Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Obscure and Obtuse… Evasion and Dishonesty.
5 years ago  ::  Nov 25, 2008 - 6:57PM #1
MrBear
Posts: 426
The Baha’i writings encourage- “Let deeds not words be your adorning”.
Which may seem problematic to some when, in a virtual realm of words, there are no bodies to be performing deeds.

This thread will constitute the 6th or 7th over as many years that proposes that in the use of words there are a number of ‘deeds’ that may (or possibly must) be performed if there is to be any integrity and mutual understanding obtained from the communication.

Speaking/writing clearly, concisely and to the point/issue raised are deeds.
Standing prepared to clearly and directly answer pertinent questions and explain or substantiate your pov, assertion or allegation are also deeds.

Such has been the propensity for online Baha’is to engage in obscure and vague referances, innuendo and unsubstantiated claims or allegations, I had come to suspect that it was perhaps a deliberate policy designed to discourage those deemed to be opponents of the Faith. In recent times I had encountered such extremes of obscurity from Baha’is and refusal to clarify their pov that I abandoned attempting to communicate with them altogether.
The final straw came when in responding to vague obscurism from a Baha’i I presented a passage of multi-mixed metaphor gobbledygook…only to have the respondent claim they not only discerned my meaning but that meaning was there even if none was intended.

Faced with an environment in which clear statement could not be read but thoughts, intent and gobbledygook could be deciphered by Baha’is I gave up trying…and sat back to see how others might fare-

In ‘Logic, metaphysics & theology’ and similar threads I watch with painful familiarity as IDBC attempts (with phenomenal patience and endurance) to get a straight answer to a straight question from Baha’is.
It is a blood from stone process and even when IDBC is paying the courtesy of seeking clarification and understanding of the Baha’i posters pov the response is all to often avoidance or further obscurism.
Seeking to establish that the earth has a physical existence IDBC is obliged to contend with post after post of evasive and obscure bullshit about “Things about the Earth are known to everyone. The Earth itself is known to no one.” and “That which we call the Earth has an existence of some sort.”
It takes thousands of words before the Baha’i respondent is obliged to concede that the earth physically exists.

The real concern is that at this rate by the time Baha’is get around to doing anything with or about the earth it may well no longer exist.


When IDBC is alleged to have employed “a false definition” he seeks clarification/understanding-

'Show me a specific example in my posts. " IDBC

Response-
"check a logic text.
:"Show me where I have gone to a false defination!"
i just did...again."

IDBC points out-
“You did not show me a specific example in my posts”

No clarification is forthcoming from the Baha’i and this is the repeated set pattern of communication

It is no wonder that IDBC (after a display of profound patience)  was obliged at repeated intervals to advise the Baha’is that he was communicating with-

“You are being delibrately obstuse and evasive."

“But you still have dodged the direct question, you still have not given me a reason”

“Can you please answer a direct question ?”

And so it went…all the same complaints that I have raised with so many Baha’is over the years- evasion, avoidance, obfuscation, filibuster, failure to explain/justify or substantiate…….unethical and intellectually dishonest communication….” an insult to human dignity”

And as I read through post after post of these all too familiar objections to Baha’is offering up the obscure and the “obstuse and evasive” I realised that, commonplace as it was, it was not a ploy or device employed by Baha’is to discourage opponents….it is a discernable aspect of Baha’i communication/culture-

“It is your muddled deconstructionist logic and your derivative definations of words that leads you to see illusionary references to maps and geography.”IDBC

AMEN!

