"Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
tlee
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:54 am

"Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by tlee »

I go to university in the USA and I've noticed an innocuous air of self censorship from groups of people.

It usually plays out like this.
You'll have two universally acceptable(?) interpretations of a given situation or ethical question.
These two interpretations are the ones trumpeted on the news stations.
These will usually be either for or against, though sometimes the acceptable positions are even more limited.

And then this is where it gets weird.
Someone in the group will mention a third interpretation that hasn't been publicized and strongly opinionated people immediately shut down that person.
That in itself isn't surprising to me, but what is is that that whole branch of interpretation just stops and people don't seem to be bothered by that.

I see it play out often in social circles, in lectures, on forums, etc. but I'm not going to claim I understand what's going on yet.
It's as if people have been trained to "protect" society from critical thinking or at least be passive about the censorship of it.

I remember one lecture where a professor asked the class a probing question and people responded with usual answers and then a man said something that opened my eyes to a whole other side to something and immediately a woman stood up, fuming, screaming personal attacks at him, I could see the spit flying from her mouth while she stabbed the air with her index finger. And when she was done the professor said that talking about this was not productive and was disruptive even though it was the professor that brought up the topic. The conversation was immediately shut down, the critical thinker must have felt terrible after being verbally assaulted in front of the class of about 200, and the woman who shut down the conversation left feeling powerful and was not reprimanded at all.

Is critical thinking disruptive?
Last edited by tlee on Mon Aug 18, 2014 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tlee
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:54 am

Re: "Protecting" society from critical thinkers

Post by tlee »

Buddhists are relatively well networked as a group and we're spread all over the world.
Just by standing up in these situations and complaining we could set society on a much better route.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by DGA »

tlee wrote: Is critical thinking disruptive?
Critical thinking is, by definition, disruptive. This is because critical thinking is reflective thinking--it requires one to take an outsider's position to comment not only on the content of the debate, but also the terms of the debate, the power relations of those involved, assessing the stakes of those relations terms & contents, and so on. Critical thinking is not the same as mere dissent. It is a reflective practice, a negation.

See:

Marcuse, Herbert. Reason and Revolution.
Nizan, Paul. The Watchdogs.
&c
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14418
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by Queequeg »

I can't say for sure that things used to be different. I can tell you my experience. I went to undergrad, at a relatively quiet school back in the 90s. Still, professors regularly regaled us with stories of Woodstock and Altamont, the 68 Democratic Convention, the Yippies, etc. This is not to say it was about peace and progressive views - sure that's the popular narrative of the 60s - but I think the reality of the 60s (at least in intellectual circles that produced our professors) was free expression and chaos. I think there was greater tolerance for people getting their views out even if it devolved into shouting matches. I heard about grad student parties ending in fist fights between Leninists and Trotskyites. I don't know if people were more enlightened, but people were allowed to express their ideas. If someone was expressing unpopular ideas in class, if the heckling got too rough, the professor would step in and referee, but not try to end it.

I think the people teaching these days are dealing in a very different environment. You guys are the millenials, products of helicopter parents who were sure to give a teacher or principal an earful if you came home whining about how something wasn't fair, or you didn't get your way. I think the educators have taken their cue and backed off trying to ensure an intellectual free for all and instead are wary that one of your parents paying exorbitant tuitions might hear about their son or daughter's carefully sculpted world view getting undermined and sue the school to get the professor fired, or worse, have them end up on Fox News or MSNBC for insulting one side or the other's conventional wisdom. Not to mention, some a-hole might pull a gun and start making people understand they are right.

I don't think its really a matter of critical thinkers getting shut down - there are plenty of critical thinkers out there. Slate (middle brow) and on a lower brow level, Gawker, and a host of other sites, make media empires out of criticism for criticism sake. And if you want to find high brow criticism, Noam Chomsky is a click away.

I think the real problem is that we don't know how to play nice with each other anymore in person - how to deal with difference when it comes face to face with us in a room; how to deal with a difference of opinion without getting all bent out of shape like our world is going to collapse.

Maybe in that sense, people were more enlightened before.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Dan74
Former staff member
Posts: 3403
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:59 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by Dan74 »

Queequeg wrote:I think the real problem is that we don't know how to play nice with each other anymore in person - how to deal with difference when it comes face to face with us in a room; how to deal with a difference of opinion without getting all bent out of shape like our world is going to collapse.

Maybe in that sense, people were more enlightened before.
I don't know if it was better before but sure now people are sooooo invested in their opinions, they have neither the interest nor tolerance for any others.
emptydreams
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:56 am

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by emptydreams »

remebering that everyone thinks they're right and that everyone operates within their own perception of reality does help. And work around that. That is what I do too. In Buddhist terms, remembering that everyone is in reality equal and want the same things, just that what they want is slightly different will help you understand that nobody's opinions are in reality important (unless they pay your salary or determine your life) but everyone else will think that their opinion is the solution to world peace. And dont ever try to tell them they're wrong coz thats the fastest way to make enemies.

Or print out this picture and show it to them when they try to impose or push their opinion to you:

http://img-9gag-lol.9cache.com/photo/a0 ... 60s_v2.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

your welcome.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17071
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Queequeg wrote:I can't say for sure that things used to be different. I can tell you my experience. I went to undergrad, at a relatively quiet school back in the 90s. Still, professors regularly regaled us with stories of Woodstock and Altamont, the 68 Democratic Convention, the Yippies, etc. This is not to say it was about peace and progressive views - sure that's the popular narrative of the 60s - but I think the reality of the 60s (at least in intellectual circles that produced our professors) was free expression and chaos. I think there was greater tolerance for people getting their views out even if it devolved into shouting matches. I heard about grad student parties ending in fist fights between Leninists and Trotskyites. I don't know if people were more enlightened, but people were allowed to express their ideas. If someone was expressing unpopular ideas in class, if the heckling got too rough, the professor would step in and referee, but not try to end it.

