posted December 12, 2009 11:36 AM         

Is it because talk of virtue reminds the unvirtuous of their lack of it, and because the majority do not welcome such reminders? Is it because we have failed in our efforts to be virtuous, and have grown cynical in regards to moral instructions and exhortations? Is it because we are envious of the one who speaks such lofty words, and wish to see her brought low? Do we imagine that anyone who speaks of superior virtue must therefor regard herself as virtuous and superior? Do we think they are eager, above all, to merely appear virtuous? Why are so many so quick to dismiss or downplay good words and to exhort us to actions? Clearly, the substance of virtue, where it is the most dense, lies not in those virtues which are professed, but in those which are practiced in all sincerity, -- yet, what could be more apparent than this fact? The one who speaks of the principles of virtue generally illustrates her points by describing concrete acts of virtue. How is it then, that people assume this sort of person, above all others, needs to be reminded to act on her principles?

When people speak frivolously, of frivolous things, they are rarely enjoined to behave virtuously. And, yet, are not these the very ones who are most in need of our exhortations? If words must be brought into accord with actions, what, then, shall we make of people whose words have no bearing on virtue at all? No wonder we seldom counsel them to put their words into action! For, if even their words are lacking in virtue, what sort of actions shall we imagine for them?

Virtuous words are pearls of wisdom. How eagerly, thankfully, and joyously we should open our hands to receive these pearls! Only swine trample the pearls of wisdom, then turn, and rend the ones who freely offer them. Lest we model ourselves on swine, we should endeavor to put an end to this practice of scoffing at noble words and demanding actions in their stead. For a fact, one cannot even think of acting virtuously until one has thoroughly contemplated and understood what it means to be virtuous. Every time we reflect on wholesome things, we cannot help but advance toward the acquisition of true health. Only by surrounding ourselves with the image of virtue may we armor ourselves against vice, and gradually come to resemble what is virtuous. As it is written: "We covet what we see." Who does not look upon virtue frequently cannot hope to desire it with the full strength of her heart. And who does not hold the image of virtue up to public scrutiny, cannot hope to influence others in that direction. To brush aside words of virtue, and to demand, instead, evidence of its most profound accomplishments, is the very epitome of "looking a gift horse in the mouth". Let us endeavor not to make that mistake.

©2010 Valus

posted December 12, 2009 09:21 PM         

quote:

---

are you open to comments, valus?

---

i'm wide open, shura
that's the problem

quote:

---

or would you prefer this stand as is?

---

yes, that's probably
what i would prefer

the small "i"

but another part of me
writes in order to
see what will happen

and i like it when
i receive a smart reply

thing is, i mostly
get stoned

well,
that's how it feels

and if i believe in myself,
if i stand up,
they throw harder

i just wish people
would think
and feel
before they post.

if they have to tell me something,
tell me something i dont know

and see what it is
without reading into it

hear what it says
without defensively pushing
the first presumptuous interpretations
that enter their heads

i wish they'd try to see the good
and keep their eye on the ball
(not the fall)

without making it all
about the author

but answering the reasoning

"When a man contradicts me,
he arouses my attention, not my anger.
It is enough for me that he direct
his responses to the subject of my inquiry.
Agreement is utterly boring."
~ Montaigne

i love it when i can feel
that connection with someone.
we may disagree, but
we meet on the same level,
so to speak

Yin says i challenge people
and some rise to the occassion,
while others blame me for it

i dunno

i think i see myself
pretty clearly

and if my perspective
reflects my issues,
in addition to my insights,
then that is just as it should be.
its because of my predicament,
or my position in the world,
that i am in a position to
come by this understanding.

like anybody else,
i understand what is revealed to me
light and shadow
both

some people will just see it
as subjective

but i try to receive
every person's witness
as another dimension
of The Whole

posted December 13, 2009 04:21 AM         

All communication is presumptuous. It's presumptuous to believe that someone wants to listen, and even more presumptuous to believe that they should. People try to demand that power (of getting people to listen to them), but they never deserve it.

posted December 13, 2009 03:28 PM         

Hi AG,

I appreciate your perspective.
Your experience is different from mine.

I agree that "meat and potatoes" posts
don't tend to receive the same treatment.
As long as you don't say anything original,
or say it in an original or thorough way,
people don't tend to feel threatened.

Only when your efforts really stand out
do people feel they have a responsibility
to take you down a notch.

If your view is common, moderate, or average,
people won't usually jump at the chance
to say something against it.

But if what you have to say is in any way new,
different, or extreme (compared to the status quo),
then there are people out there who have to oppose it,
like they are responding to a conditioned reflex.

This may sound very judgemental to you,
but I'm afraid that cannot be helped.
We are all privy to certain insights
on account of our positions, and what
to one person seems impartial discernment,
may appear to everybody else as judgment.
I think, the more individualized your p.o.v.,
the more its going to stand in opposition
to consensus opinions. Thats only natural.

If you're going with the flow
you can rub shoulders with the crowd
without rubbing them the wrong way.
But, if you are going your own way,
people expect you to play small
and say "excuse me" every second.

That's my experience.
It's unfortuneate if you can't relate.
But I think there are people,
as smart and as good as you are,
who do relate, and do not find
what I am saying unfair, or,
if you prefer, judgemental.

I think I'm making a solid point
that somebody needed to make.

Also, I dont force anyone to listen.
In fact, I'm mostly talking to people
who have come, in part, to hear me speak;
they open my threads all by themselves,
maybe just to throw their two cents at me.

Funny how they come into the threads
that I've started to voice my perspective,
and then accuse me of forcing my views on them.
I'm suprised if you don't see the irony there.

posted December 13, 2009 04:38 PM         

I clearly hear and understand your post but for clarity, will you define which aspects of Virtue you are speaking of ?
If you desire to keep it a general post here I understand

juni

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted December 14, 2009 02:07 AM         

I don't say that to take you down a notch. I say that because in each instance it's true. Why post about the nature of hypocrisy if not because it's an issue you feel as if you're dealing with? No one else is tackling that subject, because no one else is feeling like they have to justify their hypocrisy. In fact, most people don't encounter that judgment all that frequently.