Subsequent posts will (time permitting) explore the potential origins and contributors to the Baha’i propensity for being obscure “obtuse and evasive”.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 25, 2008 - 8:04PM #2
firestorminitiative
Posts: 498
rod,
i walkd away from that thread pretty far back as having nothing of value for me.
based on what i accept as valid communication, i see a rather trong desire on both sides to "shove" definitions rather than find them.
the thread started, from my pov with an atempt to find hem...not argue about them.
going on:
:"I presented a passage of multi-mixed metaphor gobbledygook…only to have the respondent claim they not only discerned my meaning but that meaning was there even if none was intended."
ok..as i read that, i see u saying u willfullly said something meaningless, and others didn;t beleive u would do that..and so looked for meaning, and found whatever their brains told them to.
   to me, that's a dishonesty on ur part...and whatevers about strategy, or exerciser experient, whatever....nope.
   i notice idbc accuses me of deconstructionism without a very solid definitionof what deconstructionism is.
  in th specific cases where the allegation is being raised, i see myself as being partocularly constructionist....just not buying other people's piffle.
   onthe grounds that i perceive u and i having some common groud on goals...getting This Thing of His to work on the ground and not in th air, i'll be offering whatevers to this thread.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 26, 2008 - 3:14PM #3
MrBear
Posts: 426
1/ Thank you for the clear and legible post.


“i walkd away from that thread” Fire

It wasn’t about that thread (though it served as a fine recent example)….it was about an ongoing propensity for Baha’is to-
a/ Respond with vague, obscure, pseudo mystical, obtuse, veiled and often bizarre enigmas masquerading as insight.
b/ Refuse (however politely asked) to explain, justify or substantiate their pov/assertions.


“a rather trong desire on both sides to "shove" definitions” Fire

I saw nothing of the kind from IDBC. I did see him challenged on ‘definitions’ he employed with “no prior contract” to which he responded (I believe) that the “dictionary serves as prior contract”.
A GameSetMatch proposition that evoked great laughter at this end.

“ok..as i read that, i see u saying u willfullly said something meaningless, and others didn;t beleive u would do that..” Fire

What I wrote, dear Fire, was along the lines of- “Don’t burn your bridges until you have counted the silver linings on your chickens and the cows come home to roost”……not only was ‘meaning’ discerned in that gibberish but it was asserted >even when and after< the ‘gibberish’ disclaimer was made.
Now you wanna put the onus for  believing such obvious/overt meaningless stupidity back on me as “a dishonesty” on my part?
I say- Go take a flying flamingo at a rolling dreadnaught ….and trust you will find meaning in the thinly veiled reference.

“i notice idbc accuses me of deconstructionism without a very solid definitionof what deconstructionism is. “

No doubt he can (as we all do) avail himself of the ‘prior contract’…..the Dictionary.

"A strategy of critical analysis [...] directed towards exposing unquestioned metaphysical assumptions and internal contradictions in philosophical and literary language”

“A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings: "In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, 'virtual texts' constructed by readers in their search for meaning" Rebecca Goldstein.

If the cap fits… then wear it…. until the cows come home to play ball with charlie’s stick ;-)




‘Working on the ground’ (Supplemental)

“u and i having some common groud on goals...getting This Thing of His to work on the ground and not in th air, i'll be offering whatevers to this thread.” Fire

Dear Fire

Some (5-6?) years back I offered up the analogy that Baha’is coming together to ‘consult’ and/or converse was akin to asking folk to play ‘football’…Some come with soccer baggage, some rugby, some with woosy helmets and padding and a preparedness to tackle anything that moves and some come well versed in Gods Own Game- Aussie Rules
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UkGLFwuJBI4

The purpose of the analogy was to highlight that unless there is prior discussion- AMONG THE PLAYERS AND WITH CLUB ADMINISTRATION >>>>PRIOR<<<< to running onto the ground then people are inevitably going to get hurt  and suffer potential Faith paralysing or terminal injuries.
In the years that have followed on this little Bnut ground there has not even been tentative agreement among the Baha’i players as to what kinds of principles and rules should govern behaviour.
In fact, in keeping with the thread theme, the football analogy itself has become obscured to an obtuse point at which it is treated as ‘real’ and/or literal…..ie There is a field upon which people wander, maybe kick a ball, maybe pick up a stick, maybe hit someone, maybe not, it’s all good, eagles and sloths….
If and when the cry goes up- “Foul! High Tackle! Kicking in danger! Slander! Forbidden by God!”…
your response is “Have not agreed it is a ball”..... and God alone knows what that means.

