Conference hydra::dejavu

    re: Bruce
    
          I'd prefer personal experiences too, if I know the person.
    Part of the issue here is one of trust.  I do not, as a practice,
    trust unless that trust has been earned.  If I do not know something
    or someone, I will not necessarily trust it.  Conversely, if 
    someone/something imparting information is someone/something I
    know, then I know to what extent I am willing to trust that 
    information.  The appeal to authority does reflect a lack of
    knowingness on the part of the person using it, however, and
    can often be a means of manipulation, however covert or subtle.
           As one who generally uses this device, i.e. saying so-and-so
    says so, I can speak for myself in indicating why.  Perhaps it's
    because my self-confidence or self-awareness isn't well enough
    developed or perhaps it's because often I wish to direct conversation
    AWAY from myself (as a way of saying "*I* say such-and-such and
    *I* am important so all you plebians do as *I* say" or some such
    device.)  
           In transmitting data and in communicating, attributing 
    information to a source can have value.  In summary, perhaps, 
    while I understand what you are saying, from my perspective
    I have a tendency to say that you may be a bit zealous on this,
    OR, to put it more metaphysically, why are you creating people
    in your life to push your buttons this way?
    
    Frederick
    

    Re .0 (Bruce):
    
    Well, yes and no.  _If_ the argument is made on the basis that
    _because_ somebody said something apparently profound, _therefore_
    that settles it, your reflex is in place.  Appealing to "<authority>
    said it; that settles it," is highly destructive to philosophical
    development, as wittness much of what happened to science and medicine
    in the Medieval period.
    
    However, if someone brings an authority's pronouncements into as
    note as a point of discussion; that's something else entirely. 
    To take a nonesoteric example, Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree
    of Liberty must be watered from time to time by the blood of patriots."
    In a political or perhaps philosophical notes conference, that's
    a marvelous jumping-off point for some spirited discussion on a
    variety of issues.  But if that statement is uised to _end_ an argument
    (e.g., a discussion of a military venture in a conference like
    SOAPBOX), then it's intellectually questionable, at best.  
    
    In this file, "Bozo believes all space and time are but illusions"
    would be the staer of some discussions, not their end, by analogy.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Giving proper credit to another for ideas or words which one finds
    apt or insightful and true is admirable.  One is then in the position
    of taking full responsibility for weakness in the position, but can
    only take credit for recognizing, not originating the thought.  One
    has therefore placed ones ego at risk in the name of fairness and
    general knowledge.
    
    Presenting another's thoughts or words in preference for your own
    because of a lack of confidence in ones own abilities is pitiable.
    Those who feel that their thoughts or words are intrinsically
    uninteresting to others have a long road to travel in understanding
    themselves and their worth.
    
    Presenting another's thoughts or words so that one can disclaim
    responsibility for them is demeritorious.  When one presents what
    one thinks is worthwhile idea but leaves the "out" of saying "I
    didn't say it, it was X" one is preparing to be dishonest.
    
    					Topher

    The Truth doesn't care...
    		who says it.

I once said: "Let's have a party.."

























Arie
:-)

    
    RE: .0
    
    	I dont know. I dislike it when people refer to others without
    showing how they were affected by what was said. If someone wants
    to use a Bozo I would prefer if they also showed how this when applied
    affected their life or outlook.
    
    	Although Truth and Information is fantastic to share with one
    another. It is far more special and interesting when someone also
    shares the emotional effects that these words have had on them.
    
    	Personally...If someone quotes a bozo...I take what is written
    with more salt than what the person himself wrote/felt. Because
    when someone quotes words of another...there is no way that they
    can REALLY understand what was said or what was felt when those
    words were said. There is no such thing as an accurate quote.
    You can quote me on that!   
      	
      	 Craig ;-)

    I feel that I have sympathies on both sides of this one but...
    
    Over the past few months/year I've been reading a lot of Sufi material.
    The masters tend to speak from a position of 'knowledge', not of opinion.
    ie they've arrived and therefore 'know' what's what. This 'dogmatic'
    style is/was kind of hard to take for a soul such as me who has
    learnt over the years to preface everything I say by 'in my opinion'
    and other such paliatives. But I'm getting used to it. Thus my approach
    to quotes from the masters is 'Great, Thanks, I only hope that I'm
    up to getting from it anything like what was intended' Am i off
    the beam?
    
    Brian

    Re .7
    	In my opinion, I don't think you are off the beam ;*)
    
    L

    
    	I believe that most people can be very other_directed in terms
    of context. This is a tendancy to go with "the authority" as a means
    of validation of some act or idea. It's much harder to say "I believe"
    than it is to say "I agree with _______". 
    