In this post the same theme recurs in the very first sentence. A spiritual authority is met with the criticism that words are cheap. If a spiritual authority is obvious, it's because of the person's actions. If a spiritual authority is not obvious, it's because of the person's subtlety. If a person simply has an idea about who they are, and can't bring themselves to represent themselves in such a way that other people can recognize them [as they believe themselves to be], then I don't think that person would be judged to be a spiritual authority.

quote:

---

I agree that "meat and potatoes" posts
don't tend to receive the same treatment.
As long as you don't say anything original,
or say it in an original or thorough way,
people don't tend to feel threatened.

---

People don't feel threatened. When someone asserts something that is fundamentally untrue about another person, that second person's reaction isn't one of feeling threatened, but of acknowledging the first person doesn't understand. If I say you're a racist, and you're not, is the problem with you or with me? Would you feel threatened by me making such a misstatement? No, of course not.

quote:

---

But if what you have to say is in any way new,
different, or extreme (compared to the status quo),
then there are people out there who have to oppose it,
like they are responding to a conditioned reflex.

---

But this thought and this attitude presupposes that people aren't conscious in creating their values. While not denying that there are unconscious impulses, values are something wrought over years. Values are established by our interaction with the world. If we react strongly to something, we think about it considerably, and that's what builds the basis of our value systems. So yes, the response can be like a reflex, because we've thought about our values enough to be confident in them. Do you think a few words written in someone else's thinking language is going to easily dislodge what's been built over time?

quote:

---

If you're going with the flow
you can rub shoulders with the crowd
without rubbing them the wrong way.

---

Like many of the great spiritual leaders do and have done?

quote:

---

But I think there are people,
as smart and as good as you are,
who do relate, and do not find
what I am saying unfair, or,
if you prefer, judgemental.

---

When people are disappointed with you, you call them judgmental. When you're disappointed with people...you say it's not judgmental? (I'm not that attached to considering whether a person is judgmental or not. I assume everyone is by default. It's only when people accuse others of being judgmental and then prove the same that I think it merits pointing out.)

quote:

---

Also, I dont force anyone to listen.

---

I'm not saying that you do. You can't.

But when you write something like:

How eagerly, thankfully, and joyously we should open our hands to receive these pearls! Only swine trample the pearls of wisdom, then turn, and rend the ones who freely offer them. Lest we model ourselves on swine, we should endeavor to put an end to this practice of scoffing at noble words and demanding actions in their stead. For a fact, one cannot even think of acting virtuously until one has thoroughly contemplated and understood what it means to be virtuous.

When you write something like that, and your audience knows you are writing about your wisdom, it would be difficult to say you weren't exhorting people to listen.

quote:

---

Funny how they come into the threads
that I've started to voice my perspective,
and then accuse me of forcing my views on them.
I'm suprised if you don't see the irony there.

---

You placed your threads in the place you wanted to find audience, so I don't see the irony. If you wished for a kinder crowd, you'd post somewhere that you're less known (or less read).

_________________________________

I mostly endeavor not to comment in your threads, because I know to do so is to offend you essentially (which I don't enjoy). I have the same problem with you that you have with others: I don't think you're ready or willing to open your mind to a different way of thinking about things. I'm ok with it, because I think, "Everything in its own time," but at the same time it is difficult to stand idly by.

posted December 14, 2009 08:34 AM         

It's specific enough, for its purpose.
If you wish to see particular examples,
please check out any number of the threads
that I've been starting and posting in
for the past few weeks.

posted December 14, 2009 12:02 PM         

quote:

---

Honestly, I view most of what you write lately to be a justification.

---

As I predicted most people would.

quote:

---

It doesn't really seem like you're exploring anything, or instructing in anything.

---

Not to you. But, with all due respect, many disagree.

quote:

---

I don't say that to take you down a notch. I say that because in each instance it's true.

---

So you say. Let's hear your reasoning.

quote:

---

Why post about the nature of hypocrisy if not because it's an issue you feel as if you're dealing with? No one else is tackling that subject, because no one else is feeling like they have to justify their hypocrisy. In fact, most people don't encounter that judgment all that frequently.

---

I'm in full agreement with you here, AG. It's precisely because of my unique experience that I am in a position to see these things and to make these arguments. You've heard of those people who lose a relative to Breast Cancer, and then become active in raising awareness for Breast Cancer treatment. Is their personal motive some dark secret? Is it any surprise or big discovery? Michael J. Fox works tirelessly to promote research on a cure for Parkinson's. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that he has Parkinson's? I dont see any other celebrities promoting that, do you? Are you beginning to see my point yet? Leaders in the African American community bring attention to racism, and attempt to redefine how blacks are perceived. I don't deal with racism, do you? I don't feel a need to correct people's misperceptions of my race. Why do you suppose that is? Why does a black man feel like he has to fight on that front? Could it be because that is where he is being attacked and misunderstood? Does he feel like he has to "justify" himself because he's scared that, deep down, the racists are right? Of course not. For the same reason, people like me have to correct misperceptions that concern teachers, individualists, and so on. Schopenhauer very famously defended himself against the charge of hypocrisy and explained how it is not necessary to be a saint, or as wise as a saint, in order to be a teacher of the wisdom of the saints. Nor is a man whose words reflect virtue any more obliged to practice it than a man whose words reflect less virtuous concerns. If anything, the latter has a greater obligation than the former, who has carried virtue at least as far as his mind and tongue. And some would argue, as I do, that that is the least we can do.

quote:

---

In this post the same theme recurs in the very first sentence. A spiritual authority is met with the criticism that words are cheap. If a spiritual authority is obvious, it's because of the person's actions. If a spiritual authority is not obvious, it's because of the person's subtlety. If a person simply has an idea about who they are, and can't bring themselves to represent themselves in such a way that other people can recognize them [as they believe themselves to be], then I don't think that person would be judged to be a spiritual authority.

