----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<471212ca-0033-4340-82fd-e35ff3f36f89n@googlegroups.com> 9f2c1c86
@REPLY: 1@dont-email.me> b9c922a7
@REPLYADDR bmoore <bmoore@nyx.net>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 bmoore
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References: 1@dont-email.me>
<87v8bwpmf2.fsf@gmail.com> <9b6abf8b-f5a1-4493-a179-a8847b0a6da0n@googlegroups.com>
1@dont-email.me> <cea69b9c-b28a-4e4a-8a34-32dccb765da1n@googlegroups.com>
<273e5383-070c-4ff0-9e01-4ec8a2924cf4n@googlegroups.com> 1@sunce.iskon.hr>
<ad817db5-6e93-429d-a655-8edd385367bbn@googlegroups.com> 1@sunce.iskon.hr> 3@dont-email.me>
<8de1daa8-59fd-4746-a6bb-90ae87cce0ban@googlegroups.com> <87r0mhovac.fsf@gmail.com>
<8c60eaba-4a97-4a62-ad15-cc383c4f6a70n@googlegroups.com> <87h6ndotne.fsf@gmail.com>
<24847079-285c-4cbd-82c4-f9a4b5a39c2cn@googlegroups.com> <878r8pot28.fsf@gmail.com>
<ba530802-a86a-4c4c-9b5d-118f25478acfn@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
<491d9503-6339-4632-b533-71e3951d79a5n@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
<50d1a79d-f4e1-492d-840b-d0f9593cf5fan@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
<f085fb20-8808-4992-a8d1-2f97afe5cea9n@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
@RFC-Message-ID:
<471212ca-0033-4340-82fd-e35ff3f36f89n@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:30:37 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
> On 9/30/23 7:45 AM, bmoore wrote:
> > On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:14:04 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
> >> On 9/29/23 1:46 PM, bmoore wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 12:18:52 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
> >>>> On 9/29/23 12:04 PM, bmoore wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:31:24 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/29/23 9:22 AM, bmoore wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:14:27 AM UTC-7, jdeluise wrote:
> >>>>>>>> bmoore <
bmo...@nyx.net> writes:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We`re getting ahead of ourselves here, but OK.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Jesus said many things that contradict what seems normal to many of
> >>>>>>>>> us, but on reflection, are true.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The more than symbolic part stems from the belief that
he is God but
> >>>>>>>>> also just a dude. I hope you know I am not trying to
gaslight you into
> >>>>>>>>> what to believe. You seem to have a Zen background on
some level, and
> >>>>>>>>> that`s great.
> >>>>>>>> I see, you don`t want to answer the question. No problem.
> >>>>>>> Sorry, what question? Seriously. Do bear in mind, please,
that not directly answering a question is not some kind of avoidance,
> >>>>>> Diverting here, because this really shook me when I realized this, but
> >>>>>> you see the studied failure to respond to a direct
question in Japanese
> >>>>>> culture a lot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When I first encountered the minor remnants of this cultural oddity in
> >>>>>> my wife`s brothers, and to a lesser degree, in herself, I took as as a
> >>>>>> personal insult. This is because basically, it appears that they are
> >>>>>> intentionally and knowingly ignoring you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don`t even do that to people I don`t like, so of course it rubbed me
> >>>>>> the wrong way.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But I came to find that to them it meant something different. It is an
> >>>>>> attempt to either avoid a situation where they feel they
will lose face,
> >>>>>> or more directly, a situation where their only answer
means lying in an
> >>>>>> obvious manner, or losing face.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This then leads to the notion that they`re not trying to
ignore me, but
> >>>>>> are too chickenshit to admit to failure.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then you get over that, too. It`s simply a different
priority placed on
> >>>>>> being "right" than I`m used to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because I`ve never really seen the need for face-saving
> >>>>>> rhetorically--you simply take your lumps, learn a lesson, and move
> >>>>>> on--I`ve not done much of it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And an interesting side note: my wife does very little of
it now, after
> >>>>>> nearly 40 years, because with me, there`s not a penalty
for being wrong.
> >>>>>> Only for attempting to intentionally hide it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Everybody fucks up; you just learn from it and move on.
Try not to do it
> >>>>>> twice, the same way.
> >>>>> Socrates was well-known for answering a question with a question.
> >>>> That was because he was a smart-alec.
> >>>>
> >>>> In those days it was a capital offense, apparently.
> >>>>> Not directly answering a query is not in any way a logical fallacy.
> >>>> I believe that the technical term is that it`s a "dodge".
> >>>>
> >>>> ;^)
> >>> Do you guys really believe that every question is worthy of
a direct response? i could get into examples, but really?
> >> Any honestly intended question, and by this I mean was it asked
> >> seriously seeking added clarification. And as the person under
> >> interrogation, you make the call, also in a spirit of honesty.
> >>
> >> Sure. To not do so is purposefully rude and demeaning. You can, of
> >> course, choose to be rude and demeaning--there are appropriate occasions
> >> for it.
> >>
> >> How do you see it?
> > In this case, I don`t think that I can give a meaningful
answer in a few paragraphs. To understand where I`m coming from requires a
lot of context.
> >
> > Do you believe in the Jungian concept of a collective unconscious?
> How does it differ from evolved instinctual response, implying a
> *parallel* circumstantial response to any given emerging situation
> rather than a shared unconscious--which implies some sort of a
> connection? E.g., a man in a room in Jakarta opens a book at exactly the
> same time as a man in a room in Bogota. The frontispiece is a large
> color image of a coiled pit viper. They both flinch at precisely the
> same time.
>
> Are these connected in any direct way? To me, it is similar to noting
> that these same two men also breathe while in the rooms.
The point is that it`s not so much parallel as all rooted in the same thing.
> Not to be a smart guy, but I don`t know enough about Jungian ideas.
>
> Now, if I were exchanging with another person with less integrity, I`d
> look at the addition of Jungian ideas here at this point in the
> discussion, whose topic is how to judge the intent of an unanswered
> question, as an attempt to change the subject. But I do not feel that
> this is the case here.
>
> So I`d like to return to the original discussion after this little detour.
I think the collective unconscious concept is needed for religion to make sense.
--- G2/1.0
* Origin: usenet.network (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441