What is an argument?

[tsuki]

What is the difference between arguing and sharing?

[tsuki]

1 minute ago, Outer said:

If we have a pie we can share half each

What if truth is a pie and you both have a piece of it?

[Rilles]

But the problem is that we as egos have shields we put up. No matter if you argue until the cows come home some people wont accept it, not because youre right or wrong, its just how certain people work. I prefer to just put things out there and if they grasp it they grasp it, otherwise it will take care it of itself.

[Erlend K]

The words argue/argument can be confusing because they are used in two very different contexts. On one hand, arguing can be a form of verbal fight/competition where you try to beat the competitor by making your views appear supperior to his. On the other hand arguing can mean explaining why you believe some idea to be true/plausible or not.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Erlend K

[Dino D]

An argument is a thought (1) that suports or denies another thought (2) from the point of view of another thought (3).

Edited May 18, 2018 by Dino D
wrong grammar

[tsuki]

7 minutes ago, Outer said:

What I mean is you've figured something out that you know will be useful, you spread it because you think you're speaking the truth. 

What is the difference between physical/useful truth and spiritual truth?

It's like saying that your piece of a pie is better because it has a strawberry.
My piece of pie is invalid as it contains chocolate that can be bitter and everybody knows that cakes cannot be bitter.
We should use your cake instead as it is clearly superior.
The more people use your cake, the more your cake is valid.

Edited May 18, 2018 by tsuki

[tsuki]

25 minutes ago, tsuki said:

What is the difference between arguing and sharing?

Argument is when you are sharing something with somebody else for their own good.
Sharing is arguing with yourself about whether you're right or wrong and need to see how other people react.

[Dino D]

21 minutes ago, tsuki said:

What is the difference between arguing and sharing?

If An argument is a thought (1) that suports or denies another thought (2) from the point of view of another thought (3) then arguing is a trying to destroy or anulliete some statment/thought(4)... When an argument is suporting another tought (2) it is meant in the context that this thought (2) is opposed to some other thought(statement) (4)... Sharing has no enemies, there is no debate and no ,,fighting" between two opposed thoughts, almost like there is no other side to defeat... Its just sharing... showing... there is no true and fals, there is that, and that and I show you without claiming that something else is NOT because that what I share IS...

[Dogsbestfriend]

I believe it's an argument when the information is not being conveyed with compassion and openness - also the need to determine a 'winner' or who's superior is saturates the message - sometimes a sort of passive way of arguing. And with being open also means that you can consider yourself to be wrong sometimes. Can't recall a single time I've seen anyone admit they thought they were 'wrong' here, then again that's hard when you are dealing with so many abstract or intangible things. I know I come here because I still believe I have so much to learn. 

I second that epic signature:

'INSTEAD OF COMMUNICATING WITH PEOPLE AS IF THEY POSSESSED INTELLIGENCE, TRY USING ABSTRACT SPIRITUAL TERMS THAT CONVEY NO USABLE INFORMATION.'

 

[tsuki]

Just now, Dogsbestfriend said:

also the need to determine a 'winner' or who's superior is saturates the message

How do you distinguish between saturation of the message and your interpretation of it that is dependent on your own ego doing its own thing?
It is entirely possible to misinterpret two people sharing with each other and see it as an argument.
To say that two people argue is to introduce the argument between them.
To argue whether they argue or not.

[Dino D]

10 minutes ago, Dogsbestfriend said:

I believe it's an argument when the information is not being conveyed with compassion and openness - also the need to determine a 'winner' or who's superior is saturates the message - sometimes a sort of passive way of arguing. And with being open also means that you can consider yourself to be wrong sometimes. Can't recall a single time I've seen anyone admit they thought they were 'wrong' here, then again that's hard when you are dealing with so many abstract or intangible things. I know I come here because I still believe I have so much to learn. 

I second that epic signature:

'INSTEAD OF COMMUNICATING WITH PEOPLE AS IF THEY POSSESSED INTELLIGENCE, TRY USING ABSTRACT SPIRITUAL TERMS THAT CONVEY NO USABLE INFORMATION.'