---

The people I had in mind, -- folks like Deepak Chopra, Wayne Dyer, Gary Zukov, Byron Katie, Neal Donald Walsh, etc., -- are known for their books, and for the effect their words (not their actions) and charisma have had on millions of New Age readers. If you ask how they appear to me, I will tell you that they are not very original thinkers, that they mostly repeat what has already been said, and repackage it in a way that is palatable to the average New Age reader. They deal with things fairly superficially, and this sort of dealing has always had mass appeal. They are, for the most part, one-trick ponies, who have a certain "hook", or insight, which they keep coming back to and directing everything else through. This also makes them easy to follow. Nevertheless, its clear that they help many people. I call them teachers, not because a large number of people believe they are teachers (how many people believed Hitler was a great leader? does that make it true?), but because they've acheived results in people's lives. Now, my words may not resonate deeply with you, AG, but that doesn't mean I'm not a teacher. I've had lots of people tell me I am a true teacher. And several have credited me with allowing them "to breathe again", or make them "feel more awake, aware, and alive". One person told me that my words trigger deep changes inside her because the things I say are things she felt and thought when she was younger, but after being ridiculed for them, she buried them deep inside, and, now, since meeting me, its like all these things are resurrected, and liberated, and she feels like she has been given a new lease on life. I've heard things like that from a few different people. My therapist, a very good and wise woman, who is a recognized spiritual authority (a Priestess) to a number of people, is on the edge of her seat every time she hears me speak. She tells me how she looks forward to seeing me all week, and how none of her other patients are as interesting or as full of uncommon insights. She's a very smart woman, and it always humbles me, as well as inspiring my confidence, when she tells me stuff like that. She thinks that, if I just believed in myself, and focused on what I do best, I could be a world-famous teacher and speaker; but that I pay too much attention to other people and what they think about me; and that is the biggest reason why I haven't fulfilled my potential. Maybe she's right.

quote:

---

People don't feel threatened. When someone asserts something that is fundamentally untrue about another person, that second person's reaction isn't one of feeling threatened, but of acknowledging the first person doesn't understand. If I say you're a racist, and you're not, is the problem with you or with me? Would you feel threatened by me making such a misstatement? No, of course not.

---

When a person, or their behavior, is criticized, it generally makes no difference whether or not the criticism is justified, or who the issue really belongs to. It still hurts. We still feel threatened. And if we are not mature and thoughtful about it, we are going to react instinctively and defensively. In my experience, it seems like, when it comes to choosing what to think and what to value, most people base their choices on the prejudices of their own temperaments. They believe and value whatever is most popular in their culture or community, and whatever comes easiest to themselves. They try to assert beliefs and values that fit at least one, but preferably both, of these conditions. If they bother to deliberate the matter, it is generally because someone or something has challenged them. When that happens, they will then make an effort to bring reasoning into accord with their spontaneously preconceived notions and habits. It is much more rare that they will reason objectively, and then try to bring their beliefs, values, words, and actions into harmony with logic. Other people are more open-minded, more capable of empathizing with a wider variety of perspectives, and, so, more objective and sincere in their deliberations. When a person who only thinks in order to support their prejudices (and who has spent years reinforcing those prejudices by latching onto the ready-made arguments and cliches that support them) meets a person who thinks in order to learn what is true, a profound chemical reaction is set in motion. The former is, without exception, threatened by the latter, since beliefs which corroborate our temperaments are tremendous sources of comfort, and these come under scrutiny in the presence of a thinking man. If they are not threatened to any great degree, it is most likely because they are too well-insulated in their echo-chambers, and /or because the views they hold are sanctioned by popular demand, so to speak, and they see no point in defending a perspective which has already captured popular approval.

quote:

---

But this thought and this attitude presupposes that people aren't conscious in creating their values.

---

Do you presuppose that most people are consciously creating their values?

quote:

---

While not denying that there are unconscious impulses, values are something wrought over years. Values are established by our interaction with the world. If we react strongly to something, we think about it considerably, and that's what builds the basis of our value systems. So yes, the response can be like a reflex, because we've thought about our values enough to be confident in them. Do you think a few words written in someone else's thinking language is going to easily dislodge what's been built over time?

---

Again, I am in full agreement with you. Unfortuneately, the majority of people will not be dislodged in their values or beliefs when you contradict them, regardless of how reasonable and how well-expressed your objection(s) may be. But there are thinking people out there, who are perfectly capable of detaching from their most cherished and time-honored prejudices, and of recognizing the truth when it is shown to them. I've seen and felt it happen, to me and to people whose intelligence I have great respect for.

quote:

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're going with the flow
you can rub shoulders with the crowd
without rubbing them the wrong way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like many of the great spiritual leaders do and have done?

---

Absolutely. And as I have done on numerous occassions. You may find this hard to believe, but not all my views are independent. Nor do I think that being independent necessarily makes them right; just as the popularity of a belief is no argument against its correctness. Although, I do find that correct views which run against the grain of tradition tend to be the ones most in need of expressing, and hardest to express. Jesus wasn't almost universally misunderstood (and crucified!) for going with the flow of society, I'll tell you that much.

quote:

---

When people are disappointed with you, you call them judgmental. When you're disappointed with people...you say it's not judgmental?

