Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8269Re: Topics and Misunderstandings (was Re: [Buddhism_101] To Ken and Mike regarding t

Expand Messages
  • ken
    Feb 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear John,

      Your response saddens me a great deal. For it is, not only patronizing
      and condescending, but also pretentious. I honestly expected to hear
      something genuine and heartfelt from you. Instead you make Buddhism
      into a game. This saddens me even more.

      It may be possible to successfully pretend wisdom for a day, but over
      time this pretension will become a heavy burden. This saddens me most
      of all.


      Thank you for your conversation. Be well.

      hth,
      ken


      On 02/01/2007 02:31 PM somebody named John Pellecchia wrote:
      > Dear Ken,
      >
      > Please do not misinterpret this to be either patronizing or
      > condescending but I think you need to take a breath, re-read what I
      > wrote and your response. I believe you will find the answers to each
      > of your questions contained therein.
      >
      > May all be at peace.
      >
      > John
      >
      > --- In Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com, ken <gebser@...> wrote:
      >>
      >> John,
      >>
      >> Thanks for your concern and your suggestion. I understand that
      >> misunderstandings occur, but frankly I was surprised when Michael
      >> misunderstood my email and then, after he and I made peace on it,
      >> surprised again to see the same issue come up again. Perhaps you
      >> haven't read to the end of that thread yet.
      >>
      >> As for suggestions to help avoid misunderstandings, one rather effective
      >> method is to read what was written, perhaps even a second time, without
      >> assuming an evil or untoward intent. Thus far, no one has cited actual
      >> statements I wrote which indicate a personal attack or comment of a
      >> personal nature. Indeed, in my reply to Michael's reply I stated quite
      >> explicitly that nothing of a personal nature was intended in my first
      >> reply, that I was commenting on ideas only and not at all on him
      >> personally. And, after all, how and why could I-- or anyone-- make a
      >> comment on Michael as a person-- or on anyone--, not knowing him at all
      >> and, as far as I can recall, having read only one post from him? You
      >> must consider me a very immature person to reach such a judgment. Thank
      >> you for that.
      >>
      >> You make much of the fact that I quoted one paragraph written by
      >> Michael-- in your words, "Michael obviously and understandably did
      >> believe the reply was directed to his post since it was subsequent and a
      >> thread to what he wrote." How is this an indication of anything more
      >> than a conversation? Yes, I was referring to a thought expressed in his
      >> post, just as you have referred to mine, just as I am now referring to
      >> yours. Are you recommending that no one on this list make reference to
      >> another's post...? or that any reference to another's post is
      >> inherently personal or otherwise undesirable...? or that one should
      >> never disagree with a statement made by another...? or that to disagree
      >> with another's statement equates to a personal attack? What are you
      >> saying here? Please explain this a bit because I am frankly quite
      >> baffled as to what you mean. What is so bad about referring to someone
      >> else's post...? or even disagreeing with an idea contained within it?
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> Again (because it continues to be relevant) it merits pointing out that
      >> no one has pointed to actual statements made which would support the
      >> contention that any message of a personal nature was expressed. This
      >> would seem essential to this conversation, yet, significantly, the
      >> hermeneutics called upon appear to assert the phaenotypical over the
      >> genotypical. It would be overly idealistic to insist on a world where
      >> the words one writes and/or speaks are what matter and not unfounded
      >> interpretations, so I do on occasion, when conditions seem auspicious,
      >> time permits, and efforts warranted, try to alter such situations by
      >> unveiling the grounds of misinterpretation. In a world of universal
      >> responsibility, however, it's sometimes more propitious to take refuge,
      >> at least in the more essential and nascent, than it is to tilt at the
      >> windmills of the deficient and concretized.
      >>
      >>
      >> hth,
      >> ken
      >>
      >> --
      >> "Peace hath her victories no less renown'd than war."
      >> --John Milton
      >>
      >>
      >> On 01/31/2007 03:56 PM somebody named John Pellecchia wrote:
      >>> Dear Ken and Mike,
      >>>
      >>> I've been reading and re-reading the open dialogue between you both
      >>> posted under the heading "answers good, arcane, and self-serving" with
      >>> more than a little confusion on my part. I understand neither the
      >>> impetus which preceded and produced the conversation nor its intent.
      >>> Pardon the consternation on my part but I guess I'm just easily
      > confused.
      >>> My suggestions are quite simple for future dialogue in order to avoid
      >>> any misunderstandings.
      >>>
      >>> •If a posting is not related as a thread to a current topic then
      > a new
      >>> topic should be created. This would avoid any confusion as to intent
      >>> and misunderstandings for the original poster to the reply comment. I
      >>> say this since, as Ken stated, "...I'm sorry if you thought I was
      >>> talking about you. I wasn't. I was talking about the quality of
      >>> answers and why someone might prefer a simple and straightforward
      >>> answer rather than one artificially cloaked in complexity and mystery.
      >>> So please don't take it personally." Michael obviously and
      >>> understandably did believe the reply was directed to his post since it
      >>> was subsequent and a thread to what he wrote.
      >>>
      >>> •If a portion of a response is relevant to the current thread, it
      >>> takes little effort to post a reply to that thread and then, if a
      >>> divergent thought is to be expressed, a new post be created.
      >>>
      >>> •If a new post is directed to what someone said or wrote previously
      >>> but not within the current thread, it would only seem polite to
      >>> address the individual(s) to whom it is intended.
      >>>
      >>> There is always the possibility for misunderstanding with written
      >>> responses since we don't see the visual expression of the person
      >>> making the reply; a smile, wink, etc. when a remark is made in person
      >>> frequently breaks the tension and eliminates any misunderstanding of
      >>> intent (not everyone uses emoticons).
      >>>
      >>> I do believe the above guidelines would eliminate a lot of future
      >>> confusion.
      >>>
      >>> May all be at peace.
      >>>
      >>> John
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic