sitting on one's ego and keeping the mouth shut.

 

I sure wish I could follow my own advice better than I do.

[3bob]

So many things can be handled by keeping the Three Treasures of the sage in mind.

 

One of them is Never Be The First. I believe this goes directly to what we're talking about here, to be the one with the answers. To be the kid whose hand shoots up first when the question is asked, to be the know-it-all. This was my pattern my entire life. It still is if I don't keep it tamped down.

 

To never be the first involves a diminishing of the ego, a painful process at best. Life gives us a choice of whether we want to do this voluntarily or involuntarily. Voluntarily is the best. Those who have all the answers or who want to jam those answers down another's throat do not possess that particular treasure. I believe the way to possess that particular treasure is to practice that particular treasure. To practice Never Being The First, which does involve sitting on one's ego and keeping the mouth shut.

 

I sure wish I could follow my own advice better than I do.

 

Hello Manitou,

Agreed with the point about being first - to a point, yet there is also the saying from Mk 4:21 "And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?"

Edited January 11, 2011 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

I agree with Twinner "It seems like we live in a world where being right has become more important than caring and understanding what other people are trying to say." The need to be right...not very Tao IMHO.

 

Peace and Love <3

 

I cannot deny the truth in what was said.

 

However, as I am an optimist I nust believe that through proper communications we can, as Taoists, present a much better example than do most groups of people.

 

No, we are not always going to agree. We are, afterall, different body-mind elements who have been subjected to very different experiences in life.

 

But if we try to follow the guidance in the Tao Te Ching we won't be too far off the mark.

 

 

 

PS to Manitou: Never be last either. (He/she are the ones who are taken out by the snipers.)

[manitou]

Hello Manitou,

Agreed with the point about being first - to a point, yet there is also the saying from Mk 4:21 "And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?"

 

 

Hi 3bob - I went to go grab a bible and read Mk 4:21 in context. I don't think it goes to the point of 'being first with the answers', as much as being an analogy for the fact that all will be revealed, nothing is covert forever, all will be revealed in the light (candle) of spirit. That particular parable is wedged between the one about the seed landing on 3 different types of earth, and the seed growing secretly within one's heart according to spirit's plan.

But...on the other hand....verses are always pulled out of any tome and used as justification for that which people want to do anyway. I think the most trite is the Eye for an Eye / Tooth for a Tooth justification.

[Aaron]

I cannot deny the truth in what was said.

 

However, as I am an optimist I nust believe that through proper communications we can, as Taoists, present a much better example than do most groups of people.

 

No, we are not always going to agree. We are, afterall, different body-mind elements who have been subjected to very different experiences in life.

 

But if we try to follow the guidance in the Tao Te Ching we won't be too far off the mark.

 

 

 

PS to Manitou: Never be last either. (He/she are the ones who are taken out by the snipers.)

 

 

Hello Marblehead,

 

I was just thinking of chapter 7 of the Tao Teh Ching, the translations of the chapter vary, but the common idea is that the sage, by putting himself last, finds himself first. For me, this means that we should be last. Also the one who gets shot is most often the straggler, the one who doesn't stay with the group, not necessarily the one who is last in line.

 

Aaron

Edited January 11, 2011 by Twinner

[3bob]

Hi 3bob - I went to go grab a bible and read Mk 4:21 in context. I don't think it goes to the point of 'being first with the answers', as much as being an analogy for the fact that all will be revealed, nothing is covert forever, all will be revealed in the light (candle) of spirit. That particular parable is wedged between the one about the seed landing on 3 different types of earth, and the seed growing secretly within one's heart according to spirit's plan.

But...on the other hand....verses are always pulled out of any tome and used as justification for that which people want to do anyway. I think the most trite is the Eye for an Eye / Tooth for a Tooth justification.

 

Ok, and I didn't mean it was exactly in context either; I meant more along the lines that it can be a fine line of when to speak or not to speak and mistakes can be made either way. (such as the questioning of covering a candle)

 

The "eye for an eye" is of lower laws in effect, can we say that the law of the jungle is trite or that it is just the law of the jungle? Btw, surely and at some point one tires of being under that law...

[Sloppy Zhang]

Context is important when you are looking at anything, because you have to have an appropriate frame of reference with which to make a conclusion. This is important when looking at history, at the performance of an athlete, and yes, the internet.

 

Sometimes threads or posts are long and I don't read all of them. And I'm sure many other people do. Speaking for just myself, I try not to say anything that's too specifically related to the thread, and I usually just respond directly to the first couple, and last couple, of posts, because that's probably what I'll have read. But I usually say, "just fyi, I haven't read everything."

 

Someone with a warped sense of perception is going to see what they want to see, whether they read one post or one hundred. Whether the post is long or short, they will take what they can use to twist your words into what they want it to be.

 

What do we do about this?

 

Obviously, we must realize the fundamental nature of our existence on TTB: we're on the internet.

 

When you do this, you stop taking things, discussions, and people so seriously all the time. Hopefully you get a sense of humor. That's not to say that there can't (or aren't) serious subjects and legitimate discussions on the internet. Because for sure, they are. But when you get someone who's head is implanted thoroughly in the sand, hopefully it doesn't bother you, because you have been enlightened to the fundamental nature of our existence on TTB.

