Parents murder kid (discussion on death penalty)

[Tonkyhonk]

no, it just means that you are another Vaku, who likes to play pretend, but you have to force adults to play your way, pretending to be one.

seriously, overtyped, have you actually questioned what you are saying? have you actually realized what you are questioning about?

[MagicManICT]

You really can't think of anyone in this world now or in history that would rather burn down his (or her) enemies, or even their own people, rather than be forced to change? I can think of more than a few. When one questions things, you are attempting to create and force change. Sometimes the change comes about peacefully, other times it comes violently.

[Vaku]

no, it just means that you are another Vaku, who likes to play pretend, but you have to force adults to play your way, pretending to be one.

Funny I'm written about in threads I don't generally read. Quit being so pissy and enjoy the game. To the topic of the thread, killing is bad, being mean is bad, and you should feel bad. I'm assuming you're not convincing overtyped because you're not generating a substantive argument. 'playing pretend?' 'Forcing adults to play pretend?' With that stance, I'm baffled you're playing a video game.

How you're presenting this, I cannot fathom what you mean.

Anyways, I guess I'll check this thread more closely.. or pretend to?

[Tonkyhonk]

@vaku,
oh please do not mind, i dont expect you to understand what im talking about, but overtyped may. im just giving him a hint.

[Vaku]

@Tonkyhonk

you are another Vaku

You're referring to the kōan, and I am not. What I am referring to is your insistence on calling others arrogant, yet behaving contrary to how you suppose others should behave.

"Pretend," I ask, "what does that mean?" Did you respond how you did only to be slappy? Do not place yourself above the realm of answering a question—certainly when you are so eager to assail others for not exposing their question in their response.

There is fault in you calling overtyped arrogant, who had simply met this kōan you provided him with his open meditation on the topic you gave him.

You asked,

have you actually realized what you are questioning about?

and he had provided the answer before you even posed the question to him.

He writes,

things you learn

as the subject of questioning. That is quite simply all he means as the topic. His analogy may not suit you, but now the ball is in your court to provide answers to this seeming tangent: "Realizing what you are questioning about."

Sustain a conversation and don't cop-out with name calling, (quite literally) using my alias. xD

Please, enlighten us.

[Kathdys]

Oh, this looks like fun. I'll have a go. Might have some trouble here, it's not easy to decipher.

to question something, you have to have a question.

It's possible to question something without forming a coherent thought. It's more a matter of suspicion and criticality: emotion and attitude, not thoughts and phrases.

to have a question, you have to see a certain way of something.
to see something and to see it has a certain way, you have to learn this something exists and see it has a certain way.

More accurately, 'to have an opinion, you have to see something a certain way'. A critical opinion is one sort of 'questioning', but there are others. You can have a question without being able to see anything, though it may be difficult to formulate.

to not take things you learn as doctrine, you have to first learn things to take whatever it is you think and people think.

'Taking things as doctrine' does not really imply a lack of criticality, nor does not taking things as doctrine imply criticality. It's possible to reject a doctrine thoughtlessly, and it's possible to accept one while knowing it has flaws, or even knowing what its flaws are. It seems the rest of this sentence is incomplete, though. 'Take whatever it is you think and (other?) people think' and... do what?

to examine why things are the way they are, you have to first learn the way the things are.

Finally, something I can agree with. Though 'learning the way things are' is often willfully misinterpreted to require at least temporary compliance with those ways, not just mindfulness of them, and used exploitatively.

As for the rest of it, though, it's hard to teach anyone anything if they have to work hard to figure out what your words mean and your phrases imply, unless you have a captive audience (in which case it's still hard work for them). It's very hard to have a captive audience on a message board. That was a lot better than just saying 'to teach or enlighten, you must have superior language skills', wasn't it?

[Flame]

OK now let's drop it in the reality.

I have a 6 year old child and he question me when i talk to him.
Because he's lazy or he's just trying to discover "how to avoid boring things". So he starts to find other interpretations of reality. Try to find the "bug" in my speech and asks for an half way, where he can do less things and feel half winner.

Is he questioning me with a real concrete and costructive attitude?
No. He's just trying to avoid what he don't likes, and he have NO interest on what is Right od Bad.

