Comments | irenicspace: Why the apology?

irenicspace

Why the apology?

Aug 11, 2004 09:05

I have heard from many people that I should not have apologized earlier this week; that what I said was true and that the people should have looked past the “tone” or harshness and looked at the main message. I disagree. In my code of ethics, it was the right thing to do for me and here is why. I did not apologize for the opinions I had. I still ( Read more... )

Comments 37

aradiasimpson August 11 2004, 14:53:30 UTC

It is important how you say...what you say....when you say it, especially if one is directing it to another. I have often been at fault for doing this and tried revising what I say to others so that they would be more accepting of a velvet glove with an iron fist behind it. Maybe I am working on the other extreme....trying to find my balance one would say...by speaking my mind and allowing myself to flow. You told me once that you have your reasons for being so direct and blazing.....because so often in the past others wouldn't listen when you were nice about it, yet when you provoked an emotional response.....whether they liked it or not....they heard what was being said.

I agree there is a time and place for everything. So I guess we are both trying to find that balance.

It is always nice to see you grow and I am thankful I get to learn so much from you.

Well... keith418 August 11 2004, 15:03:49 UTC

I think you have to draw a line between being respectful to people, on the one hand, and letting real problems go unaddressed because people want to be "political," "diplomatic," "friendly," or "polite," on the other hand. If anything, I think our community suffers from a shying away from confrontations and blunt and forthright exchanges. I think this has impoverished us when it doesn't have to. If people are tough and strong, they can take it. If they are weak and fearful, and afraid of your "truths," why would we want them around? Come on ( ... )

Re: Well... aradiasimpson August 11 2004, 15:20:18 UTC

Well said! */hands clapping

Do we ever really look and ask ourselves...Did Crowley ever stop to think about what others thought or tried to be politically correct about what he said? I say NO! He said, "I am the OHO"...period. He made his Will happen......and sometimes that means being direct and not so nice.

You are most definitely correct.....if they can't take the heat...then why should we help the weak to survive?

Again... keith418 August 11 2004, 15:28:00 UTC

Someone once said, I think it was Cabell, that "the truth of an insult is the barb that prevents its easy removal." I get poop thrown at me all the time in this organization because I say what I think. Consequently I have learned to recognize when someone is telling me the truth when they are insulting me and when they are totally wrong. If people are telling you the truth, and your interested in the truth, who cares if it's a truth in an insult? The important thing is the truth! If someone is telling you something that's wrong, then why worry about it? Your enemies will tell you truths your friends never will! This is why enemies are valuable ( ... )

Re: Again... omegabaphomet August 11 2004, 20:57:05 UTC

I've seen many of the "ad hominem" arguments that "do not work" for you. But when I factor out what the common element is in all these arguments I don't see that it is an "organization" I see that they have in common ... is you. You claim that all these people use "ad hominem" arguments against you, but a simpler explanation, and one that doesn't involve an organizational conspiracy, is just that you are projecting. You feel injured, but perhaps your feelings are easily hurt? Perhaps your claim of others' "ad hominem" arguments is nothing more than your (unconscious?) use of the strawman fallacy. You attack and feign defense against a weaker edition of their actual points, seemingly diluting their effect, and apparently immunizing your arguments against refutation, by mischaracterizing them unjustly as "ad hominem ( ... )

Thread 23

omegabaphomet August 11 2004, 15:17:26 UTC

Why aren't standards and codes of ethics just as empty as any other idea?

irenicspace August 11 2004, 15:30:29 UTC

If by empty, you mean sunyata (and I assume you accept that ontological state of being), then in that sense they are empty. However there still is the provisional or temporary level in which we live and conduct ourselves. For that level one has to operate on a level of standards, even if those standards are unconscious or never stated.

Being that you are alive, you have no choice but to act (see the discourse in the Bhagavad-Gita). The choice you have is how to act. Ultimately your choices will have an effect on the course of your life (and if you believe in karma and rebirth, future lives). Thus one can set the standards, by which they operate; a self-discipline by which one lives life. It is up to you. I choose a certain way of being because my experience and results of living have proven to me it is my proper path and is in accordance with my true will to the degree that I know it.

omegabaphomet August 11 2004, 16:52:27 UTC

That seems like a fairly good explanation evn if you play loosey-goosey with both sides of the Buddhist / Vedanta divide.

irenicspace August 11 2004, 17:14:43 UTC

loosey-goosey with both sides of the Buddhist / Vedanta divide.

If you don’t see Buddhism as an offshoot of “Hinduism” or the Vedic traditions, then you miss a lot of what Buddhism is about. Sakyamuni’s spiritual development started when he found the answers in the Vedic traditions were inadequate to answer his questions. He accepted or took and modified many Vedic teachings including karma and samsara. But he took them in different directions. To see Buddhism without the Vedic foundation is to lose much of the context and misunderstand Buddhism in general.

Thread 11

(The comment has been removed)

irenicspace August 11 2004, 20:15:10 UTC

Your point is quite valid, and in general I agree. One must know or have rules before one can break, bend or disregard them. The important thing is your last line:

Looking back at your exchange with peter418, it doesn't seem that you managed to get through to him, but you made a good try and I thought your whack-with-cluestick approach was a reasonable choice for that situation, whether or not the choice was made with due consideration.

I did not think about my delivery and if I did I would have taken more time to answer in a way to better communicate my points without having to get harsh. He might have had a better chance of getting them. If that was my goal, I did not do a very good job to meet it. I expect more from myself. I expect to be able to keep my composure even when things get heated. I may not always meet that standard, but it is my standard.

I don’t have a problem getting harsh, ask anyone in the local area, especially scarletserpent. However, I think it would have been more productive and met my expectations if I had considered ( ... )

peter418 August 12 2004, 09:25:53 UTC

You wrote:
"Looking back at your exchange with peter418, it doesn't seem that you managed to get through to him, but you made a good try and I thought your whack-with-cluestick approach was a reasonable choice for that situation, whether or not the choice was made with due consideration."

Why should he get through me? John has his oppinions and I have. The best thing is that I did learn a lot from it as with every bad experience.