Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00590)

On Sun, 19 Jan 97, Richard Ihle wrote:

>Jerry Schueler wrote-->
>It suggests that women are more compassionate than men.  You are >apparently neglecting all of the compassionate men in the world.  
>
>Tom Robertson writes--> 
>I am?  This is illogical.
>
>Richard Ihle writes-->
>Here, Tom, is a good example of why Mindfulness is better than "truth."

What does the saying that "there is no religion higher than truth" mean to
you?


>On the one hand, there is Jerry Schueler who has spent a lifetime in arcane
>and other studies.  He has written many books on magic; however, one can
>almost be certain that he has not put everything he knows into them.
> Undoubtedly, he is holding back at least a few of his best secrets--most
>likely the really powerful ones which involve techniques and practical
>applications.

I neither knew about any of this nor do I see its relevance.


>On the other hand, you come right out and tell him that his thinking is
>"illogical."

In this case, it was.  I made a generalization about men and women.
Included in the definition of a generalization is that it has exceptions.
He wrongly understood my statement to either mean that I believe that the
least compassionate woman is more compassionate than the most compassionate
man, or perhaps, even further from what I meant, that no man has any
compassion.  By no stretch of the imagination, with anything close to the
common, standard understanding in the English language of the words I used
was I "neglecting all of the compassionate men in the world."

But by no means was I saying that his thinking is generally illogical.  I
take your word for it that he knows as much about magic as you say he does,
but I doubt he could know that much about magic, or, more generally,
whether anyone can know very much about anything, without being logical. 


>Now let me ask you:  who is Jerry more likely to sooner or later share his
>ultimate secrets with?  You who always has to be so "truthful" and
>alpha-male, or me who is so Mindful of this future possiblity for scraps that
>a talking dog under the dinner table could not outdo me in charming >manner of elocution?

You are implying that a relationship in which the truth should not be
spoken is better than one in which it can be.  If Jerry would not tell me
other things he knows that I don't know just because I pointed out how he
was illogical in one case, I would consider him to be responsible for that.
I would rather be able to speak the truth and not learn what anyone has to
say than to have to sell out the truth and charm people into telling me
things.  If correctly using logic is "alpha-male," then being "alpha-male"
is good.