Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:59 am
Sure, everybody has their reasons.
Sure. My point with mentioning mine is that you enter a thread where I am interacting with Roydop adn part of your assessment is that I should be more charitable. Imagine another Skepdick comes to this thread...
viewtopic.php?p=624051#p624051
And thinks you, Skepdick one, should be more charitable. There's a context driving your reactions to VA there.
I am merely pointing out that Rorydop has come to an accurate realisation that he's expressing in the vocabulary of his own (admittedly limited) understanding. Still - he's not wrong.
I don't think he's wrong, period. It's not binary for me. I have a problem with his enterprise/behavior.
He simply refuses to jump into the rabbithole and learn the Mathematical lingo and all the dialects (which would surely take at least a decade of his life) necessary to pull all the Mathematicians out their own rabbit hole.
Though mathematicians are often attracted to Buddhism and other practices that are actually Roydop's claimed main goal for people here and elsewhere. Coming and making blanket statements in a sloppy way, is not necessarily a good approach. And he can learn about that from critics.
Even VA has gotten vastly more sophisticated (there was a lot of swingroom) than he was years ago. And I've seen him integrate my responses in later versions of his neverending project (without a bit of thanks on his part
) I've even had concerns that despite what you might see as my lack of charity, I'm actually helping VA with his project by coming at it with claws out. I have had separate dialogues with PH and FDP about VA's project and then some things they say. Where I have pointed out to them portions of what I consider just peachy in there. I have challenged them about their positions also.
And they won't follow him out unless he speaks like they do! So they ridicule him as a "crank". Of course, from their perspective he is a crank - he doesn't use their definitions.
He might need to learn some humility around this. So far I only see him blaming others for any problems in the dialogue. Roydop.
Why not run in parallel: good cop, bad cop. I can react the way I do and you can react with the information you have coming from your expertise. Roydop is not losing anything in dealing with my cranky possibly uncharitable reactions. And he can certainly learn from yours.
The revolution will be led from the inside by people who actually care to learn the lingo. Like this guy:
OK, the revolution. How will the revolution make the world a better place or what effects with it have? Perhaps if I understand that it will change my approach. Let's say Roydop's point becomes widely accepted: what changes will that make for how we live, treat each other?
EDIT: here's another take on this post.
An extreme unfair polemical comparison: you and I are sitting in a club and a guy runs into the room waving a samuri sword. He starts killing poeple while yelling something about math being used to create climate change. I hit the samuri guy with a chair and you say 'Hey, be more charitable, he's partly right about math.'
Again, I know it's unfair, but wait a second....
Why not just start a thread with what you know about math? Why let samuri-weilding guys represent the positions?
Perhaps you do or have, but I don't remember it. Take those portions of VA's position or Roydop's. Lay it out in your OP.
Your posts in response to my posts in this thread, I don't have a problem with. I don't think I would react to your threads in any way like I do to these guys. What you said, for example, about the different meanings of + signs was clear as easy to agree with. Perhaps I'll disagree with something, and then we'll deal with that.
But this pattern of intervening in my reactions and potentially other people's reactions to people who present their ideas poorly, don't have flexible communication skills, and, frankly, may not quite understand the positions you think we are not getting seems kind of like using a terrible middle-man for your thinking.
And I do realize that you use different models and languages in different situations in dialogue with different people. And that perhaps starting a thread might seem to commit you to a monolithic model or way of speaking about something. But this could be included in the beginning. You could explain why it would be useful to view things like X on occasion and how this can have benefits or is also true and that you are not positing the final and only language that should be used.