GENIUS FORUMS

Diebert;

Thank you for affording me the opportunity to present my understanding of “do no harm”. It has been a challenge and a pleasure addressing your concerns and questions.

Words must be used like stepping stones: lightly and with nimbleness, because if you step on them too heavily, you incur the danger of falling into the intellectual mire of logic and reason.

-- Balsekar

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

clyde wrote:

Words must be used like stepping stones: lightly and with nimbleness, because if you step on them too heavily, you incur the danger of falling into the intellectual mire of logic and reason.

-- Balsekar

And yet, you end the discussion with a harmful quote from a harmful teacher. Timothy Conway talked about him specifically when saying:

In a competitive marketplace of “spirituality,” whether in India, Japan, China, Europe, the USA, etc., we see quite a lot of this last figure, the pretender. Such persons chronically present themselves as higher and freer than they actually are, in order to draw attention and recognition, lure followings of students/disciples, make money, attain fame, and get high (psychically inflated) on the subtle or not-so-subtle adrenaline rush that comes with being granted power, influence and concomitant comforts by a social group that fawns over them and defers to them as a “spiritual authority.”

But we don't need Timothy to see the harm in Balsekar and his quotes. Lets see what he actually says: " if you step on them [words] too heavily, you incur the danger of falling into the intellectual mire of logic and reason".

Which intellectual mire does he mean? The unavoidable one he suggests? It's really very harmful to suggest that any deep criticism or analysis of [his] words is somehow dangerous for the person. The greatest mire is the one of unconscious worship and attachment and Balsekar is clearly very stuck in such mire but denies it. And then goes on to justify it by criticizing logic and reason for their 'danger'. So the words betray the attachment - and the unavoidable fear of logic and reason that could expose it.

Balsekar's teachings are harmful to truth and I'm sorry to say but as well your own teaching Clyde, including your phrase "do no harm".

.

Diebert writes:

Balsekar's teachings are harmful to truth and I'm sorry to say but as well your own teaching Clyde, including your phrase "do no harm".

So, Diebert would sound the note instead: "Do no harm to truth?"


.

Be truthful, seems better.

Though I even would doubt its use as tagline. Words are whole different animals than they were 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago or 2000 years. The media, or style now becomes the message, whatever the words are. And the message doesn't lead anymore anywhere. It's unavoidable. It's the hyperreal.

Diebert;

I was not familiar with Balsekar or his teachings, only the quote. I do not support teachers who require or expect property or services from their students.

Regarding the quote, it should be apparent from this thread that I support examination, logic and reason. That said, I like the imagery of the quote as it relates to words (and by extension, concepts), which should be used “lightly and with nimbleness”. As for “intellectual mire”, while I value reason and logic which arise with concepts, they have limitations and one should not become too attached to them. The quote was intended as an acknowledgment of your post regarding “style and terminology” of communication and your points on “over-reliance on core terms” and “lack of flexibility in expression” as a “sign of attachment to a specific view instead of the truth beyond it.”

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

clyde wrote: As for “intellectual mire”, while I value reason and logic which arise with concepts, they have limitations and one should not become too attached to them.

Fair enough. Although it's very unlikely getting attached to a sword when folding the hands around the blade. The clinching is only possible when we don't apply logic and reason to ourselves anymore.

tooyi;

I’m not certain what the proper etiquette is, it is not my intention to ‘highjack’ other threads; so I’m responding here.

In another thread, regarding “do no harm”, you wrote,

What you are describing is a solution as a fix in attitude, which is not enough. It might also amount to actual harm in itself by giving people false hope of thinking in terms of merit.

I think this is the first time the concern of “giving people false hope” and the issue of “merit” have been raised to me. I want to address that, but first . . . I have not described “do no harm” as a solution. I have written that “do no harm” is a practice, a way. And it’s not a “fix in attitude”; it’s one’s actions (and that includes communication) in the world. That said . . .

The only “hope” I’ve written about is the hope for a kinder, gentler world. If you and I bring a little less suffering into the world, the world is kinder and gentler. That is not a false hope, that’s how reality functions.

I don’t think I’ve written about merit or suggested that doing no harm creates merit. I think the concept of merit has little merit. I think that a belief in merit is a false hope.

Do no harm,
clyde