12-02-2005, 10:24 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The intent was not to hurl personal insults and that is not what I am doing. I am getting more aware of your writings and the long effort you have put on this forum and respect that. I will be glad to take those words back, if they have hurt you. The critiques to your thesis stands and at least in my eyes remain unsubstantiated.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are missing the point. We hardly know each other to know whether we are honest or not and your opinion of me is not really very relevant to me under such circumstances. By making a hasty judgement based on a few posts you are revealing more about yourself than making an impact on me. In the internet there is a tendency to say things you would not say face to face.I am encouraging participants on this forum at least to stick to our traditional values and show 'maryaada' to each other. 'Respect for the individual' was one of the cardinal values expected of all employees at the company where i worked which fitted in very well with our Vedantic tradition. It is worth emulating in our forum.
Debates whether in college, on the internet or at cocktail parties rarely change anybody's opinion. But they do inform when a fact that is new is presented.It is difficult to argue the facts. There are characteristics which differentiate a good debate. One of the hallmarks of a superior debate is to debate the issue with cogent reasoning and not resort to 'I dont agree with you because i think you are a cockroach. IOW, do not bring in the personality of your debator.
There are some other hallmarks of a good debate. Behind every opinion is an assumption or hypothesis. it is best to state ones assumptions early in the debate, which may reveal that differences in the resulting inferences are unbridgeable. For example a fundamental assumption that you may make about the Brits is that they are basically a decent people and they would not do anything to deliberately to harm India. Whereas my fundamental assumption (or hypothesis) may be the Brits are a fundamentally decent people who nevertheless put their countrys national interest at a very high level, if not make it a paramount criterion. Even a pirate like Sir francis Drake placed his country's national interest at a very high level, so much so that Q E I knighted him. The same can be said aboout Warren hastings, Sir William Jones, or even of Macaulay who was a veritable genius with a prodigious memory. His authorship of the Indian Penal Code (which you will note i neither criticiize nor ascribe ulterior motives to the writing thereof) ranks very high in my opinion among important contributions to the world. But all of these gentleman did what they did keeping the national interest of britain at a high level.Well at least that is my assumption which is basically unverifiable.
The difference in the assumptions is significant and the difference in the resulting inferences may be even more unbridgeable. But it is important to recognize where the differences lie , namely in the fundamental assumptions that we make about events and life in general, rather than ascribe 'intellectual dishonesty' or lack of insight to your opponent.
i may be forgiven for the professorial tone of the lengthy lecture ,but i i thought it might make for better communication and a better debate (for all of us)
You are missing the point. We hardly know each other to know whether we are honest or not and your opinion of me is not really very relevant to me under such circumstances. By making a hasty judgement based on a few posts you are revealing more about yourself than making an impact on me. In the internet there is a tendency to say things you would not say face to face.I am encouraging participants on this forum at least to stick to our traditional values and show 'maryaada' to each other. 'Respect for the individual' was one of the cardinal values expected of all employees at the company where i worked which fitted in very well with our Vedantic tradition. It is worth emulating in our forum.
Debates whether in college, on the internet or at cocktail parties rarely change anybody's opinion. But they do inform when a fact that is new is presented.It is difficult to argue the facts. There are characteristics which differentiate a good debate. One of the hallmarks of a superior debate is to debate the issue with cogent reasoning and not resort to 'I dont agree with you because i think you are a cockroach. IOW, do not bring in the personality of your debator.
There are some other hallmarks of a good debate. Behind every opinion is an assumption or hypothesis. it is best to state ones assumptions early in the debate, which may reveal that differences in the resulting inferences are unbridgeable. For example a fundamental assumption that you may make about the Brits is that they are basically a decent people and they would not do anything to deliberately to harm India. Whereas my fundamental assumption (or hypothesis) may be the Brits are a fundamentally decent people who nevertheless put their countrys national interest at a very high level, if not make it a paramount criterion. Even a pirate like Sir francis Drake placed his country's national interest at a very high level, so much so that Q E I knighted him. The same can be said aboout Warren hastings, Sir William Jones, or even of Macaulay who was a veritable genius with a prodigious memory. His authorship of the Indian Penal Code (which you will note i neither criticiize nor ascribe ulterior motives to the writing thereof) ranks very high in my opinion among important contributions to the world. But all of these gentleman did what they did keeping the national interest of britain at a high level.Well at least that is my assumption which is basically unverifiable.
The difference in the assumptions is significant and the difference in the resulting inferences may be even more unbridgeable. But it is important to recognize where the differences lie , namely in the fundamental assumptions that we make about events and life in general, rather than ascribe 'intellectual dishonesty' or lack of insight to your opponent.
i may be forgiven for the professorial tone of the lengthy lecture ,but i i thought it might make for better communication and a better debate (for all of us)