How many times have you been wrong about your beliefs, according to other people? How many times have you told someone they were wrong about their beliefs? When you told them they were wrong, did you propose an alternative? Or did you have nothing better yourself? Oh, how often must our discussions that could be free and open be channeled into the back-and-forth bickering of the old arrogance versus ignorance game?
besides its tentative ability to get folks to think, i dont like your poll. two negative options. go play with dante. lol. arrogance is a tricky one. sometimes innocence is mistaken for arrogance. often ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand. i know for sure i've not rid myself of all my ignorance and arrogance,and see how the two are intertwined. each having the capacity to create the other. sometimes what looks like ignorance may instead be heeding more awareness and attention. like to one's silent inner guidance that just carries us effortlessly away, our instinct. tricky ropes to walk on
come on man totally unneccassary poll, like the guy above said, too broad of subjects and it is really an odd thing to think that anyone is not arrogant or ignorant in some way, besides if there ego tells themselves so.
Well, no one requires anyone to take a poll, do they? It was simply a question... soon enough it will fade into oblivion.
I wouldnt say im either, but probably more arrogant than ignorant. I wouldnt really describe myself as either, but we all seem to have both tendencies.
Me I'm arrogant I'm a pretty smart guy and I figure stuff out quickly I have no problem making people feel stupid which I guess might be a bad thing but I guess my arrogance might help others out of ignorance Hope that made sense
oh ahaha, look i have seen it before. seems my responce first time around was pretty similar second time i encountered it. spliced in from the topic elsewhere outcomes. that's where i'm going with this. n i'm not saying you shouldn't have the approach you have, i know not the whole myriad of potential unique outcomes, especially not in times of such near saturation of novelty. but it does strike me as a particulalry ugly thing to draw attention to... in that, to draw attention to it i percieve of in itself as ugly when unaccompanied by solution. "don't give me problems, give me solutions". from merely pointing peoples focus to arrogance and ignorance... or arrogance VS ignorance as you put it, what outcomes are you thinking likely? though i dont think this is your motive, but if it were, your motive, to cajoul people to humility and awareness, i'm not sure most folks would get it, certainly not at first. if your motive is to shake people out of their arrogance and ignorance, then i admire your goal, and determination keep fighting upstream. 'tis solid grounding needed to stick with it. do not underestimate the power of arrogance, nor the power of ignorance. still, it's certainly been quite a shake-up of thought. shake off alot of dust of the ol noggin to consider what you could be on about with your repeated insistence on pointing out "arrogance vs ignorance". but like i say... more presentation of better way than presentation of degeneration way might just be the crux of my suggestion.
My point with all this is you (one) might have a lot to say, but do you (does one) listen to yourself (oneself) speak? And if you do (one does), what does it make you (one) think? I might be destructive with my words. Or I might be "flippant". Either way, my concerns aren't knowing the big picture in its entirety. What would I be small for?
yes, to a relatively large extent, though often wonder about the effectiveness. too situationally dependent to give a satisfactory answer. last i checked u were a microcosm of the entirety, fully kitted out with a right hemisphere to your cerebral cortex (if that is indeed the primary piece of kit which enables apprehension of the whole). your apparent relative physical smallness is to enable you, and everyone else, the room to move around, to see past a greater number of objects so more can be simultaneously apprehended amidst the great sea of non-simultaneous apprehension. it has nothing to do with "separation from god". in this context i mean, "not knowing the big picture". are these not tao principles poking through some of my words there?
Certainly... even Zhuangzi and Lao-tzu saw themselves as different individuals with separate experiences. We see them now as both men of Tao.
do we eh? Today, a young man on acid... ...realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather. do we therefor pin a label like 'men of tao' on anyone with the revelation? isnt everyone 'men of tao'? i mean... isnt it the tao???
yeah, awkwards to talk of the tao in terms of "is" [label], as so much "is" appears to me as antithical to the tao. much easier to talk of the tao in terms of what it is not... but then it takes a while to declare all the things that are not compared with all the things that are true. did any of your great historical taoist figures write their own scriptures though? i thought it was just all people's religion, the wisdom of the folk, natural philosophy of the commons, spread and developed by mouth, by life, the living tao... not some words on a page. still though... *ahem*... why are you pointing out to me that "we" is a label? i must be missing your subtext.