Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:

Combative and Co-operative Reasoning

1 - 4
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: gideon Sent: 2/3/2005 10:02:38 AM

On this site and elsewhere human beings are trying to get their points across. We need to understand that this process is not about who is right or wrong, but it is about truth.
The trend that I see is that when someone expresses a view people comment on the view, either for or against. This method is not optimal because it places emphasis on the specific views instead of focusing on the motivating spirit and the prevailing situations, as is proper.
By placing emphasis on specific views and taking sides on issues we are establishing a practice that begets division and conflict. This is a combative method of dialogue.
Instead we should foster a new practice, where each participant insists on keeping each and ever post rooted in our common goals and common spirit of peace, unity and progress. In addition to this we need to remember to stick to the point and not stray on tangents. Tangential arguments are not progressive in terms of the original point. When we have tangential points to make we should start up new topics.

Messenger: Ras Sistren Khamyl Sent: 2/3/2005 11:39:13 AM


Messenger: NineMile2004 Sent: 2/3/2005 3:17:09 PM

Can you rephrase your reasoning, Gideon. I am not sure if I exactly understand it with regard on how reasoning should go about.

I believe we do need to stop getting too defensive or offensive with the reasoning and trying to find where we agree and where we find similarities. However not on all reasonings this is possible as far as I see it.

I believe reasoning should not be so much a back and forth but a togetherness. Seen?

Much love and respect.


Messenger: gideon Sent: 2/4/2005 9:41:14 AM

This forum is a place where we use words to communicate our experiences of Jah, which is basically about love and truth.

Love and truth that are our experience of Jah is something inside a person that you experience heartically. Therefore it is hard or impossible to find words that adequately express in a way that cannot be easily misinterpreted.
So let us take the reasoning process step by step to illustrate my point. Start with a person making a post - remember that it is a post about his or her heartical experience of Jah (knowledge of love and truth). The words are just a representation of the heartical experience, used for the purpose of communication. So the only appropriate way to respond to that post is to understand the post within the context in which it was delivered - namely, within the context of heartical experience of Jah. If you respond in any way that is not rooted in this context then you are going off on a tangent and progress will be limited because of this.
To use a physical illustration, a straight line can be defined by two points on the line. When someone makes a post to start a new topic they are making a point, but that point can be the part of an infinite number of different lines as far as anyone other than the person who posted is aware. For us to understand what line the person is actually referring to we need to remember the root, which is the heartical experience of Jah. In this way we will have two points (the root and the point made in the person's post) and that way we will be able to know exactly what line the person is referring to.
Basically, what I am saying is that you will never understand exactly what a person is saying in a post unless you are able to trace a line from the heartical experience of Jah to the post that the person made. Any responses to any post should bare in mind that root, so that the reasoning does not go off course.
If someone understands this concept then they will not have any conflict with posts that people make. When you remember that the underlying topic is always the heartical experience of love and truth, then you will look at every post in this context. This way, when you read a post it will no longer be a question of agreeing or disagreeing with what the person has posted. It will become a matter of either you overstand what the person says or you do not. This way we will always be moving forward and never get caught up so that words become a stumbling block.

Myself for example, I encounter this problem all the time when I make posts, that people respond without understanding where I am coming from. So their responses are not direct responses to my point, but they are only tangential. This means that the process of reasoning and true communication is stymied.
To conclude, let me say this: This post and every other post I make is just a representation in words of a heartical experience in my soul that I am trying to communicate this way. If my spirit could speak to yours directly I could describe my point in a single syllable, because that is the way the knowledge is contained in my heart. But due to my limitations to use words on a page I have to make a whole long post.
The point is that if you understand what I am saying in this post, that understanding should be understood by your soul in a single syllable. And your response, in order to be appropriate and not tangential, should be a response to that single syllable in your soul. That of course, is assuming that you understand the point that my soul is expressing here. If you don't, then the only appropriate response will be to ask me to explain what I am saying, as you did in your last post.

1 - 4

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I