The Forum > Article Comments > I think, therefore I am not sure what I am > Comments
I think, therefore I am not sure what I am : Comments
By Peter Sellick, published 18/5/2015A wedge has been driven between thought and action that mimics Descartes division between mind and body, otherwise known as Cartesian dualism.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
- 9
- 10
-
- All
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 28 May 2015 7:03:22 AM
| |
I am very happy to contribute to the comments on my posting if there is some degree of overlap in understanding. I do not think it worthwhile trying to answer comments that are simply knee jerk reactions to the fact that I am a Christian. Too many comments are simply prejudice and betray no or a shallow reading of my ideas. You can imagine what it is like to labor away at these pieces and get superficial and abusive comments that show no engagement with the topic at all. I will engage with you if you engage with me!
Posted by Sells, Thursday, 28 May 2015 12:34:51 PM
| |
.
Dear Dan, . « … perhaps you're also suggesting Peter is not being democratic. » No, Dan, I was not suggesting that, but you are right: tolerance and democracy are two side of the same coin. There cannot be one without the other. . We evidently have different interpretations of what Peter meant when he wrote : « My articles are never addressed to the people who inhabit the comments section, that would be Quixotic. » I am pleased to see that he finally came out of the shadows and explained : « I am very happy to contribute to the comments on my posting if there is some degree of overlap in understanding. I do not think it worthwhile trying to answer comments that are simply knee jerk reactions to the fact that I am a Christian. Too many comments are simply prejudice and betray no or a shallow reading of my ideas. » As we say in French: “dont acte” (“duly acknowledged”). Despite our differences, Dan, I am pleased to see that we are on common ground in our mutual appreciation of Natasha Moore’s article, “Silence isn't golden when it comes to free speech”. It is an excellent advocacy of the values of the forum’s declared objective of “deliberative democracy”, the fundamental, (but all too rare) human values of mutual respect and tolerance. . Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 29 May 2015 12:06:28 AM
| |
.
Dear Peter, . « I do not think it worthwhile trying to answer comments that are simply knee jerk reactions to the fact that I am a Christian. Too many comments are simply prejudice and betray no or a shallow reading of my ideas. You can imagine what it is like to labor away at these pieces and get superficial and abusive comments that show no engagement with the topic at all. » Yes, Peter, I can “imagine what it is like”. As you may know, I have written a few pieces myself that have been published on OLO. I sympathise with you. I also “labour away” on my comments to other people’s articles such as yours. I do not practise “knee jerking”. If I go to the trouble of commenting on something it is because (rightly or wrongly) I feel that I have something to contribute. I am sure I am not alone in that. Naturally, in your particular case, being a practicing deacon of the Anglican church, you have set yourself up as a prime target for criticism and abuse on this predominately secular forum, far more so than any other contributor. That is a heavy cross to bear and, no doubt, a constant source of traumatisation. I have no difficulty understanding that it could push anyone into making errors of judgement and seeking refuge in the company of an audience of devotees. It is a tough mission you have assigned yourself to, and pretty much a thankless task. . « I will engage with you if you engage with me! » I note that you use the future tense in that sentence, Peter. That’s promising. Should I also interpret your choice of “will” rather than “shall” to denote a certain determination, as well ? I guess I'll just have to wait and see. . Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 29 May 2015 12:15:58 AM
| |
.
Dear Craig Minns, . « What a fascinating digression. » Sometimes an “obiter dictum” can prove to be of greater significance than the mainstream subject under discussion. Peter, himself, had the honesty to admit that his article “I think, therefore I am not sure what I am” contained “deficiencies” and that he “was a little apprehensive about” it. Whereas I believe there is a very real chance that this little “digression”, by clearing the air on a certain number of issues, could help render an understandably difficult author-reader relationship a little more compatible. . Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 29 May 2015 8:25:06 AM
| |
.
Heaven’s Joy Awaits When We Leave This Low Land We Will Cross The Jordan Pass This Chilling Torrent Heaven's Joy Awaits Heaven Is Just Beyond The Blue Horizon Just Above The Starry Sky, Starry Blue Sky Far Above This Land Of Sorrow Way Above Each Tear And Sigh, Every Sigh Just A Few More Miles Before Us Just A Little While To Wait, Patiently Wait Soon We'll Sing Redemptions Chorus Heaven's Joy Awaits, Heaven Awaits Heaven's Breeze Is Blowing Gently To Recalling I Will Soon Be Going Through The Pearly Gates Heaven Is Just Beyond The Blue Horizon Just Above The Starry Sky, Starry Blue Sky Far Above This Land Of Sorrow Way Above Each Tear And Sigh, Every Sigh Just A Few More Miles Before Us Just A Little While To Wait, Patiently Wait Soon We'll Sing Redemptions Chorus Heaven's Joy Awaits, Heaven Awaits http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD0vfUcVxVM . Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 29 May 2015 8:18:51 PM
|
You say you're not accusing Peter of intolerance, you're only suggesting it. Thanks for that clarification. And perhaps you're also suggesting Peters's not being democratic.
I can't see any of this. What I see is a guy giving his opinion, openly sharing his knowledge, and writing from his convictions. Anyone on earth is free to read it and respond. To me, this all seems deeply democratic.
When Peter says he's not writing for the inhabitants of the comment forum (e.g. me and you,) I interpreted him as saying that he wasn't specifically aiming at those of us who regularly comment here. I'm guessing that, like most people who contribute articles here, he is writing for anyone and everyone; that he's happy for the article to be read by whomever it is that is taking the trouble to come here and look at it.
You and I are free to add a comment. The author is free to add a rejoinder, if he wants. I don't see the problem. I still don't see what you're looking for from Peter. Perhaps he thought your comment was fine and was adding to conversation without needing further comment, and so he didn't need to respond. It is unrealistic and maybe unnecessary to expect that he respond to every comment. If it makes you feel any better, Peter has rarely, if ever, given much response to anything I've said either.
But on the subject of tolerance and democracy, I would recommend the recent OLO article (14/5) by Natasha Moore, entitled, 'Silence isn't golden when it comes to free speech.' Her words on the matter were very eloquently put.