    	Joe Jas
    

                                                
    It is hard enough to communicate in words only, especially written 
    words, because the deeper emotional meaning sometimes remains hidden.
                                                          
    I am more comfortable, when I am trying to describe a new idea or
    feeling, if I can relate it to some base that is generally known
    or accepted.                                          
                                                          
    The use of a source, if it helps to bring about more complete
    (better) communication, is then powerful.                    
                             
    The reader either knows, and can relate to the reference, or has the
    choice to go to the data and understand the reference in context.   
                                                                    
    John
                                 
                

    
    
    If you meet J
    
                E
    
                S
    
                U
    
                S  on the road...
    
    LORENZO
    

'Of course you realize that your note is a potential show stopper?
    

    Re .11 (Lorenzo):
    
    I'd say, Thank You.
    
    Actually, the title of this note comes from a book title, _If You
    Meet the Bhudda on the Road, Shoot Him_.
     
    The base note did make a point that I'm in substantial agreement,
    and which is actually secular rather than religious: "arguing" a
    point by appealing blindly to authority is intellectually spurious,
    if not sterile.  I've discussed another aspect of this in another
    Conference, but the point here is that in matters of opinion or
    of unsubstantiatable matters, it's important to keep in mind that
    your opinion ought to be yours because of what you feel or intuit
    rather than because others say so.
    
    Since your note added a religious element, let me show you by example
    what I mean.  You know I'm a Christian, so if I say, as an article
    of my faith, "I believe Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and
    my personal Savior," that's well and good.  People know where I
    stand. Whether they agree or disagree with me is clearcut.
    
    Now suppose I said, "I believe Jesus is my savior because St. Thomas
    Aquinas has written that he is, and St. Thomas Aquinas was a genius,"
    I'm compromising my beliefs by appealing to St. Thomas as an authority
    to "prove" my case.  As before, that's intellectually wimpy or worse.
    
    The same holds true in the secular areas.  If I say, for example,
    "I believe that the lost civilization of Mu existed because Churchward
    wrote that it did," it's the same sort of approach.  If I said,
    "Brother Fyodor Schlabotnik, a hermit, has been in astral communication
    with the Hidden Brothers of the White Frost, and they say ..." and
    use that as a basis of trying to _settle_ an argument, it's again
    the same sort of thing.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.  

    I don't think there is any difference in the substance from the
    great Teachers and Masters.  Yes, the form was/is different..  Wisdom
    from Bruce is still wisdom though he might shun the title of Master.
     And from time to time I get Form and Substance mixed up wanting
    to the the *right* form.
    
    Larry

    RE:13
    
    I meant that as a Joke )
    
    
    LORENZO
    

    Bruce, I wonder if there is another side to this that has to do with
    the question: Why would someone feel the need to back oneself up with
    any authority at all?  Why debate about whose authority is more right,
    rather than focus on one's own experience?
    
    Possibly because it feels safer.
    
    Many of us who write in this conference have had personal experiences
    that currently accepted scientific knowledge cannot explain.  And we
    are also cautioned from time to time that this is a public notesfile,
    and that our experiences (that we have been told by others in other
    realms of life are false, evil or ludicrous) are basically open to the
    public, and therefore we shouldn't write anything here we wouldn't want
    everyone in the world to know.  (Can you say intimidating?  Sher!)  And
    so I wonder if many of us feel inadequate and at high risk, because we
    know that our own personal experiences and our interpretations of them
    are often devalued and disbelieved by the world at large, and further
    that the world is watching us here, with unknonwn consequences.
    
    Given that context, I can well imagine that it seems safer to debate
    the merits of various authorities, getting hot under the collar about
    who's more right, even playing "My Authority Can Beat Up Your
    Authority".  I admit I like to step out with my own thoughts and my own
    story.  And I like to debate with and listen to people relating
    personal philosophies or experiences.  But I can understand why others
    might not want to do the same, and might even prefer to play MACBUYA,
    ignoring the real experience factor altogether.  I am, I admit,
    sensitive to the judgement of people whose thinking I regard highly who 
    tell me that something that has happened to me hasn't, who caution me
    that if I am too frank on a personal level I could endanger the
    conference.  I also deal with my own ghouls of fear, and see the
    foolish things I sometimes do to get through my day without being eaten
    by them.  I wouldn't gainsay anyone else the right to do likewise.
    
    Marcia

RE:  13
    
>    Actually, the title of this note comes from a book title, _If You
>    Meet the Bhudda [sic] on the Road, Shoot Him_.
     
Just a nit.  If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him, is an old
Zen saying I beleive.  It means don't get attached to the teaching.

In my experience, its really easy to get attached to various teaching
and teachers and it easy to beleive what authority figures say.
However, unless I experience it myself, it is of very little use.  


john