As best I can work out after all this time your pov is encapsulated by Eagles eat sloth’s, lions eat bison’s,  people do what people do, it’s all good, it’s just random stuff that happens on a field somewhere…

As far as I can ascertain your pov in relation to making “This Thing of His to work on [this virtual] ground” is reflected by the commentator in the Youtube link-
“When men in white [Umpires] would turn a blind eye as natural justice was dispensed” ……

Let the eagles eat the sloth’s. it’s all good.

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" A Crowley.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 26, 2008 - 9:11PM #4
firestorminitiative
Posts: 498
rod,
keyboarding will alays be a function of eyes and hands nd in situ...
dictionary servs as prior contract is anoher attempt at force.
no.
there was no such agreement.
specificalllly, aain due to bnut oddities, becuase the thread started elsewhere, was jerked into its own uncontexted thing.
when discussing what aristotle meant by metaphysics, offering what smebody 2300 years later thought was meant by what othr people aid about what they got from aristotle is not relevant.
  a specific, language based, non-"interpretive" definition was offered and rejected.
i would say that this is becuase fundamentally, th questions canot really be properly framed...and we deal with that and go on.
  idbc offered definitions that are logical fallacy. if b comes from a,
the a is not b. ex-istence comes from essence.
  he can quote all th deconstructionist situationallly piffled grbage h wants, and call me deconstructionist for insisting on strict construction...
  and...there it is.
  no game set and match.
   :"hat I wrote, dear Fire, was a" thank you for clarifying.
as i read it, i vaguely recall th incident.
   :"Now you wanna put the onus for believing"
no. i do wish to see some clarity. not verbal obfuscation and fine speeches.
  :"about any text subvert their own meanings: "
uhuh...
   and very clerly and early inthe "on grammatology" derrida points to the fact that there is a diminshing return to deconstruction. this is overlooked by his critics who then fault him for the unlimited referencs they create.
   i am, in that spere, a post deconstructionist.

