This is likely best new thread

Post Reply New Topic

The participants in the recent threads which have prompted me to post this will easily see the relevancde.

This is more from Sir thomas Brownr:

I cannot fall out or contemne a man for an errour, or conceive why a difference in opinion should divide an affection: for controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in Philosophy, and in Divinity, if they meete with discreet and peaceable natures, doe not infringe the Lawes of Charity in all disputes; so much as there is of passion, so much there is of nothing to the purpose, for then reason like a bad hound spends upon a false sent, and forsakes the question first started. And this is one reason why controversies are never determined, for though they be amply proposed, they are scarce at all handled, they doe so swell with unnecessary Digressions, and the Parenthesis on the party, is often as large as the maine discourse upon the Subject. The Foundations of Religion are already established, and the principles of Salvation subscribed unto by all, there remaines not many controversies worth a passion, and yet never any disputed without, not onely in Divinity, but in inferiour Arts:

Yes, and I once also heard the Wright brothers' father (as chancellor of some college) had once said there was no longer any need for sciences since all things that might ever be discovered had already been discovered ... and that man would certainly never fly.

Lack of direction? You mean it is possible for me to control how people respond?

Leejosepho, with respect, you MIGHT - not sure - have missed the point Sir Thomas is making, with which I concur, that slanging controversy just gets in the way of reason.

Aghogday -

a good point. Of course human nature and the clash of different personalities / mental makeups comes into it.

Sir Thomas I reckon was ennea-7, perhaps with some ennea-9 tendencies. High on detachment, low on combativeness. Some others [not to name names] are by their own admission more inclined to debate or at times quibble.

Of course unless humanity is taken over by very strange aliens, we are not going to eliminate debate or even controversy, nor would this be desirable.

But as I have said in my own words now and then, it is possible to train oneself to maximize clarity of argument and coverage of relevant data. It is possible to minimize personal attacks and vehement venom.

It is possible to maximize listening and refletion on new data. It is possible to minimize hatred and scorn.

i know very well - I need point no fingers - that that is easier for Sir Thomas with HIS nature than it is for me, or my friend St Jerome, or Babbage, all of us ennea-5.

But there are some here who do not seem to want to talk straight. My point on Luther and Zwingli.

Best new thread? I clicked on this expecting to at least see some boobs. False advertisement

Phil. I'm sorry, I guess I only just barely understand why you posted Sir Thomas' thingie. I'm thinking you've watched enough threads degenerate? Sorry, can you explain it for some of the dummies around here (or just me)? I think this because you mention there are ways a person can minimize and maximize.

You know, about that birds thing, I know you're very concerned with it, but I can find a third side to most things, and my third side sez, they'se both be birds, brother. Pheasant ain't the same as a condor, but they's both birds. Hehe.

Wish I knew more Latin.

Responses can't really be controlled, you can only TRY your best to not offend, but anything can offend. Anything can spark a baring of teeth. Temperance Brennan on the Bones show. She's not trying to hurt anyone's feelings or piss anybody off, but it happens. I know it's just a TV show, but I've known people like her, and I'm flavored a little with Bones-speak myself. My very-conservative friend has a tendency to rankle me, just as much as my very-liberal friend does. Conservative friend opens up on abortion, I get rankled. Liberal friend opens up on guns, I get rankled. Oddly, both of them do it with this fake innocence on they're faces, and with the SAME mild-appearing raising of both eyebrows. It's not necessarily what they say, it's how they say it.

I myself wasn't looking for boobs when I clicked on your new thread. You said "best." I was looking for photos of kittens and puppies. My fault. Kittens and puppies wouldn't be in this section. I would figure, most guys thinking about boobs want to look for them wherever they go?

Philologos:

As a respectful observation your posts intensify my need for reflection. While the posts are always relevant, the limits of my mind requires the assistance of Google for clarity in understanding the new data in your posts. I will not point many fingers, but your use of language and the use of language of one other poster on this site are the most interesting that I have come across. I am assured I will learn something new, unrelated to the topic, most every time I click on one of your posts.