---

Is that so? Why is it, then, that I am often disappointed in myself, and that I often agree with people's disappointment in me? Could it be that you are making an unfair generalization here? A judgement even? I'd say I call it judgemental when people are disappointed in me for the wrong reasons, and I dont call it judgmental when I am disappointed in them for the right ones. Then I offer a variety of arguments in support of my position, and invite them to do the same. When I am unsure, I ask questions, or speculate on a number of possibilities; whereas, it seems that most people just level accusations and conclude upon the first and only possibility that squirms inside their narrow minds. I frequently use words like "seems" or "appears", and "mostly" or "nearly", and try to indicate various conditions that apply to the possibilities and conclusions I see. These subtle "details" are often overlooked by people who are in a hurry to pigeon-hole me and my perspective, with the result that I am interpreted as more judgemental, arrogant, hypocritical, etc., than I really am. Sometimes I attempt to present a panoramic view which illustrates the multi-dimensionality of my understanding of a particular question or conclusion, and then somebody will take something I said out of context, and ignore the rest of what I've said, in order to fit me into one of the regulation-sized boxes they've picked up; without having to create a new box that actually fits a person like me. Sometimes they take that one thing out of context (usually it's the one thing that can be most easily miscontrued, and which I've gone to the most trouble to clarify) and tell me that the rest of what I wrote was dishonest, lol, and only this one thing, which they havent even understood correctly, is true. If they would just read carefully, and take my words at face value, they'd find I'm not too difficult to understand. But they take it upon themselves to decide which of my words are really meant, and which are just for show. They see the worst, or project the worst, and dismiss the rest. I call that judgemental. What do you call it?

quote:

---

(I'm not that attached to considering whether a person is judgmental or not. I assume everyone is by default. It's only when people accuse others of being judgmental and then prove the same that I think it merits pointing out.)

---

Hmm.. Yet, here you are, calling me judgmental, and then doing what? How are we different? The only difference, if there is one at all, must be that one of us has good reasons for their criticism, and the other is just misunderstanding or nit-picking.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I dont force anyone to listen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not saying that you do. You can't.

But when you write something like:

"How eagerly, thankfully, and joyously we should open our hands to receive these pearls! Only swine trample the pearls of wisdom, then turn, and rend the ones who freely offer them. Lest we model ourselves on swine, we should endeavor to put an end to this practice of scoffing at noble words and demanding actions in their stead. For a fact, one cannot even think of acting virtuously until one has thoroughly contemplated and understood what it means to be virtuous."

When you write something like that, and your audience knows you are writing about your wisdom, it would be difficult to say you weren't exhorting people to listen.

---

Exhorting and forcing are two different things. You felt the need to tell me I can't force them. Why? What is wrong with exhorting them to listen? Especially considering that this exhortation comes towards the end of a long post which they have already shown their willingness to listen to, and which appears in a thread started by me, and openned by them? What could be wrong with that? Furthermore, there are thousands of examples of teachers who make statements just like the one I've made here, which are clearly referring to themselves and their own wisdom, but you don't fix your critical eye on that, do you? Why not? When St.Paul says, "[I make] mention of you in my prayers; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him," its pretty clear that he considers himself already in possession of that wisdom, and that his words are a "revelation in the knowledge of him". When Jesus tells you to "Be as wise as serpents, as harmless as doves", is your first reaction defensive? Do you see him as arrogant and judgmental? Are you thinking, "Clearly, he means himself, and clearly, he thinks we are not as wise, or he would not exhort us to be wise,". If not, why not? Why do you only see that when you read my words? Do you think that's fair?

quote:

---

If you wished for a kinder crowd, you'd post somewhere that you're less known (or less read).

---

Not true. I'm sure Jesus wished for a kinder crowd, but, then, if they were much kinder, they would have had no need of his teaching. He went where he was needed, not where he would be sure to receive the warmest reception he could hope for. And I would argue that I may be least well-known in the places where I have shown the most of myself. Because so few people know how to listen and see a person like me. They see a fraction. A fault, or what they interpret as a fault. And that's all they see. Then they misinterpret everything I say in the light of that one thing. Consequently, the more I say, the more they misunderstand, and the further they get from knowing me. And if they are not misunderstanding something, or making a federal case out of what amounts to a touch of grey, then they are overlooking and ignoring all the good in what I'm saying, in order to deny its existence. I post here for a number of reasons. I hope that people will be kind, whether they think they know me or not. And I trust that the ones who really do know me will be the kindest of all. But, most of all, I want people to make an effort to understand what I am saying.

quote:

---

I mostly endeavor not to comment in your threads, because I know to do so is to offend you essentially (which I don't enjoy). I have the same problem with you that you have with others: I don't think you're ready or willing to open your mind to a different way of thinking about things. I'm ok with it, because I think, "Everything in its own time," but at the same time it is difficult to stand idly by.

---

I can respect that. At the same time, you are accusing me of the very thing you admit to be doing yourself. Please explain that, if you can. What offends me most is when people express a critical view of me or my work without backing it up with a logical argument. As if they expect their view to carry any weight when it is not backed up. It's just rude. It's coming into my thread and taking a slap at something that clearly means a great deal to me, and then giving no reason for doing so. Or giving a reason that flatly ignores statements and arguments which I went to a lot of trouble to articulate clearly; statements and arguments which, had they been carefully read and understood in the first place, would have effectively quashed the subsequent objections.

quote:

---

Incidentally, if you're looking for a solution to get around people attacking you personally while you exhort others to greatness, a lot of people write novels. Ayn Rand didn't start by writing philosophy books. She wrote novels starring characters that could voice her philosophy. Growing up I loved a book called Joshua: A Parable for Today by Joseph Girzone. Loved his Jesus-like character and the philosophy I encountered in the book, but never was I concerned about the author or whether the author was a hypocrite or whatever. More modernly I loved the His Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman. Once again a bit of philosophy hidden in a story. Taking the more direct route, and trying to write philosophically or instructively without the buffer of fiction is more apt to call the author's personal life into question.

