I keep hearing this but nobody seems able to come up with examples which would show that this is a significant tendency in ET. Could you give some actual examples of this "intolerance" - apart from Jerome's discouragement of discussion of astrology? :-) I'm sure you won't think such a request is "brutal", "trashing", etc. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Questioning a person's perceptions or asking for them to explain or justify their perception is different from asking someone to justify a conclusion that is based on a process that clearly involves a separation between subject and object. It can seem that the appropriateness of the emotional response or of the perception itself is being questioned. This type of questioning can be helpful or can be used to simply stop discussion of a given subject, but, regardless, it requires considerable effort to respond. This is in part due to the question being posed from a frame of reference different from that in which the discourse was being conducted. A truly forthcoming answer requires one to develop a translation between reference frames where one frame may contain dimensions not found in the other. This is a worthy goal, but enduring work can still be done in different areas that have not been tied together into a unified whole, such as has been the case in the 20th century with thermodynamics electrodynamics in physics.
When such questioning comes to be the expected response any time certain subjects are discussed, as with Chris Cook, who anticipates "obligatory fisticuffs with HiD" any time a discussion of possible commodity market manipulation arises, one may wonder whether the discussion is a quest for truth and understanding or is, instead, a struggle over the perceived limits and nature of the bounds of reality. I think R.D. Laing might have referred to this as "the politics of reality."
Another approach might be to grant the authenticity of the perceptions of others, at least provisionally, especially when many individuals have similar perceptions. I would estimate that there may be at least eight or ten people who regularly post comments and/or diaries who, at least for some of their perceptions, operate from a frame of reference different from that of the physical sciences. Is it not a bit Procrustian to expect them to spend half of their efforts in those discussions responding to questions arising from a different frame of reference? As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
this ('overlooking' repressive power inequalities being a subset of these inequalities) is a subject worth exploring closer, especially how it operates (both as top- and underdog) in our own experience in our own lives
Reason is, that when combined with
degrees to which repressive power inequalities inflict suffering are closely tied to levels of consciousness.
these level develop, as indicated by developmental psychology. On http://www.kheper.net/integral/psychology.html there's an interesting story on this
there's much to say about this, but I don't want to elaborate now, also since much has been written on the subject already
Questioning a person's perceptions or asking for them to explain or justify their perception is different from asking someone to justify a conclusion that is based on a process that clearly involves a separation between subject and object. It can seem that the appropriateness of the emotional response or of the perception itself is being questioned.
Yes, but the key point is that nobody even questioned Helen's "perception" nor her emotional response, let alone "bullied" her, etc., despite her claim that they did.
So this point, which I have myself endorsed, is also irrelevant:
Another approach might be to grant the authenticity of the perceptions of others, at least provisionally, especially when many individuals have similar perceptions.
Yet again we don't have any actual examples of the alleged "intolerance" in ET. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
You frequently insist on pushing your view too forcefully in the name of 'robust' debate. Not everybody wants to engage in argument or debates on the same terms that you do. Please try to recognise that. Ad astra per aspera
If Helen (or anybody else) feels bullied or intimidated by the way the discussion unfolded, can you not entertain the thought that maybe sometimes you should step back even if you cannot quite understand the point of view?
Not when she begins the personal attacks - about a comment on Crazy Horse's comment, not on her diary as such, travesties even reasonable requests, to someone else, for some evidence, as "brutal", "trashing", "interrogation", etc. If anyone was adopting a bullying tone it was her and in fact afew suggested to her that it had gone far enough. Nor do I find her claim that she feels bullied plausible when I see that she attempts to play the victim with others - cf. afew saying recently that she was "laying out a false grievance" - as she clearly was.
You frequently insist on pushing your view too forcefully in the name of 'robust' debate. Not everybody wants to engage in argument or debates on the same terms that you do. Please try to recognise that.
"pushing" is a loaded term and "too forcefully" is a matter of opinion - any examples? I don't think my comments are any more "forceful" than those of many people here - we are adults. Helen herself said she could be "robust" in her own defence in reply to afew's suggestion that it had gone far enough. Nobody is obliged to engage in arguments or debates with me, but if they do I will try to present my arguments as well as I can - I don't consider that "pushing" and I don't usally do it so "forcefully" that I use terms like "brutal" etc. if others merely ask me for some evidence to support my claims. I just try to supply the requested evidence. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
afew suggested to her that it had gone far enough
What I said at that point concerned the exchange between you, not Helen alone. It was obviously heading for the wall, and I wanted to try to calm it down without pulling out the front-pager hat (because that drives otherwise reasonable people mad).
we don't have any actual examples of the alleged "intolerance" in ET.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. keep to the Fen Causeway
(i also wonder whether a blog can be said to have a 'tendency' per se - it's like saying artists tend to be leftwing; some do, some do not, generalizing doesn't have that much relevance*, I guess; if there is intolerance or insensibility, it's of this and that person)
*except if this blog actually has a "line" - established by its owners/moderators - that I'm not aware of... Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