:"virtual texts' constructed by readers in their search for meaning""
i could offer 1600 or so "protestant denominations" in th usa as eavourly concrete evidence for that fact...but it should be self-evident.
  the deconstructionist says get over it. the pseudo-fundie libs that have assaulted u at various times, and me, randomly, cling to their personal interpretation as th "one true way"..while deriding other one true ways...
  that gos back to a long ago discssion about that lib/fundie spectrum from that brit guy i used to attacks and have compc scream at me about.
:"akin to asking folk to play ‘football’"
uhuh...and after some time, whlst u and i werre tryin t get somthing done,
i offered the idea that...no..thing are not nearly that far along...
no where near.
  what is known is that there is a field. and maybe a ball, maybe a stick (becuase cricket, lacrosse baseball and batball, stickball and 500 need be incuded in what might be "play" and there is no yet any real ommon groud about that much.
   becuase so much has tio be thrown away. cultural bagage.
:"it’s all good, it’s just random stuff "
yeah.. but not.
She Who made the grass and sun sees them served.
in the original the queston was : which is cuter, the eyas (baby eagle) or the sloth. and the answer was, "this is why sloths shouldn't reach for the last leaf." a logical inconsitency...as is much of life.
  but yeah...in the lion king, why ar the antelope so happy to know the name of the lion that will be eating them later?? th answer is, when the antelope does not serve the grass well, the lion does. and so the herd is strong, and thre will be lions to preserve the grass then as well, so the grass can serve the sun.
    to any individual antelope, it may suck to be voted "most likely to take one for the team." ok.
crowley was a putz.
he's clipping another line..as long as u do no harm, do what u will.
   the Mater says the root cuase of all wrong doing is ignorance.
which suggests to me that if people knew they were screwing up, and knew they were terfore doing harm, much of it would stop.
   so...can we define the harm?
   i jut got thru wqith some time with a lovelylovely lady of my actual life's circle.  a pal...in the proper sense of the word...we hadn;t beem face to face for a year. swhn we met she looked at my face. saw random things, saw one thing or another and said...are u okay? and i laffed. and said no.
ad told her. it's all good. it's allll goood. know that. if i go down dying over what's going on now...it's all good. and she saw the fire, and smiled and said..ur ok then.
   now mayyybe, aybe if we get the phleap over ourselves, a gneration or 2 out sombody will walk that field and say, that's a ball..wanna play? and somebody else will say, sure...i wanna play catch..and be told, ok, klet's stqrt with that, and then maybe some other people will come along, and have other ideas.
  over at pB a month or 2 ago i stated, for th record...life >>>is<<< consyltation. all of it. stop lights, enlish common law, the u.n., slime mold...all just a consultative process going on.
   and after only 3.82 billion years, th human race is beginnin to think it can do it as well as a slime mold...making us far lower than them...but do it over the entire planet, not over a square cm...making us potentially hgher than the angels.
   and in that dialectic tension, we dance.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 26, 2008 - 9:11PM #5
firestorminitiative
Posts: 498
rod,
keyboarding will alays be a function of eyes and hands nd in situ...
dictionary servs as prior contract is anoher attempt at force.
no.
there was no such agreement.
specificalllly, aain due to bnut oddities, becuase the thread started elsewhere, was jerked into its own uncontexted thing.
when discussing what aristotle meant by metaphysics, offering what smebody 2300 years later thought was meant by what othr people aid about what they got from aristotle is not relevant.
  a specific, language based, non-"interpretive" definition was offered and rejected.
i would say that this is becuase fundamentally, th questions canot really be properly framed...and we deal with that and go on.
  idbc offered definitions that are logical fallacy. if b comes from a,
the a is not b. ex-istence comes from essence.
  he can quote all th deconstructionist situationallly piffled grbage h wants, and call me deconstructionist for insisting on strict construction...
  and...there it is.
  no game set and match.
   :"hat I wrote, dear Fire, was a" thank you for clarifying.
as i read it, i vaguely recall th incident.
   :"Now you wanna put the onus for believing"
no. i do wish to see some clarity. not verbal obfuscation and fine speeches.
  :"about any text subvert their own meanings: "
uhuh...
   and very clerly and early inthe "on grammatology" derrida points to the fact that there is a diminshing return to deconstruction. this is overlooked by his critics who then fault him for the unlimited referencs they create.
   i am, in that spere, a post deconstructionist.

:"virtual texts' constructed by readers in their search for meaning""
i could offer 1600 or so "protestant denominations" in th usa as eavourly concrete evidence for that fact...but it should be self-evident.
  the deconstructionist says get over it. the pseudo-fundie libs that have assaulted u at various times, and me, randomly, cling to their personal interpretation as th "one true way"..while deriding other one true ways...
  that gos back to a long ago discssion about that lib/fundie spectrum from that brit guy i used to attacks and have compc scream at me about.
:"akin to asking folk to play ‘football’"
uhuh...and after some time, whlst u and i werre tryin t get somthing done,
i offered the idea that...no..thing are not nearly that far along...
no where near.
  what is known is that there is a field. and maybe a ball, maybe a stick (becuase cricket, lacrosse baseball and batball, stickball and 500 need be incuded in what might be "play" and there is no yet any real ommon groud about that much.
   becuase so much has tio be thrown away. cultural bagage.
:"it’s all good, it’s just random stuff "
yeah.. but not.
She Who made the grass and sun sees them served.
in the original the queston was : which is cuter, the eyas (baby eagle) or the sloth. and the answer was, "this is why sloths shouldn't reach for the last leaf." a logical inconsitency...as is much of life.
  but yeah...in the lion king, why ar the antelope so happy to know the name of the lion that will be eating them later?? th answer is, when the antelope does not serve the grass well, the lion does. and so the herd is strong, and thre will be lions to preserve the grass then as well, so the grass can serve the sun.
    to any individual antelope, it may suck to be voted "most likely to take one for the team." ok.
crowley was a putz.
he's clipping another line..as long as u do no harm, do what u will.
   the Mater says the root cuase of all wrong doing is ignorance.
which suggests to me that if people knew they were screwing up, and knew they were terfore doing harm, much of it would stop.
   so...can we define the harm?
   i jut got thru wqith some time with a lovelylovely lady of my actual life's circle.  a pal...in the proper sense of the word...we hadn;t beem face to face for a year. swhn we met she looked at my face. saw random things, saw one thing or another and said...are u okay? and i laffed. and said no.
ad told her. it's all good. it's allll goood. know that. if i go down dying over what's going on now...it's all good. and she saw the fire, and smiled and said..ur ok then.
   now mayyybe, aybe if we get the phleap over ourselves, a gneration or 2 out sombody will walk that field and say, that's a ball..wanna play? and somebody else will say, sure...i wanna play catch..and be told, ok, klet's stqrt with that, and then maybe some other people will come along, and have other ideas.
  over at pB a month or 2 ago i stated, for th record...life >>>is<<< consyltation. all of it. stop lights, enlish common law, the u.n., slime mold...all just a consultative process going on.
   and after only 3.82 billion years, th human race is beginnin to think it can do it as well as a slime mold...making us far lower than them...but do it over the entire planet, not over a square cm...making us potentially hgher than the angels.
   and in that dialectic tension, we dance.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2008 - 8:01AM #6
compx2
Posts: 426
Hi MrBear.