---

I suppose you're right. There are people who you just can't be direct with, and who can't resist the temptation to make it personal. I still think it's sad, and that, if you are such a person, you should make an effort not to take cheap shots, and not to waste your time worrying about, and making accusations against, the personal motives of the author. Why is it incumbent upon me to cater my style to the most unforgiving readers? If you need to, I suggest you convert my posts into fiction, and then imagine that they were immaculately conceived, without an author. That may assist you to give an impartial ear to the reasoning, so you arent always getting hung up on bullsh!t like this.

posted December 14, 2009 12:43 PM         

quote:

---

When a person, or their behavior, is criticized, it generally makes no difference whether or not the criticism is justified, or who the issue really belongs to. It still hurts. We still feel threatened. And if we are not mature and thoughtful about it, we are going to react instinctively and defensively. In my experience, it seems like, when it comes to choosing what to think and what to value, most people base their choices on the prejudices of their own temperaments. They believe and value whatever is most popular in their culture or community, and whatever comes easiest to themselves. They try to assert beliefs and values that fit at least one, but preferably both, of these conditions. If they bother to deliberate the matter, it is generally because someone or something has challenged them. When that happens, they will then make an effort to bring reasoning into accord with their spontaneously preconceived notions and habits. It is much more rare that they will reason objectively, and then try to bring their beliefs, values, words, and actions into harmony with logic. Other people are more open-minded, more capable of empathizing with a wider variety of perspectives, and, so, more objective and sincere in their deliberations. When a person who only thinks in order to support their prejudices (and who has spent years reinforcing those prejudices by latching onto the ready-made arguments and cliches that support them) meets a person who thinks in order to learn what is true, a profound chemical reaction is set in motion. The former is, without exception, threatened by the latter, since beliefs which corroborate our temperaments are tremendous sources of comfort, and these come under scrutiny in the presence of a thinking man. If they are not threatened to any great degree, it is most likely because they are too well-insulated in their echo-chambers, and /or because the views they hold are sanctioned by popular demand, so to speak, and they see no point in defending a perspective which has already captured popular approval.

---

I disagree. There is a cultural context to how we experience the world, but that doesn't necessitate that the culture is dictating the person's values.

Further, I don't think that feeling threatened is the first natural response to someone challenging our views. I'll grant that it's possible that it could be for some, but I would venture that new ideas are tossed up against the values we've already decided upon, and if the new idea doesn't fit in naturally, then it's rejected, and the reasons ARE readily available because the subject has already been thought about to a great degree. If there's room for the new idea to fit then it can start the adoption process, but even then it goes through a testing period that may include it's undoing.

posted December 14, 2009 01:43 PM         

quote:

---

Why is it incumbent upon me to cater my style to the most unforgiving readers?

---

Because:

quote:

---

But, most of all, I want people to make an effort to understand what I am saying.

---

________________________

quote:

---

That may assist you to give an impartial ear to the reasoning, so you arent always getting hung up on bullsh!t like this.

---

I've addressed the reasoning, though. There is more I can address when I have more time perhaps, but I've addressed the parts that matter to me.

posted December 14, 2009 03:39 PM         

I may reply more later,
but to your last response:

I said that I wish readers would make more of an effort to understand what I am saying. How in the world can you possibly think of pointing to that in hopes of justifying your claim, that I should bend over backwards to make myself understood by the most unforgiving people? I specifically said that they should make the effort. I have worked harder than you will ever know to make these matters as clear as they are now. The least others can do, if they wish to know my meaning, is to read carefully. I don't think I'm asking too much, do you?

posted December 14, 2009 04:48 PM         

Do you give people the same amount of credence that they give you? If they're dismissive of your writing, are you dismissive of theirs?

I don't know about bending over backwards for unforgiving people. If you're not inclined to do, then ...what?... you should just disregard those that are unforgiving? I know you're trying to push those people out of your threads, but at the same time you're posting in the place you want to find audience. Then again, why shouldn't you bend over backwards to make yourself understood by the most unforgiving people? What's the harm in that? You like those people. You'd like them to understand you. Are you just going to give up on them?

Why should they not conform to your wishes? Why should you not conform to theirs? Who knows? Why should anyone feel compelled to do anything?

posted December 14, 2009 05:18 PM         

AG covered my thoughts and I let his words speak ( instead of a reworded repeat )

quote:

---

To some people it seems more like a diary than some spiritual or philosophical thought. If they endeavor to know you, and offer up their own opinion, you take it that they just don't get it. If they take the writing on its own, and disagree with it the writing is still fundamentally you and not an entity of its own, so you think they don't get it.

---

That is why I ask if it was general or more in depth. You said general and that gives it the personal reflection logged diary style rather than Spiritually instructional .

Thank you Valus, for sharing your experiences and honesty

juni

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted December 14, 2009 09:59 PM         

juni, the only thing i am leading up to, i hope, is some realization, or some honest participation, on the part of the reader. I'm sorry if you fail to see the depth in what i shared, but i think its uncommonly deep and insightful throughout. i'll grant that it has a familiar tone. i am speaking directly from my heart without form or pretext. But that has no bearing on whether or not it may be called spiritually instructional. I'm not sure what a spiritually instructional style would be, but I think the style is effective enough to communicate the substance. I believe the substance, if not the style, is spiritually instructional.

Your welcome.

posted December 14, 2009 11:58 PM         

quote:

---

AG, how many times do you want me to admit that I am writing from my own experience, to explain my own experience? You think there is something wrong with that. I don't.

---

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If something is odd it's that the way you work these things out in writing comes as a written lesson. It seems the goal is instruction, but the word doesn't necessarily relate to your audience as much as it does to you yourself. Perhaps amongst a different audience it would come out more in the way it seems intended, because an audience that doesn't know you wouldn't necessarily have these insights into you.

If the goal is simply relating to people and getting people to relate with you, dropping the pretense of instruction and just having a conversation about what's on your mind would probably engage people easier. When you're having a conversation, you can place all these ideas you have into the conversation's context like you've done lots of times in the past. I guess the idea is not giving the impression of preaching from up high, but rather spending some time amongst the mortals.

quote:

---

If you can find fault with my reasoning, I invite you to try.

---

I already have. My first post: "People do feel free to discuss virtue, and do so quite frequently." You made a blanket statement that people aren't interested in discussing virtue, and I disagreed. Not really faulty reasoning per se. Just a different perspective on the matter.

You claimed in the first paragraph of your piece that words are so near-universally devalued, but they're not. That could be deemed faulty reasoning. Many people agree with the sentiment that words have value. For some they have even more value than actions, or at least some are wanting for words as a supplement to action (I refer to romantic relationships where one person demonstrates their love more than voicing it). Of course, you probably meant that words you hold dear aren't valued (while I was taking the line out of context, and into a different context where something else would be true). It's true that people don't necessarily find value in the words you hold dear. ... I don't know what to comment on beyond that. It's not these people's time to seek out and find value in those words I guess.

We also debated the notion of people feeling threatened. You seemed to believe that people feel threatened by new ideas. I took the position that it's not so much feeling threatened as it is understanding how the new idea interacts with a person's values.

I can almost go line by line discussing these things. I don't know that I'll disagree with everything, but certainly they could be discussed.

quote:

---

I think there is nothing hypocritical about praising and promoting virtue and truth, while not exemplifying that ideal. If you think otherwise, let's hear your argument.

---

In a way I have to agree with you on this. I can't really place more importance on whether a person's a hypocrite than that person's value otherwise. I suppose if a person is a consistently unrepentant hypocrite, so clearly out-of-line with the virtue he or she is espousing, then the hypocrisy does create a huge distraction. It becomes a disservice the hypocrite gives him/herself. As a matter of practicality I find no value in practicing hypocrisy. It can only be a stumbling block. It serves a person far better when they endeavor not to be a hypocrite.

quote:

---

But what do you think you will accomplish by repeating your attacks on my character ad infinitum?

---

I don't think I have attacked your character ad infinitum, and though I didn't address it earlier, I don't think I took any cheap shots either. I argued certain points, and I questioned how you go about things. The one criticism of you personally was that you're judgmental, but I also called everyone judgmental. There's nothing particularly unfair in that. You took my understanding that your writing is spawned of your experience as an attack, but really it's more that I don't understand why you post what you're thinking about as a lesson instead of just levying the thoughts as any other person would.

quote:

---

The only people having trouble understanding me, AG, are people who bring their own baggage with them, and who are stuck in the past, and stuck on superficial and personal bull----.

---

I don't think that's true.

quote:

---

We all interpret truth and reality from our own point of view, we all justify the compromises we make in favor of our personal will, and we all try to reconcile this flawed humanity with the perfect will of God. That dialogue is an honest expression of our relationship with God. You see it as justifying. But whether or not it justifies me is not the question. The question is, "Is it true?"

---

Alright, if that's the question, what question are you presently trying to answer? Is there a justification that can cover hypocrisy? Sort of, but I believe that's the impractical way. The best way to deal with hypocrisy is to bring yourself into allignment with your values. Then no one can say anything. Then there are no distractions. Then the good work can happen unrestrained.

Is it true that people can espouse values greater than the ones they possess? Yes, absolutely.

quote:

---

If you have some private matter to discuss, you know where to find me. On the boards, I expect you to observe the rules of conduct. Try to stay on topic, and out of my personal life.

---

posted December 15, 2009 01:34 PM         

quote:

---

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If something is odd it's that the way you work these things out in writing comes as a written lesson. It seems the goal is instruction, but the word doesn't necessarily relate to your audience as much as it does to you yourself. Perhaps amongst a different audience it would come out more in the way it seems intended, because an audience that doesn't know you wouldn't necessarily have these insights into you.

---

Thing is, AG, there is no clear dividing line between me, my life, and my work, and there never was intended to be. The work is many things. You can focus on just one thing, and call the rest "pretense", but that's always just going to be a reflection of your own bias, not mine. Do you see? Read what I've written. Whatever insight you think you have into me, I've got more. And its all right there on the page. For those who know, or think they know, something of my private struggles, the piece will carry another layer, or dimension. A subtext. And you are free to make what you can or will of that. I see it, and I know you see it, and, believe it or not, I've made no great effort to conceal it. If anything, I am counting on you to know what I am talking about, on a variety of levels, -- yes, including the personal. But my feeling is that, regardless of however the writing may correspond to the particulars of my life, it carries universal appeal, and can be related to more than just myself. That universal dimension has always been my central interest. It's not a smokescreen to conceal anything, as it may be for you. Rather, it's the way I endeavor, and have always endeavored, to understand everything. Maybe its my Merc in Sag, or Moon in Aqua, but, the universal and impersonal dimension takes precidence for me. And I expect it to reflect the particulars of my life, but, as I see it, that much goes without saying. Anybody who knows an author, will be able to locate him in his work. But it would be a shame if that personal insight prevented them from appreciating the universal appeal, the intellectual and moral integrity, of the work itself. We all latch onto the truths that are sympathetic to our personal situations, but that doesnt make them less true. How we use, or misuse, truth is an important matter. When you know someone, it's not difficult to see beneath the truth they are speaking, and into the more personal matter of how they are using or misusing it. I think its fortuneate that most people here don't share too much, or much at all, about their most private struggles. Then, imagine all the subtext! The truth or falseness of their arguments would be entirely lost in the charge to point out how the argument itself seeks to support, or subvert (as the case may be), some personal agenda. You, for example, have lost sight of my argument, and all sense of proportion with which to consider what's being said, in your zeal to draw attention to what has been left unsaid. And I assure you, what has been left unsaid is insignificant. It is nothing but an illustration or elaboration, in the form of particular examples, of what is already being said. We can indeed discuss this on the abstract level, and say, and touch upon, all that can, or needs to, be said. If we cannot make our case in the language of universals, then, probably, we don't have a case to make; just a bunch of prejudices arising from our lack of aquaintance with, and lack of appreciation for, whatever particulars, or human experiences, we do not ourselves encounter.

quote:

---

If the goal is simply relating to people and getting people to relate with you, dropping the pretense of instruction and just having a conversation about what's on your mind would probably engage people easier. When you're having a conversation, you can place all these ideas you have into the conversation's context like you've done lots of times in the past.

---

I hope my words so far, or the words that will follow, in this post, suffice to make it clear that there is no "pretense" at work here. Rather, there's a multidimensionality which seems to frustrate your desire for a more linear experience. Being related to on a personal level is not my only aim, which is why I won't allow it to take presidence over my other aims. In any case, I have used that conversational approach in the past, -- maybe you forgot the sort of mess that leads to? I've found that only my closest friends can be trusted to respect the profound vulnerability and openness necessary to "that" conversation. People on the internet will only reduce my most complex and personal issue(s) to some cold-blooded, short-sighted, black and white bullsh!t. They'll casually take my head off with their off-handed, reductionist answers; which have more to do with justifying and exalting their own lifestyles than with understanding and appreciating the complexity of my situation. The more personal I make it -- the more particulars I make known, -- the less they can relate to what I'm sayinig, and the more they lose sight of the essential principles at work. While they try to draw parallels to universal principles, in order to support their own perspective of my situation, they will indignantly resist my effort to do the same as a pretext, "pretense", or subterfuge. Why? Because the applicable universal principles I see are not the ones they see, and because the have no legs for that kind of debate; which takes place on high peaks, and in craggy, out-of-the-way places. The only way they can win is to make culture (the present one, to which they hold me accountable, -- and this much is never open to debate, lol) the mediating authority; avoiding at all costs a venture into the purely universal; the realm of absolute truth which transcends even the most tightly-guarded assumptions of Western civilization. And since they would be defending the popular view, -- the view of present civilization, -- they would see such a venture as unnecessary and escapist. For them, it's enough to state the prevailing view, and laugh contemptuously, as if their case has already been made, and any effort to demonstrate the justness of cultural expectations would only betray a lack of confidence in the ultimate authority of same. But I digress.

quote:

---

I guess the idea is not giving the impression of preaching from up high, but rather spending some time amongst the mortals.

---

As a mortal myself, I dont see it that way. As a matter of taste, I like things that speak from on high, and I receive them the same way that I transmit them; in all humility. If the style doesnt speak to you, say that. But don't blame me, or attribute some high and mighty arrogance to me, just because I transmit this information in a style that appeals to my sense of the lofty and romantic. I do think that some things are meaningful, and some are shallow, and to some extent, when I take a position on those things, I am making a claim to be on the side of those meaningful things. I've earned that right, I think. Despite whatever shortcomings I may have, I dont think anyone can argue that I have not given my attention to things of relative depth and profundity. I take a position there, and if someone thinks that is self-righteous or something, they are welcome to their opinion. We have to take a stand somewhere, and I'm willing to take that one, and be the self-righteous guy, in the eyes of people who think Godzala, for instance, has a right to as much respect as high art and the wisdom of saints. But, as I see it, depth is relative, and we can always argue that something is or is not deep by comparing it to something more or less so. So what? I watch South Park, and other things that don't immediately reflect the depth of my more consistent interests. I see their value. But I don't indulge in stuff like that all day, every day, and I endeavor to bring more depth into my life. I admire people who, instead of watching South Park, are working to bring water to people dying of thirst in Africa. Does that make me a hypocrite? Perhaps it does, I'm not sure. But if someone started a thread praising the work of such people, and the importance of building wells in the third world, I would say, "Right on! Thank you for posting this!". I wouldn't jump on that thread with a bone to pick about how they were on a high horse, talking down to all us mortals, -- and the only way they can prove their humility and sincerity is to post about mediocre and peurile things, or, at least, post in a mediocre and peurile style; frequently breaking off from contemplating high-minded and impersonal things, in order to draw attention to the imperfect state of their own soul; so that the demand for self-abasement will be satisfied. Indeed, one dare not speak of lofty things, in a lofty tone, without making frequent allusions to their own sinfulness and hypocrisy. To do so would be nothing but sanctimonious pretense. LOL That's just defensive bull, if you ask me.

quote:

---

words

---

I think I made my position clear. The very best words -- the ones that come closest to sharing the glory of actions, -- are tossed aside for being less than actions. Is it because they are so great, and because they take us to the very precipice, where we must confess our failure to act, -- is this why they are met with derision, and the exhortation to act? Is it because such words have done everything but transcend themselves and metamorphose themselves into actions? Is it because we can find no fault in them, as words, and only fault them for not being more than words? haha But what words can possibly be innocent of that charge? Shall we respond to every act of speech, and especially the best speeches, with the scoff, "These are words!" As if the very fact that they are words is more than enough to discredit them as anything at all.

quote:

---

You seemed to believe that people feel threatened by new ideas. I took the position that it's not so much feeling threatened as it is understanding how the new idea interacts with a person's values.

---

Then we do not disagree, but are fully in agreement, since I took this much for granted. We are not threatened by the notion (supposing we never heard it before) that a peanut is a legume, and not a nut. Such trivia is not what I had in mind. What threatens us is a new idea which comes to bear on our value system without corroborating it. I apologize if this was unclear.

quote:

---

In a way I have to agree with you on this. I can't really place more importance on whether a person's a hypocrite than that person's value otherwise. I suppose if a person is a consistently unrepentant hypocrite, so clearly out-of-line with the virtue he or she is espousing, then the hypocrisy does create a huge distraction. It becomes a disservice the hypocrite gives him/herself. As a matter of practicality I find no value in practicing hypocrisy. It can only be a stumbling block. It serves a person far better when they endeavor not to be a hypocrite.