 

what a great signature I said that I was wrong a few times here and everywhere and it was not easy, and almost no one does it...

if U are intilligent you can always find an arugment for your claim, and protect your ego that is identified with your opinion(thoughts), so you can always be right, from your point of view... One thing that I can observe there, that could explain this is the mehanics of the duality of things... every coin has two sides, and you can never ever protect (argue) only on one side, or you can always choose an argument for onother side ans seam right:

Example: you have to eat because you need nutrition and energy / you need to fast to cleanse toxins and use your spiritual energy 2. you have to get married and have kids / getting married is bad for you, you should be free and develop 3. Paint your house in white color so it will be more cold during the summer / Paint your house in black color so it will be more warm in winter 4. Gett a tattoo to look cool and express yourself / dont gett a a tattoo to stay as you were born, and so the duality of things is everpresent in arguing and staying right and finding arguments to supporting your opinions...

Edited May 18, 2018 by Dino D
wrong word

[tsuki]

@Outer Do lying imply malicious intent so that it requires 'calling out'?
Even if somebody speaks invalid useful truth intentionally, they do that because of their own spiritual truth.
There are people out there that ask questions to make people reflect on themselves.

[tsuki]

12 minutes ago, Dogsbestfriend said:

'INSTEAD OF COMMUNICATING WITH PEOPLE AS IF THEY POSSESSED INTELLIGENCE, TRY USING ABSTRACT SPIRITUAL TERMS THAT CONVEY NO USABLE INFORMATION.

The use of abstract spiritual terms lies first and foremost in their ability to make you look into yourself to find their meaning.
Whatever you read from abstract spiritual terms is your projection upon them. They are a mirror.

[Dogsbestfriend]

14 minutes ago, tsuki said:

How do you distinguish between saturation of the message and your interpretation of it that is dependent on your own ego doing its own thing?
It is entirely possible to misinterpret two people sharing with each other and see it as an argument.
To say that two people argue is to introduce the argument between them.
To argue whether they argue or not.

And yet somethings are obvious.

[tsuki]

@Outer So - it is a matter of consensus to establish usability of a 'physical' truth.
A person that does not follow the consensus is then ostracized to the point of exclusion and the consensus upholds itself indefinitely.
Looks like science, doesn't it? How do you invalidate paradigms in this environment where everybody looks at everybody else?

Society is a balanced ecosystem that incorporates outcasts.
Do not outcast the outcasts.

[tsuki]

10 minutes ago, Dogsbestfriend said:

And yet somethings are obvious.

All things are obvious as long as you're not looking hard enough. Even obviousness is obvious.
Have you ever asked yourself what it means for something to be obvious?

That thing runs deep into the root cause of arguments and Ego.

Edited May 18, 2018 by tsuki

[tsuki]

4 minutes ago, Outer said:

If you fuck around in a Zen temple you get kicked out.

Am I fucking around? Are you fucking around by not seeing me fucking around?
Have you ever read any Zen koans? Zen masters are the ones that fuck around the most.

Zen monastery is a place of seclusion of outcasts. It's a black hole of society.
They outcast the so-called 'normal' people that may see through them.

[tsuki]

1 minute ago, Outer said:

Bro, if you don't follow the rules of the Zen monastery you get kicked out.

That's how they fuck with you.
They teach you where following the rules of society will lead you if you try to consistently follow them.
They will have all sorts of absurd rules for you to follow and expect you to show them your true self while doing it.
That is the point of zen. It's a joke you make of yourself while trying to become enlightened.

Is actualized.org a zen monastery?
What are the useful truths of a zen monastery?

[Dogsbestfriend]

18 minutes ago, tsuki said:

All things are obvious as long as you're not looking hard enough. Even obviousness is obvious.
Have you ever asked yourself what it means for something to be obvious?

That thing runs deep into the root cause of arguments and Ego.

What did you think I meant by that statement? Did you look hard enough?

[tsuki]

Just now, Dogsbestfriend said:

What did you think I meant by that statement? Did you look hard enough?

Bingo.