Theos-Talk Archives (May 1997 Message tl00432)

At 05:22 PM 5/26/97 -0400, K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>Since 7 of 12 posts this digest are from Bart, I have used a
>person's name in the header despite netiquette.  My post
>will respond to some arguments, but more than that to the whole
>tone and technique of argumentation.
>
>I gave a five paragraph response to a single question posed by
>Bart yesterday about karmic consequences.  My goal was to try
>to explain my perspective; Bart's goal seems to be to "win" by
>harassing his "adversaries" with questions or accusations putting them on the
>defensive.
>
>e.g. to Jaqi--
>> 	How do you understand a Lodge to be defined?
>
>What difference does this make?  If he answers, won't you find
>some petty point to argue about, again putting him on the
>defensive?
>
>to JRC--
>> who might benefit from it as possible. I guess you want it kept to a
>> very select few.
>
>How in the world can that be deduced from his comment?
>
>to Doss--
>> look at any one issue as a litmus test. For example, would you say that
>> if someone is not a member of the E.S., then they are not a good
>> Theosophist?
>
>Huh?
>>
>> 	And, from your comments, I must assume that you think I am currently
>> living in an area where eastern traditions are the ones that are
>> practiced?
>
>What?  He's obviously suggesting that westerners have something
>to learn from easterners in this regard.
>
>to me:
>>
>> 	How would you define "money"? Given your definition, how is it possible
>> to love money?
>
>I won't try to define money for you, Bart, nor explain how it is
>possible to love money.  This question feels like harassment
>coming from a win/lose perspective rather than an honest
>approach to dialogue.
>>
>> 	The "slippery slope" analogy is not a valid logical construct.
>
>What in the world does this mean?  How can any analogy be a
>"valid logical construct"?
>
>The technique that I allowed myself to be harassed with for far
>too long by someone else on this list is this:
>1. Take the position that others have to explain themselves to
>you, but that you don't owe them an explanation of anything.
>2. Get them to invest time and energy in trying to
>explain their point of view.
>3. Then pick whatever points of their explanation
>you want to challenge, ignore the rest, and further demand that
>they explain those.
>4. Maintain the position that they must defend and explain
>themselves, and see how long you can get them to play that game.
>If you can get them to expend great amounts of time and energy
>explaining and defending their point of view, and all you have
>to do is demand further explanations and defenses, you "win."
>
>Having been dragged into this game, like a complete idiot, over
>and over by many people on the Internet, I have at last come to
>recognize it, and say "Hell no, I won't go."
>

Dear Paul:

I think this whole question of charging is very relevant and important. Just
a couple of weeks ago, I ran into a msg where a well known speaker was
reported to be charging $35,000 (yes 35,000) for some mantra and in one
after noon the speaker had about 10-15 takers -- guess where. where else
other than CA. The speaker is already a multi-millionaire (10-20 million)
from his books tapes etc.

..........doss