You quote me as extensively as anything you have ever quoted in the new Beliefnet forum, but avoid what I am saying studiously.

If you would like to talk about the good deeds that people perform that would be a good thread to start.  Please do.  On the other hand if you think people are performing bad deeds around here  I submit that your quotes to that effect are out of context and misleading.  Whether that is deliberate or not is not something I can judge, but if so it would also be hypocritical, especially in this thread.

So if you are talking about my inability to answer a direct question about the existence of angels I am going to stand with my original response, and let the record speak for itself, your frustration notwithstanding.

I believe the meaning of the idea of an angel is more important than the dictionary definition.  And that if I have to answer the direct question that is in effect a straw-man argument (that if I believe in angels I am a silly fool) then we will never communicate meaningfully on this subject.

I am looking for meaningful communication, MrBear.


--Kent
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2008 - 9:43AM #7
MrBear
Posts: 426
“You quote me as extensively as anything you have ever quoted in the new Beliefnet forum, but avoid what I am saying studiously.” Kent

Nope….I studiously examined and addressed the ‘Obscure and Obtuse’ crud I saw in response to the question of the earth existing-
“Things about the Earth are known to everyone. The Earth itself is known to no one.” and “That which we call the Earth has an existence of some sort.”


“If you would like to talk about the good deeds that people perform that would be a good thread to start. Please do”. Kent

It would please me to point out that when someone proposes that the earth exists a good responding deed would be the direct intelligent honesty to say- “Yes it does, clearly and demonstrably, we’re standing on it”…..
Rather than post after post of evasive obscure tripe about “the Earth has an existence of some sort”.


“On the other hand if you think people are performing bad deeds around here I submit that your quotes to that effect are out of context and misleading.” Kent

Your ‘submition” would require evidence/substantiation. The context was provided- Does the earth exist?- “That which we call the Earth has an existence of some sort.”

Would it be “misleading” to say that the earth has the “sort of existence” that you can stand on and verify?

“So if you are talking about my inability to answer a direct question about the existence of angels I am going to stand with my original response,…” Kent

Ok Kent…..Do you see any mention of “the existence of angels” in my original or subsequent posts?
Can you determine if such mention of “the existence of angels” exists in my posts?
Would you care to speculate that the question of “the existence of angels” has “some sort of existence” in my posts?

Or would you care to concede that you cannot read and aren’t certain your on earth?

“I believe the meaning of the idea of an angel is more important than the dictionary definition.” Kent

Good for you Kent…I’m so glad you raised it because clearly from my prior posts the existence of angels was a central and primary concern.


