All Comments (5)

beautifully put! @ Brother Ram Das

blessings be with you!

Abominable Snowbeast,

Writing poetically does not imply writing meaninglessly. Ram Dass' words are imprecise, not meaningless. Would it give you greater satisfaction to give them mathematical precision?

Here is my interpretation:

1. Let both parties agree on a subject for which both have a similarly strong positive emotional (non-rational) responses. At this point, let said parties commence bi-directional communication ("dialogue").

2. Upon establishing an analogous emotional state in both parties, each must take an objective stance to the following dialogue. By "objective stance" is meant precisely the state of offering observations about perceived truths without an assumption of noumenal (ontological) correctness. That is, let both parties assume possible error in their proceeding propositional calculus.

3. Whence this mental state is induced in both parties, introduce into the dialogue ("conversation") a topic which would have thitherto caused the parties to descended into an emotional (irrational) antagonism from which their conversation could not be saved due to an hysteresis effect.

4. If one party or another (inclusive) cannot assume the objective stance, let both terminate communication. Allow the defective party to restore his or her emotional state to one of neutrality whereby this dialogue function (the set of instruction just enumerated) may be repeated.

Great to see Ram Dass here! Ah yes, Remember Be Here Now ;).

AbomSnowBeast: I agree with you that the ability (and will) to listen respectfully is essentially a pre-condition for useful dialogue. I also think that fruitful dialogue can occur without the specific strategies Ram Dass suggests. That said, I think that the strategies Ram Dass suggests can be useful in developing tools & understandings for respectful dialogue; and learning/understanding all the words/concepts you quoted would certainly help that along don't you think? ;) Perhaps just a little further unpacking of these would be all that's needed and hey! That might be the beginning of a converation! :)

FSC

According to this methodology, no fruitful conversation could ever take place until:

1) Someone figures out what "heart space" means,
2) Someone figures out how to not "hold an attitude" and be conscious at the same time,
3) Someone figures out how to be conscious without "holding an attitude" while talking,
4) Someone figures out how "witnessing not judging" leaves any room for thinking, and
5) Someone figures out what the sentence "a beneficial conversation could take place with two beings and not two viewpoints" means, since viewpoints don't have conversations.

No disrespect to Ram Dass, but his post is utterly meaningless. If people don't know how to listen respectfully, this little methodology sure won't do anything to help them.

"You cut the cake and let the other person pick the first peace"