---

Fair enough. I dont think I've disagreed with this. But what I am asking you to consider is that an approach to virtue which is so strict that, to every word or act of virtue, it replies, "You can do more", ends up discouraging people from even making attempts at a more virtuous life. If virtue is not more commonly discussed, illustrated, contemplated, explored, and, ultimately, practiced, it may be because whenever somebody brings up the subject they are met with the admonition to say or do more. And if someone speaks frequently of virtue and attempts to draw attention to it on a regular basis, that person is invariably called a "hypocrite". And since nobody wants to be labelled a hypocrite, or to have to defend themselves against such a charge, most people don't risk drawing concerted attention to virtue. I believe there are people out there who would make powerfully effective teachers of virtue, but who are too frightened to speak and share their perceptions, for fear that accusations will be levelled against themselves, and not against vice, as such. I find that unfortuneate. And it would be unfortuneate if I were to be discouraged from posting about virtue for the same reason. If I were to post about less meaningful things, just to avoid the attacks of people who tell me I can't praise virtue, and do a little good, without being held accountable to the highest good, -- that would be a tragedy. I wonder how often people are discouraged from talking about, or even from enacting, virtues, because they think that, if they do a little good, they will then be held accountable for not attaining the very summit of virtue. How much better would it be, if we all encouraged one another to do what we can? And if we celebrated every manifestation of virtue, however small? How quickly would we be encouraged to do our best, if we felt that our best would be good enough? And how tolerant and respectful would we be, if we learned to appreciate people for the virtues they exhibit, and not to criticize them for the ones they lack? The Bible discourses in a number of places on the diversity of spiritual gifts, and tries to make it clear that we are not all gifted in the same ways, that we should endeavor to value the gifts with which we, and others, are gifted, and not to always give negative attention to what is lacking. A teacher is here to teach. A teacher who also feeds the starving in Africa from his/her own hand, is probably the rarest thing in the world. But do you really think that, if a person is not doing EVERYTHING that comes under the heading of "Virtue", then they have no right to teach, or consider themselves a teacher? Absurd. We should do what is in our hearts, and give those gifts which we have. Even if some people will just look those gifts in the mouth and say, "Is that all you brought?". Period. I suspect that part of the reason we are tempted to devalue the gifts and contributions of others, is that we have not yet given proper attention to our own gifts. We do not value enough the things which we have to contribute. Or perhaps we have failed to develop even in those areas where we are most endowed. I suppose that would be the greatest tragedy of all.

I also wish to repeat my claim that nobody can discourse frequently on virtue without becoming increasingly aware of their own lack of virtue. If the chasm between words and actions is sufficiently wide, it cannot be ignored. Nor can we hope to keep from falling into such an abyss, the more we attempt to skirt it. Nevertheless, a hypocrite, who practices virtue with his tongue only, is still on a moral level above the person whose words are just as empty as her actions. The former has not tended the crop faithfully, from seed to harvest, but has, at least, planted the grain, and will not die of hunger on "Judgment Day". Such distinctions may seem like justifications to you, but I think if you are more understanding of human weakness, you will not be such a stickler. Virtue is not a simple matter of right and wrong. Some things are more or less right than others. We are never perfectly virtuous, or perfectly vicious. We begin where we find ourselves, and we make a little progress. That progress should be commended and encouraged, and not immediately contrasted with the ideal of sainthood.

For my part, AG, if you are determined to hear me comment on my personal efforts, I will remind you that I have become vegan. What major lifestyle change have you made in honor of the principle of compassion; which, no doubt, you've been heard to praise in words, perhaps more highly than any other virtue? What temptation do you overcome on a daily basis, for the sake of your principles, and at the expense of your personal appetites? Conversely, what justifications have you made on behalf of those appetites, and at the expense of the principle of compassion? Do you see how quickly we can ignite discord, by focussing on our private lives? I'd hoped to avoid such confrontations.

quote:

---

You took my understanding that your writing is spawned of your experience as an attack, but really it's more that I don't understand why you post what you're thinking about as a lesson instead of just levying the thoughts as any other person would.

---

"As any other person would", eh? Could it be that you're not acquainted with other people's personal lives as you are with mine, and that you're not in a position to see how many of their posts, which may appear impartial or instructive, are, no less than mine, private attempts to work out personal issues, in addition to being what they claim to be? I assure you, this is the case. Moreover, most of these people probably do not even know themselves how often, and in what respect, their instructive and impersonal efforts are reflective of personal conflicts. They do it unconsciously. I do it consciously, or relatively consciously, and that is another reason why the personal element is so obvious in what I've expressed, and so difficult to entangle from the impersonal. Could it be that I am familiar enough with the workings of my own unconscious, or of the unconscious in general, that I see there is no real division between my personal issues and my conception of impersonal truths? Could it be that I am not making an effort to hide this connection from you, or from myself? I think so.

quote:

---

what question are you presently trying to answer? Is there a justification that can cover hypocrisy? Sort of, but I believe that's the impractical way. The best way to deal with hypocrisy is to bring yourself into allignment with your values. Then no one can say anything. Then there are no distractions. Then the good work can happen unrestrained.

---

To bring myself into alignment with my values, or with yours, AG? What if I told you that I am bringing myself into alignment with my values, and bringing my values into alignment with myself? What if I told you that balancing these two alignments constitutes a single process? And that, however people may deny or remain ignorant of it, their values (and attempts to live in harmony with their values) reflect their temperaments and limitations, no less than their highest and most objective aspirations. What if I told you that a teacher is most valuable when he is teaching? Is it too outlandish to suppose that he might be contradicting the will of God, if he endeavored to put his ideals into action by any other means than by putting them into words? Or that he would be doing a disservice to himself, and to God, if he did not value the moral impact of his words very highly? It's one thing to see right through what I am saying, AG. It's another thing to see what I'm saying. And if you can't see what I'm saying, you'll just see right through me and out the other side. You won't see me at all.

Incidentally, if you were meant to fully appreciate the legitimacy of my view, you would probably be a writer or teacher like me. But you have your own values to discover and justify. And that is just as it should be. I wish you success in that endeavor. And I hope your concerted attention on me, and on my own conception of value, does not inhibit you from accomplishing that work on yourself. Value those gifts which God has placed in your hands, and endeavor to use them for the accomplishment of the kingdom. But do not tarry with me, attempting to devalue the gifts of God which you do not possess, and the values that correspond to them. There is room for us all. For the individualist as well as the everyman. For the thinker as well as the doer. And so on. Find yourself. Find your own way to the truth, without blocking the ways of others.

You can do it.

posted December 15, 2009 02:39 PM         

You're making this quite dramatic. Zeal? What zeal? What's my goal? I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.

posted December 15, 2009 03:37 PM         

its taken years to weave my arguments

it may take days to unravel them

posted December 15, 2009 04:28 PM         

I hope you and AG are being nice. Don't make me pull this thread over.

posted December 15, 2009 04:43 PM         

I also said they were great teachers,
who changed many people's lives.