“ And that if I have to answer the direct question that is in effect a straw-man argument (that if I believe in angels I am a silly fool) then we will never communicate meaningfully on this subject.” Kent

Ahhhh…..So wise so true Kent…..” we will never communicate meaningfully on this subject” if I continue to oblige you “to answer the direct question that is in effect a straw-man argument (that if I believe in angels I am a silly fool)”
Yes indeed…..I see where you are coming from Kent….and I do indeed apologise for raising (so frequently in an existence of some sort) the issue of angels and badgering you with my straw man to make you look a silly fool.


“I am looking for meaningful communication, MrBear.” Kent

Hmmmmmmmmmm……………..me too.

………………………………………………………………………………………

















Does anybody know what the name of this thread is?

I seem to be encountering an unstable interface  and temporal shift of some sort.

Spock?...........Sulu?...........Oh…..Scotty you angel!.......Beam me up Scotty!
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2008 - 9:56AM #8
compx2
Posts: 426
Hi MrBear.

I doubt your calling what I write "crud" will last long here, so let me just quote ''Abdu'l-Baha saying what I believe is essentially the same thing.  You should probably re-write your post without the insults.

"Know that there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of the essence of a thing, and the knowledge of its qualities. The essence of a thing is known through its qualities, otherwise it is unknown and hidden."

    (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 321)
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2008 - 3:53PM #9
MrBear
Posts: 426
What you write is “essentially the same thing” as what Abdul Baha wrote?
And therefore to question or chalange you is to question or challenge Abdul Baha?

Calling what you wrote-“crud” legitimately evokes your post header- “Abdul Baha’s crud”?....
       >>>>>>AS IF<<<<<<<< they are one in the same?

Hutzpah  ; (Yiddish) unbelievable gall; insolence; audacity.


"Know that there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of the essence of a thing, and the knowledge of its qualities. The essence of a thing is known through its qualities, otherwise it is unknown and hidden." Abdu'l-Baha

The problem, Little Master, is that no one was asking you or talking about “the essence of a thing” (Earth) but rather “knowledge of its qualities”……ie Does it exist? Does it have the quality of existing?
Your ‘crud’ was to incessantly fob off simple straightforward questions re ‘existence’ with obscure and obtuse “essence of a thing” answers.

Nobody was asking you what the essence or true nature of the earth is, nobody was asking you if anyone could know all there was to know about the earth. All that was being asked was- does the earth have the quality of existing.

Your obscure and obtuse evasions of a simple straightforward question have nothing to do with Abdul Baha.

To return to the thread issue-
#1
“The Baha’i writings encourage- “Let deeds not words be your adorning”.

Speaking/writing clearly, concisely and to the point/issue raised are deeds.
Standing prepared to clearly and directly answer pertinent questions and explain or substantiate your pov, assertion or allegation are also deeds.”

Thank you for demonstrating your un-preparedness “to clearly and directly answer pertinent questions”-
From #6
“Ok Kent…..Do you see any mention of “the existence of angels” in my original or subsequent posts?
Can you determine if such mention of “the existence of angels” exists in my posts?
Would you care to speculate that the question of “the existence of angels” has “some sort of existence” in my posts?”


'Evasion' resides in your longstanding refusal 'to clearly and directly answer pertinent questions'
'Deception' resides in convoluting your evasive crud as being "essentialy the same" as what Abdul Baha wrote.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2008 - 9:07PM #10
compx2
Posts: 426
From IBDC's latest detailed message:

IBDC:
-------------------------------
Yes I am saying that if "you' didn't exist then "you" couldn't know anything.

Do you disagree? Would you assert that if "you" didn't exist you can know ?
-------------------------------

MrBear: "The problem, Little Master, is that no one was asking you or talking about “the essence of a thing” (Earth) but rather “knowledge of its qualities”……ie Does it exist? Does it have the quality of existing?"

We were talking about the relationship of knowledge to existence.

--Kent
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook