Eastern Thought Meets Western Technology


Author Topic: Discussion Policy  (Read 3596 times)

vinaire

  • Moderator Group
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 92
  • Liked: 40
  • "All knowledge should be consistent and coherent."
Discussion Policy
« on: August 02, 2014, 12:22:36 PM »
The Discussion Policy is available on the Subject Clearing thread, but I would like to make it more visible by putting it on a thread of its own. Here we shall take up any issues to do with the application of discussion policy.

Discussions and what needs to be avoided

The purpose of a discussion is to learn by exchanging viewpoints. One uses experience and experimentation to obtain data and then brings it to the table to be discussed.

The participants in a discussion focus on the subject and not on each other. A discussion is not a debate where one is in a contest to win argument against others. There is no need for sophistry. In a discussion there are no opponents. All participants are on the same side. On the other side may just be ignorance. In a discussion each participant
"All knowledge from all sources should be consistent and coherent." ~ Vinaire

vinaire

  • Moderator Group
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 92
  • Liked: 40
  • "All knowledge should be consistent and coherent."
Re: Discussion Policy
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2014, 10:44:21 AM »
A proper discussion is one where each participant is being an "auditor," and he is auditing the "group mind" relating to a topic.

A part of this group mind says, "I know it all."

The result of auditing out this part of the group mind would be equivalent to attaining a level above Scientology Level OT VIII.

.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 10:47:32 AM by vinaire »
"All knowledge from all sources should be consistent and coherent." ~ Vinaire

vinaire

  • Moderator Group
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 92
  • Liked: 40
  • "All knowledge should be consistent and coherent."
Re: Discussion Policy
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2014, 10:58:30 AM »
The "group mind" is most visible during a discussion. Each participant is identifying oneself with parts of that group mind.

At OT Levels, one is auditing mental objects that are common denominators of what people are identifying themselves with. Such mental objects make up the group mind. One such mental object is "I know it all."

This is a very interesting mental object.
"All knowledge from all sources should be consistent and coherent." ~ Vinaire

censored

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Liked: 10
Re: Discussion Policy
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2014, 10:57:29 PM »
I consider your discussion policy a key advancement in spirituality.  Here's my 2 cent comments if you're interested in hearing any.

1. This is useful.

However I do think this one is missing a little something, inconsistency I think godel has made very popular and trendy lately, maybe has brought too much focus on that point.  I think inconsistency can be a good thing and other important factors can break a subject or discussion.  Maybe a subject doesn't need to be both consistent and complete to be effective.  I don't know what to call the other factors that I think are more important than inconsistency, maybe a vector.  The main difference I notice is people sharing their view are usually having trouble discussing something because someone is trying to push or pull the other to look at or believe something they don't want.

2. this is so logical and important, this can't be emphasized enough imho

3. useful

4. useful

5. this one I think is not necessary personally, if someone wants someone's answer that's their prerogative, I think it's basic manners to appreciate that someone is interested in you, to give them answer in return, even if the answer is "I have no answer to that" or "I have an answer however I choose not to share it because..." or "that's something you need to go figure it out for yourself" etc.

vinaire

  • Moderator Group
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 92
  • Liked: 40
  • "All knowledge should be consistent and coherent."
Re: Discussion Policy
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2014, 06:57:06 AM »
Thank you for your comment, censored. Let me first respond to what I mean by INCONSISTENCY.

I find the following observation very interesting.

"All knowledge from all sources should be consistent and coherent." ~ Vinaire

vinaire

  • Moderator Group
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 92
  • Liked: 40
  • "All knowledge should be consistent and coherent."
Re: Discussion Policy
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2014, 07:21:06 AM »
Let's look at the first point of Discussion Policy.

"1. Defending a viewpoint instead of looking at the inconsistency generated by it."

A person who does not want to discuss some point rationally, and who is simply defending it, is fixated on some viewpoint. This is an example of a fixed attention. There is an inconsistency here.

CENSORED said, "However I do think this one is missing a little something, inconsistency I think godel has made very popular and trendy lately, maybe has brought too much focus on that point.  I think inconsistency can be a good thing and other important factors can break a subject or discussion.  Maybe a subject doesn't need to be both consistent and complete to be effective.  I don't know what to call the other factors that I think are more important than inconsistency, maybe a vector.  The main difference I notice is people sharing their view are usually having trouble discussing something because someone is trying to push or pull the other to look at or believe something they don't want."

Here we are not talking about godel type inconsistency. We are talking about something that is subjective and peculiar to a person. Why should that person refuse to discuss a point, and only defend it vehemently?

This reminds me of LRH's excellent observation about Confusion and Stable Datum.

The
"All knowledge from all sources should be consistent and coherent." ~ Vinaire

vinaire

  • Moderator Group
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 92
  • Liked: 40
  • "All knowledge should be consistent and coherent."
Re: Discussion Policy
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2014, 08:23:54 AM »
I have now revised the first point of the Discussion Policy as follows:

1. Defending a viewpoint instead of looking at the irrationality generated by it.

A person who is vehemently defending a datum instead of discussing it rationally has his attention fixed internally on some unresolved personal confusion. The datum he is defening is restraining that confusion. The person is afraid of discussing that datum because if that datum is shaken he would be overwhelmed by his internal confusion again.

