8269Re: Topics and Misunderstandings (was Re: [Buddhism_101] To Ken and Mike regarding t
- Feb 1, 2007Dear 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
Thank you for your conversation. Be well.
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.
> --- In Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com, ken <gebser@...> wrote:
>> 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.
>> "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
>>> My suggestions are quite simple for future dialogue in order to avoid
>>> any misunderstandings.
>>> â€¢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.
>>> â€¢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.
>>> â€¢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
>>> May all be at peace.
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>