He's 6 years old. Is ok and he's learning this. My role, here, is to not let it get used to this. The trick, the compromise in unwanted times, the lazyness and the meaness.
He needs my authority, and every question he does, i Answer the best i can WITHOUT give him any authority. Just Answers. But no chance to flee his duty.
He's 6 years old.

But this way to think is THE SAME that a 16 years old boy will have with his teacher.
Do you really rely on his attitude? Do you really think that the humans will always search the Right and the Costructive? Or, if not "trained to be good", they whould only find the easiest and lazyer and incomplete way to obtain the aim?

So, to have the right of questioning, you have to learn a basic Non Questionable attitude. Ethic.
Otherwise, nothing good could come out.

I think that in the school, one should not teach to question everything. One should just teach the will to discover, and suggest to them how to do it (with questions and personal research). Also, explain why is so usefull, maybe with examples or roleplay or other method that brings instinctual evidence. (because often is impossible to teach something so vague, without a living experience)
But also, the school have to know that it could never replace the Experience, that makes grow a lot more. And experience about the important of THINK are mostly out of school.
So, inside the school, one should not question authority. Is dangerous, unproductive and it will block the whole system, without give anything better.

Little questioning and a lot of listening, but also Think Think Think and Think. Respect the authority and respect the human form. Humans can Fail (so, never stop on thinking), but authority is NEEDED, to build any kind of system. So respect it.
Is the base of society, and society gives us food.


...mmhh... food....

...

Time for some night lunch.

[Tonkyhonk]

@Vaku,
let me apologize for using your name, i probably shouldnt have (shouldof used the polish town instead), but it was easier to show what young Yamaoka represented in this koan to someone who may be new to this. and i know youd find it bullshit, so as i said, please just disregard it, im not going to waste our time(both mine and yours) to explain

oh, and i dont think ive called overtyped arrogant, but you are called so by others, and your mind is probably filled with that word.

@Kathdys,
if those sentences you quoted are something you have to decipher, that is probably because im not english native, there are no deep meaning in what i said there. so just correct them to the right grammar as you please. if you want to play a word-game, thats another topic.
as for the koan (if thats what you mean by "the rest of it"), the bottom line is, "get real, boy!"


@flame,
i know what you mean, but the current fad in education is to ask him back the question, "why do YOU think?", not just give the answer but lead him to reach his own answer, and that is what overtyped is trying to say anyways, though pretty crooked.

[Kathdys]

@Tonkyhonk: I can't correct the grammar because I can't figure out what you meant. It is semantics, but it's not so much a semantic debate as a semantic brick wall. By 'the rest of it', I meant the advice, but I do really like that summary of the Koan. Reminds me of those days when I think too hard about philosophy, and then suddenly I realize 'I'm hungry' and everything falls back into place. Only with a stick.

[Vaku]

@Vaku,
let me apologize for using your name... it was easier to show what young Yamaoka represented in this koan to someone who may be new to this. and i know youd find it bullshit

Alright, thanks for apologizing, but I'd like to clarify I don't find that provided kōan to be bullshit. I am just having trouble connecting the dots of how Yamaoka's nihilistic argument is similar to something I might have written on these boards, let alone similar to this notion of "pretend," and feigning to be an adult.

It won't waste time to explain what you mean.

Explaining how you got from A to B will clarify the above, and I believe will help reveal to overtyped what you meant. Telling overtyped that he is me doesn't cut it.

Saying he was another Vaku left me quite confused, as though you were calling him arrogant. It is not due to a preoccupation with the thought of being arrogant, but quite simply the fact I have been

called so by others.

Corroborating that interpretation, you use virtually the same comment you made following those statements towards arrogance—and still I feel no closer to what is meant calling this behavior "pretend."

Saying overtyped is this Polish town, Tuszyn, doesn't quite cut it. I think you mean more specifically he (and by extension myself) are somehow represented by the behavior of this town councillor who (over 60yrs old) castrates Winnie-the-Pooh. I just don't get how this relates to Yamaoka nor the preceding topic.

The explanation as it stands seems very loose (maybe someone else wants to explain?), and your argument could be benefited by tightening the metaphors and examples.

I know you said you will not waste your time, so when you're inclined, please clarify.