Some people literally view God as a person who has created this universe. They completely ignore the inconsistency that a person has a form that occupies space, and that form and space are also things that are created as part of the universe. So, God cannot be a person and the creator of the universe. But such people, who believe that god is literally a person, would not like to discuss this inconsistency. They would simply insist that their viewpoint is right. They would reject others who think differently.

The solution would then be to somehow identify and resolve that person
"All knowledge from all sources should be consistent and coherent." ~ Vinaire

vinaire

  • Moderator Group
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 92
  • Liked: 40
  • "All knowledge should be consistent and coherent."
Re: Discussion Policy
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2014, 08:42:37 AM »
CENSORED said, "5. this one I think is not necessary personally, if someone wants someone's answer that's their prerogative, I think it's basic manners to appreciate that someone is interested in you, to give them answer in return, even if the answer is "I have no answer to that" or "I have an answer however I choose not to share it because..." or "that's something you need to go figure it out for yourself" etc."

I think that point#5 of Discussion Policy is addressing the situation when the person is insisting that you are not answering his question even when you have done your best to answer his question. He is now accusing you of not answering his question, and that is becoming unpleasant.

Here the use of the word "inconsistency" may also be interpreted in the sense of "irrationality."

.
"All knowledge from all sources should be consistent and coherent." ~ Vinaire

censored

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Liked: 10
Re: Discussion Policy
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2014, 12:17:25 AM »
on 1 i think irrationality sounds better, to me anyway, and for me that word includes inconsistency in cases where it's irrational

on 5 your example is a valid one but that description didn't convey that scenario to me

you might add a paragraph of your theory behind this

confusion and the stable datum, i never really thought about that in regards to discussion, i think discussions are more productive if someone is looking to find a better stable datum, or maybe subject their own to a test, and the opposite applies to scenarios where people are fixed on their opinion or stable datum and just trying to find others to grab onto their stable data

attention is definitely a big factor, people should be mindful of losing control of their attention, controlling emotions would probably fall under that reasoning too

also relative importance, that might be the most common scenario in discussions about spirituality which seems to be a very tender subject for most, people tend to take others opinions too seriously

vinaire

  • Moderator Group
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 92
  • Liked: 40
  • "All knowledge should be consistent and coherent."
Re: Discussion Policy
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2014, 07:24:14 AM »
Censored, the reason I was using the word "inconsistent" was that I wanted to avoid getting entangle in opinons. When one is taking about right-wrong or rational-irrational, subjective opinions can play a part. But when one is talking about consistent-inconsistent, it can be demonstrated more objectively.

I don't know if I am making sense. It is sort of like the word contrary. One may be able to see contrariness between two things more objectively before it can be decided which one is right or rational. Maybe the word should be "outpoint" but it is not known so well.

Maybe I can use the word "contrariness". What do you think about the following?

.

1. Defending a viewpoint instead of looking at the contrariness generated by it.

A person who is vehemently defending a viewpoint instead of calmly discussing it has his attention fixed internally on some unresolved personal confusion. The viewpoint he is defending is restraining that confusion. The person is afraid of discussing that viewpoint because if that viewpoint is shaken he might get overwhelmed by his internal confusion.

Some people literally view God as a person who has created this universe. They completely ignore the contrariness that a person has a form that occupies space, and that form and space are also things that are created as part of the universe. So, God cannot be a person and the creator of the universe. But such people, who believe that god is literally a person, would not like to discuss this contrariness. They would simply insist that their viewpoint is right. They would reject others who think differently.

The solution would then be to somehow identify and resolve that person
"All knowledge from all sources should be consistent and coherent." ~ Vinaire

vinaire

  • Moderator Group
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 92
  • Liked: 40
  • "All knowledge should be consistent and coherent."
Re: Discussion Policy
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2014, 07:32:37 AM »
Maybe we can the discuss the viewpoint that one is vehemently defending, instead of discussing it, by asking,

"What confusion does that viewpoint solve for you?"

or a much gentler, non-listing version of this question, such as.

"Is there some confusion that this viewpoint lays to rest?

And then discuss the answer.

.
"All knowledge from all sources should be consistent and coherent." ~ Vinaire

censored

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
  • Liked: 10
Re: Discussion Policy
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2014, 11:00:44 PM »
was away from the computer...

On 1 I'm fine with inconsistency given you include your added definition or purpose behind it

contrary kind of fits too, that word has a bit of a negative connotation, it's splitting semantic hairs really, not a big deal

processes like you mention to handle the stubborn vehemently defending a view would be very useful

that is a separate problem i've wanted to solve, how to discuss disagreements without degrading the conversation

vinaire

  • Moderator Group
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 92
  • Liked: 40
  • "All knowledge should be consistent and coherent."
Re: Discussion Policy
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2014, 05:42:21 AM »
Well, censored, you have really helped me here greatly. I am going to revert back to the word "inconsistency."

But you forced me to define "inconsistency" the way it is being used in KHTK, and for that I am grateful.

Here is the definition:

Inconsistency in KHTK

I am now looking at other points that you raised. You are definitely a great help.  (/O

.
"All knowledge from all sources should be consistent and coherent." ~ Vinaire