Namaste John, I’ve tried to keep this brief and to the point. John wrote: The reason why I had no clear sense of your understanding of it ,is because you didnt assert what it IS .. Your assertion of its limitations and general critique didnt make it clear to what you thought it was in and for itself....( as opposed to what it was for you) . Hence why I said what I said ,and why I laid down a simple explanation of it ......I hope thats okay sorry guys.....but dont make someone else responsible for you not asking a further question if you desire further qualification.....In your case you chose to ignore it Neil....and for the most part I don't get a reply from you anyway Andy. To be honest I think your original response was in effect no response. I see this is as a cop out and a failure to respond. A lot of time was spent in putting these points towards you, a total of three times now and you haven't even tried to tackle the points put forth in them once. I can’t see the need to further assert my understanding of what DM is and is not (for this is likely just to be argued further) and I also fail to see how you could not comprehend the points I made. And even if you weren't clear of my understanding of DM "in and for itself" that is immaterial as my points are addressing DM in itself so you should be able to respond to it from the/your “correct” understanding of DM regardless of my understanding, even if it is just to say “Neil your understanding in this point is incorrect here”, which is fine. I don’t mind being told I don’t understand something correctly or that I am just flat out wrong. 
John wrote: So can I just finally get this one out of the way.....we are all guilty of not replying to specific questions directly ...though it is often answered in a round about way ,inclusive in someones 'further' point . Also time and effort in regards other things ( not involving sitting in front of a computer ) tend to get in the.way of continuity . ..' I’m fine with the above, though I think if specific points are laid out they should be addressed (if of course time and energy allow). But I imagine everybody appreciates that continuity is not always possible, especially for lengthy debates that demand a fair bit of input.
John wrote: Can people condense their point as succinctly as they can ...otherwise we can just endlessly jabber on past each other with reams of 'stuff'. That is fair enough. It can be tricky though when discussing complex issues, but I’m all for attempting to condense points. John wrote: As a Dialectical Materialist I am also only interested to answer philosophical questions in regard their ''usefulnesss'' in the real world. I certainly don’t wish to instigate a repeat of what the world is and isn’t debate but I think it is clear that there is no absolute unified perception that constitutes the "real world". Please let me ask you these specific points as I’m still a bit unclear (as I suspect others are) about your position and we can then hopefully reach a better understanding of your personal position and move forward. No right or wrong answers here, just your perception as it presently stands. Would it be correct to say that as DMer: Matter (in gross or refined form) is primary over consciousness? The spiritual world isn’t real for DM and that the real world is this commonly perceived physical reality? Notions/ideas of the spiritual are disconnected from the real world? Consequentially spiritual teachings are largely not that useful in the real world and in bringing social change? Even a yes or no response to these, though obviously this would be a grossly simplified response, would I imagine still offer some clarity. John wrote: For me the aquisition of ''knowledge'' is not for'' knowledge itself ''.... I quite agree and I hope what has been presented so far has not been interpreted that way. Knowledge should help liberate the individual. John wrote: as this can subliminally become disembodied and disconnected from the sensuous world in which we live If I grasp what you are saying here correctly, and indeed I may not be, but if I am this position is contrary to what many folk here stand for and aspire to. By attempting to remain confined to the sensuous world runs against many spiritual teachings. In a sense many people wish to more or less become disembodied and disconnected from the sensuous world! LOL They strive as that dude from Nazareth neatly said “To be in the world, but not of the world.” John wrote: and consequently tends to elitism ... obscurity ...and a '' Holier than thou '' syndrome. I am sorry if any of it has been taken as indicative of any of this. None of it is put forth with such intention. A little personal secret to illustrate, each time I write “namaste”, which basically means “I bow to you”, I stop and repeat it mentally and try to feel it with regards to whoever I am addressing. The same when I sign off “Om Shanti”. So with each post there is at least a conscious attempt to cultivate the opposite of an elitist and holier than thou attitude. Each posting contains an effort to approach the person with humility and leave them with a wish of peace. Om Shanti
Neil Last edited: 12-12-2008 08:48:28 AM
Quote | 
