Lozen

[sean]

Please refer to the concept of "burden of proof". I am not trying to assert or prove anything therefore "ad hominem" could not be more misplaced.

[Lozen]

Please refer to the concept of "burden of proof". I am not trying to assert or prove anything therefore "ad hominem" could not be more misplaced.

7479[/snapback]

 

Well, since I never said that science was bullshit on these boards, I'm also not under any obligation to assert or prove anything on these boards.

 

In fact, the only thing I said I had empirical evidence for (as in, my own experience) is that my gut feelings lead me in the right direction. And there are TONS of books out there on that which you could read, lots of Jungian psychology, crime analysis, etc. I could come up with a book list. Women Who Run With the Wolves, The Gift of Fear, various Tom Brown books, the list goes on and on.

 

In any case, I'll point out that I haven't said Buddhism was "bullshit" or anything like that ON THESE BOARDS since the "no insults" rule on August 23rd. (I think it would be bad form for me to post something you had said in a private conversation and challenge you to provide evidence publically.) My most recent post about the Dalai Lama was simply criticizing so-called nonviolent Buddhists who will rip my throat out when I disagree with them philosophically.

 

I agree with what you wrote about insults, generalizations, etc. degrading the quality of communication, chiselling away trust and creating a less safe space for people to talk about deeper issues that come up through spiritual work. (This is almost an exact quotation of your post.) I think your recent comments on this thread towards me, though, are a good example of that as well.

 

As far as your assertion that "much" of what I say and do is in the spirit of testing people vs. engaging in intelligent dialogue, well I can't claim to have never done that and obviously we are all in process to get to where we want to be. Anybody could tell you that I have Mercury in Aries and often word things more aggressively than I could, however your assertion that "much" of what I say and do is to test people vs. engaging in intelligent dialogue and that the sole purpose of this is to get attention rather than search for truth, I think you'd have a hard time backing up, both because you are not around me "much" of the time and would therefore have a hard time calculating percentages, and because this falls into the realm of psychoanalysis which is best measured by objective licensed professionals. Also I think I've gotten past this and am not nearly as brash as I was a year ago or even a month ago. I would also like to point that unsolicited advice is more often appreciated when it is constructive, not destructive.

 

I posted what I think is a brilliant article which illustrated the limitations of science better than I could ever do, as well as personal examples/issues/etc. that I have with science, to better illustrate my points and where I was coming from re: science (which btw was in a chat room, not on these boards, and was right after I pulled my back out. Perhaps I would have worded it differently otherwise.) In any case, I think I've clarified my points and expressed where I am coming from, but it seems that this "debate" you started wasn't to seek clarification re: science nor was it an attempt engage in intelligent dialogue.

 

Lozen

 

P.S. After all this, I think we might actually agree on the science thing.

[Cameron]

Oh shit two aries going at it..

 

(runs to kitchen to get popcorn and diet Mt. Dew)

[thelerner]

Yeah when the Gods of War rumble the ground shakes scaring everything, including them. But just think, if they were together they'd probably take over the earth!

 

Its can be useful to break down peoples writings into quotes and argue w/ it. But, ;it gets nit picky. The whole issue of how far we should we should trust and apply science is good one.

 

It should probably be thrown to the main discussion board. Here's what I picked up at a yeshiva, science tells us what a thing is, religion tells us how to use it.

 

My wife works for the AMA, though shes not a huge supporter of it. Last year they had a huge bill board on quackery and the AMA's fight against it. They had on the board a famous womans Tonic for woman named for Mrs. (I forget the name, indian origin) and dissed it for having such a high alcohol content. But the herbs it used and combined were solid.

 

Self interest too often blinds us. We can use any method or religion to Prove ourselves right and superior. Man is more a rationalizing animal then a rational one.

 

Damn these soap boxes are slippery

 

Later

 

Michael

[sean]

Two Aries, and also a Four and an Eight.

 

As is probably obvious, this is just the tip of a private conflict between Lozen and I that unfortunately spilled out into the forum. At root it's probably as silly and petty as most arguments.

 

Sean.

[sean]

Amidst the personality drama, I forgot to say, genuinely, I am glad you are here Lozen and I enjoy your contributions.

 

Warmly,

Sean.

[Trunk]

Damn these soap boxes are slippery

That's a keeper.

[Lozen]

That's a keeper.

8157[/snapback]

 

Yeah I stole that one too.