[ralis]

Recently I've been inundated with people who take a portion of a text and rather than present it as it was intended, use it to prove a point or argument that has no basis on the original intent. Most of the time it happens with people who call themselves something without understanding what it is in the first place.

 

I believe in compassion and being compassionate, but is allowing someone to continue to be ignorant of a greater truth, by presenting that truth in a way that supports their own beliefs compassionate? I think it is. Context isn't the problem really, the problem is insensitivity. If I allow my own beliefs to cloud other people's beliefs, to push my own views as the true views, then what I'm doing is trying to control what people think and say.

 

The validity in an argument isn't necessarily important. What's important is what's being said. When we focus exclusively on the validity and not the meaning, then we miss out on what's being said. I am much more inclined to listen to someone who is off base but has good intentions than I am someone who is right on the mark, but bitter and arrogant.

 

It seems like we live in a world where being right has become more important than caring and understanding what other people are trying to say. If I come across as harsh sometimes, it's not because I don't care about someone else, but rather because the other person doesn't seem to care about people.

 

We all have different opinions, ideas, and beliefs, but underneath it all we are all human. When I forget that I am dealing with a human being and instead see only a moralist, taoist, or bigot, then I have forgotten what I am. I feel that there is a line that must be drawn, one that shows us that being insensitive and cruel is not only harmful to others, but to ourselves, but in the same way, once that line is drawn it should be erased.

 

In order for people to honestly understand each other and themselves, they must first understand what they are at a basic level. We each crave the same things at birth, simple things, but as we grow older, because of what we are taught and raised to believe we forgot the simple things in life.

 

When a child is born, they do not see color or race or creed. A person isn't a scientist or janitor. I remember my son called every man he saw daddy for several months and it drove me nuts, but it illustrates a point. For him every man was the same. I think the key to understanding each other is first accepting each other for who we are. As Lao Tzu said, the sage teaches by his actions, not his words. If we each behave in a way that mirrors what we actually believe, and what we believe is in the potential of the human race, then the only thing that can come from that is good.

 

Aaron

 

 

When I read the beginning of the thread last night, I posted a response thinking that would be the end of it. I was immediately inundated with some nasty responses. The vitriol stopped after your last post. Thanks for saying what needed to be said!

Edited January 11, 2011 by ralis

[manitou]

 

The "eye for an eye" is of lower laws in effect, can we say that the law of the jungle is trite or that it is just the law of the jungle? Btw, surely and at some point one tires of being under that law...

 

lol, no I didn't mean to say the law of the jungle was trite. The overusage of that particular bible passage over and over to justify capital punishment is trite. They're just being lazy...I'm sure if they just took the time to read the darn thing they could come up with other round passages to jam into that square hole.

[Otis]

Hello Manitou,

Agreed with the point about being first - to a point, yet there is also the saying from Mk 4:21 "And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?"

Manitou and 3bob: I like the way you two point out these two truths that lean on each other, creating an even more dynamic truth.

 

Be the light, and be unafraid of spreading light! ... but don't be "right".

 

My own "addiction to being right" blinds me to other perspectives, closes my ears to sense, and corrupts my perception.

 

I am here to practice being clear and honest about what I experience and believe, and to learn from others' viewpoints. My honesty has to include my epistemological limitations, or I'm just reinforcing my delusion that somehow I have a special view on the universe.

 

I often think of it this way: there are nearly 7 billion people on this planet, none of whom share my exact opinions. Why in the world would I assume that mine are the right ones?

 

Nor are my views "wrong" (well, sometimes). Mostly, though, they are merely "my views"; that's it. The more honest and humble I am about them, the more I stand to gain from the conversations here.

[Otis]

I believe in compassion and being compassionate, but is allowing someone to continue to be ignorant of a greater truth, by presenting that truth in a way that supports their own beliefs compassionate? I think it is.

I appreciate what you're saying, Aaron. You recognize that other people hear your responses from their egos, and therefore, there is nothing gained by antagonizing their egos to the point that their ears shut.

 

That said: please don't hold back with me. Yes, my ego feeds on compliments and agreement, but that's not what I'm here for. So if I have it coming, please let me have it!

[Aaron]

I appreciate what you're saying, Aaron. You recognize that other people hear your responses from their egos, and therefore, there is nothing gained by antagonizing their egos to the point that their ears shut.

 

That said: please don't hold back with me. Yes, my ego feeds on compliments and agreement, but that's not what I'm here for. So if I have it coming, please let me have it!

 

Hello Otis,

 

I would never feed your ego too much. I want to keep it small so it doesn't get so big that it might swallow me up in one bite.

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

Hello Marblehead,

 

I was just thinking of chapter 7 of the Tao Teh Ching, the translations of the chapter vary, but the common idea is that the sage, by putting himself last, finds himself first. For me, this means that we should be last. Also the one who gets shot is most often the straggler, the one who doesn't stay with the group, not necessarily the one who is last in line.

 

Aaron

 

Yeah, I was just working a different angle of the theme. At least it got one response.

[Aaron]

Yeah, I was just working a different angle of the theme. At least it got one response.

 

Hehehe... I laughed. This deserves a smiley face

 

Aaron