When discussing truth, better to argue or agree?
posted by DavidA | January 15, 2010
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
IcerocketI am a member of a student organization at BYU called christian truth.
Last night we had our first weekly meeting of the year. I brought my roomate, although I wondered why he wanted to come because he doesnt "agree" with all of this. He's not really a seeker, never had any enlightening experiences, but he is a philosophy scholar, loves to read about philosophy.
Our topics were about identity or the ego and culture. The majority of the group sort of formed the consesus that our identity was something that blocks our awareness of the "true self" and that it creates judgements on others that are illusions of our separateness. Of course its hard with semantics to understand what we all mean by "judgement" whether that is a necessity or something we should get over.
Anyway arguement actually broke out for the first time that I can remember in this group because as far as I could tell my roomate insisted judgements are something humans will NEVER be able to get over, and our identity and judgements are good things. I wasn't the one argueing with him. Notice in the mission statement "reach conclusions that correspond to especially each other" This website is a testimate to that beleif, yet his understanding of philosophy is such that arguement is how to find truth. He wonders why I wouldn't want someone who has a different point of view in the group. He feels like if everyone agrees with what I have to say then it's nothing more than a cult. But it's not that I want people to agree with me, its that I know people can agree with each other.... I mean look at what website your on.
I felt like he perverted the entire group it was really kind of scary, I almost want to tell him not to come back because I'm afraid he is stunting the spiritual growth of some of the people who were there for the first time. I just want to get your guys feeback on this because his views may be shared by many people in the world. People who would rather argue to find truth, not beleiving that we can introspect and find agreement in that fashion before the conversation even begins.
I'd like to close with a thought that came to me in a meditation a year or two ago.. an "introspective truth" so to say.
"We base personality off of behavior, the more we realize our behavior doesn't describe who we really are, then we will understand that we are all really the same. Love = the two personalities of two people being dissolved into the realization of the whole."
Comments
Conclusions are a dead end!
— Jan 15, 2010
Ideas are meant to be shared and discussed...Once you have made a "conclusion" you turn your mind off to that idea and any other possibilities that idea may hold.
So...I think you have a fundamental problem in the core of your mission.
You must never conclude...truth is a never ending process!
Peace!
You should introduce your group to the teachings of J.Krishnamurti.
"Truth is a pathless land"
http://www.escapefromwatchtower.com/krishnamurti.html
Is this thing on?...
— Jan 15, 2010
Been a long time since i felt compelled by the internets to contribute to the mess, but: I'm not sure any of us surface dwellers really understand which cognitive functions should or should not exist for the sake of the betterment of our existence. The one thing I do understand is that agreement is in fact the highest cognitive function. The reason being that it is the prelude to communal activity. It is in fact what brought the all of you in the group together. Beyond that agreeing seems to simply secure trust, or validate insecurities, and allow the whole to become more vulnerable to one anothers shortcomings. That said, agreeing should be nothing more than a platform for the physical or psychic transition to the next instance of existence... that is if one wishes to accomplish anything more than simply... agreeing.
As for disagreeing... well, so long as the source of the relationship is understood to be one of mutual uplift than what's the problem?... certainly not the merger of ideas. Perhaps there is an under current that is not readily perceivable to an objective opinion. Like your buddys grandmother just died... that cat farted?... I dunno... That is the problem with these fickle machines though, no matter how fast they are we're not really with each other to know for sure. Anywho, keep searching, and I will too. Peace
too young / too old
— Jan 16, 2010
".............Introspective Truth............ purpose is to unite people in truth..............independently, non-traditionaly seek the truth. ...........correspond to conclusions found in........"
This sounds appropriate to begin higher ed-- Sort of re-access what the whole group can feel after 18 years of beginning life? (I might not qualify to speak having 'dropped-out' in the 60's at age 18 ;) Trying to follow your blog-- Perhaps first, your participants, independently, exercise personal responses to the stated purpose. Then collectively compare, discuss and practice voting on results? Interesting.
As to 'agreement'.... I would prefer the terms of "non-obligatory acceptance as-is", (no cults required).
So your roomate sounds off a 'cult' alarm. Perhaps he has criss crossed many ages of strife in his studies of philosophy. It would be interesting to hear why his philosophic study quivered his alarm finger. Without allowing other participants to individually report personal reactions, unshaken by overwhelm. Though your stated purpose almost sounds like fresh-cut experiments, insulated from interference, unburdened by prior philosophy, at least until the formal conclusion process should begin.
In fact, there has been a hard edged cultic-fervor-culture-of-fear from 'elected' national leaders, within the preceding 19 years of time. Is that your friends scary worry? Could a cultic fervor have trickled down into developing minds of the time? Or is it the earlier distain of oriental philosophy invading American big-box-consumerist thoughts? Perhaps something kinder and gentler than my rantings ;) It would be interesting to hear responses. Does the 'cult' word simply blow fuses in every participating mind?
Old Codger
Agreement, Confrontation, ...
— Jan 17, 2010
If you're working with a group of people in order to develop a particular line of thought, then it can be very important that all people agree with the basic points of unity that the thought is developed from. Otherwise, someone's un-knitting everything that you're knitting.
Further, if there is an action that you are going to undertake with others, a plan that you are going to follow, there are numerous agreements that it can be very helpful to hold with others -- otherwise, someone's sabotaging what the others do.
However, there are also activities in which disagreement and freedom to confront are very important in.
So there are many lines you can go with, useful at different times, with respect to agreement.
