Warning To Members Here

[Jirh]

12 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What I am talking about is the inverse of idealism.  A lot of problems can be solved by talking to someone face-to-face.  Developing a real relationship with them.  

I don't think you understand relationships.

We have limited resources, namely time and energy in the context of relationships. We can't go around making friends and relationships with everyone. We gotta have some priorities and hierarchies for who gets to be close and who doesn't get recognized at all. Let alone famous people like Leo, I'm mostly talking from the regular person's pov. Anyone who's living a full life is too abundant to be seeking relationships online then turn them into real-world relationships. A full life includes real social circle, spiritual connection, hobbies, a regular job, and occasional vacations.

[Joseph Maynor]

10 hours ago, Jirh said:

I don't think you understand relationships.

We have limited resources, namely time and energy in the context of relationships. We can't go around making friends and relationships with everyone. We gotta have some priorities and hierarchies for who gets to be close and who doesn't get recognized at all. Let alone famous people like Leo, I'm mostly talking from the regular person's pov. Anyone who's living a full life is too abundant to be seeking relationships online then turn them into real-world relationships. A full life includes real social circle, spiritual connection, hobbies, a regular job, and occasional vacations.

Your point taken.  Thanks.

[Joseph Maynor]

 

[UnbornTao]

22 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This effect is well documented in other domains that do not even involve "consumption" ie reading a book on epistemology, or watching a video on YouTube. The effect of having viewed something is often conflated with having understood that thing.

Speaking about plans and projects has a similar onflow effect, although in a different domain. The act of speaking about the topic, plan, or concept makes us feel we are 1) making progress toward the thing and 2) increases our own perceived understanding of the topic/plan/concept. There is also an element of fluency heuristics we use where familiar information feels easier to process - and then we mistake fluency with mastery.

It is usually not until we are questioned critically, or we critically inspect the "how, who, what, why?" of the thing that we see the holes, assumptions, inferences and logic/fallacies behind our understanding of the thing. In particular hidden assumptions - assumptions in general - are ways to strengthen an argument. They band-aid over weak points. Anyway, I digress a bit there... 

Definitely. It's a critical distinción to make. It could be boiled down to, at the risk of oversimplifying it, 'theory' vs 'practice.'

'The map is not the territory' - again, we hear this and in our minds we think we know what it is, but then there's what happens in actuality, which is usually different and inconsistent with our conception of things.

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Can you at least acknowledge that he gave bad practical life advice.

There is saying non-dual things in response to asking for life advice, and then there is actually giving bad life advice.

If he did give non-dual responses when people were asking for life advice (and I think he did that), yes, I think that can be annoying.

What is even more annoying though is having a real life practical back and forth with a person and then they suddenly jump to non-duality for some reason, or they try to delegitimize your argumentation by using non-duality.

I believe Nahm was benevolent in this way, in that he didn't use it as some defense mechanism or escape hatch in an argument. He just genuinely from the get-go reminded you of the non-dual perspective and left it at that. And it's not like he pestered you with it constantly in a thread, was my impression. He would usually leave a comment, short, sweet, and that would be it unless someone engaged.

The way things are done is sometimes just as or more important than what exactly is done.

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Joseph Maynor]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

There is saying non-dual things in response to asking for life advice, and then there is actually giving bad life advice.

If he did give non-dual responses when people were asking for life advice (and I think he did that), yes, I think that can be annoying.

What is even more annoying though is having a real life practical back and forth with a person and then they suddenly jump to non-duality for some reason, or they try to delegitimize your argumentation by using non-duality.

I believe Nahm was benevolent in this way, in that he didn't use it as some defense mechanism or escape hatch in an argument. He just genuinely from the get-go reminded you of the non-dual perspective and left it at that. And it's not like he pestered you with it constantly in a thread, was my impression. He would usually leave a comment, short, sweet, and that would be it unless someone engaged.

The way things are done is sometimes just as or more important than what exactly is done.

I was on his forum for 4 years.  I got to know him quite well.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I was on his forum for 4 years.  I got to know him quite well.

And what's your position on the issue?

[Joseph Maynor]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

And what's your position on the issue?

He helped me on my path.  That I can say.