I think the people teaching these days are dealing in a very different environment. You guys are the millenials, products of helicopter parents who were sure to give a teacher or principal an earful if you came home whining about how something wasn't fair, or you didn't get your way. I think the educators have taken their cue and backed off trying to ensure an intellectual free for all and instead are wary that one of your parents paying exorbitant tuitions might hear about their son or daughter's carefully sculpted world view getting undermined and sue the school to get the professor fired, or worse, have them end up on Fox News or MSNBC for insulting one side or the other's conventional wisdom. Not to mention, some a-hole might pull a gun and start making people understand they are right.

I don't think its really a matter of critical thinkers getting shut down - there are plenty of critical thinkers out there. Slate (middle brow) and on a lower brow level, Gawker, and a host of other sites, make media empires out of criticism for criticism sake. And if you want to find high brow criticism, Noam Chomsky is a click away.

I think the real problem is that we don't know how to play nice with each other anymore in person - how to deal with difference when it comes face to face with us in a room; how to deal with a difference of opinion without getting all bent out of shape like our world is going to collapse.

Maybe in that sense, people were more enlightened before.
Great post man, couldn't agree more. I feel like technology and other social influences has in many ways infantilized many people in terms of debate, whether it's "check your privilege" on the one side, or the abject misuse of the term "socialist" on the other..most debate I see these days is rife with the kind emotional behavior i'd expect from 10 year olds and preteens, only it happens at a college level and beyond.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:53 am
Location: Texas

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by Mkoll »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:..most debate I see these days is rife with the kind emotional behavior i'd expect from 10 year olds and preteens, only it happens at a college level and beyond.
Yeah, up to the very top. I watched the most recent US presidential debates and the childish antics (loudly speaking over the other guy to drown him out, interrupting, etc.) displayed by both candidates. I thought, "One of these guys is going to lead us."

/facepalm

:toilet:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
anjali
Former staff member
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by anjali »

Queequeg wrote:I think the real problem is that we don't know how to play nice with each other anymore in person - how to deal with difference when it comes face to face with us in a room; how to deal with a difference of opinion without getting all bent out of shape like our world is going to collapse.
Funny you should say that. I literally just finished watching a nice documentary: Mister Rogers and Me.
Image
DrLang
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:06 pm

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by DrLang »

Queequeg wrote:I think there was greater tolerance for people getting their views out even if it devolved into shouting matches. I heard about grad student parties ending in fist fights between Leninists and Trotskyites. I don't know if people were more enlightened, but people were allowed to express their ideas. If someone was expressing unpopular ideas in class, if the heckling got too rough, the professor would step in and referee, but not try to end it.
Queequeg wrote:I think the real problem is that we don't know how to play nice with each other anymore in person - how to deal with difference when it comes face to face with us in a room; how to deal with a difference of opinion without getting all bent out of shape like our world is going to collapse.

Maybe in that sense, people were more enlightened before.
I just don't understand how you reconcile these ideas. You talk of people getting into fist fights over ideas and heckling in the classroom to the point of the professor needing to step in. Yet you effectively claim that was when we knew how to play nice? I don't see how much has changed at all. At least today there seems to be fewer fist fights in spite of what the media might lead you to believe.

What I notice is that, for better or worse, the polite society rule of not talking about politics or religion in casual company is quicky disappearing. It also seems to be correlated with greater intollerance for being around people who do not think like ourselves, though which came first is anyone's guess.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14418
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by Queequeg »

DrLang wrote:
Queequeg wrote:I think there was greater tolerance for people getting their views out even if it devolved into shouting matches. I heard about grad student parties ending in fist fights between Leninists and Trotskyites. I don't know if people were more enlightened, but people were allowed to express their ideas. If someone was expressing unpopular ideas in class, if the heckling got too rough, the professor would step in and referee, but not try to end it.
Queequeg wrote:I think the real problem is that we don't know how to play nice with each other anymore in person - how to deal with difference when it comes face to face with us in a room; how to deal with a difference of opinion without getting all bent out of shape like our world is going to collapse.

Maybe in that sense, people were more enlightened before.
I just don't understand how you reconcile these ideas. You talk of people getting into fist fights over ideas and heckling in the classroom to the point of the professor needing to step in. Yet you effectively claim that was when we knew how to play nice? I don't see how much has changed at all. At least today there seems to be fewer fist fights in spite of what the media might lead you to believe.

What I notice is that, for better or worse, the polite society rule of not talking about politics or religion in casual company is quicky disappearing. It also seems to be correlated with greater intollerance for being around people who do not think like ourselves, though which came first is anyone's guess.
Yes. Good point. After I posted that, I got to reflecting and I was waiting for someone to point that out.

I don't think people are more or less attached to their ideas now than before. If that were the case, we would have had less war in the past than we do now, and that is clearly not the case, but rather the opposite.

For better or worse, I am committed to the American Liberal ideas of Free Speech. I think its generally articulated in the Constitutional legal opinions and theories of the 20th century - basically, people should be free to say anything they want (other than situations like shouting a falsehood like "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater), and the mark of civilization is that we let people have their say even when we viscerally disagree with them. Ideas should be met with ideas. This assumes that people are capable of reason and can judge the validity of speech on their own: A bad/false idea will be recognized as bad/false; a good/true idea will be recognized as good/true, on their terms. This is especially the case in those bastions of Liberal thought, the Academy, or at least that's the idea in Liberal Arts institutions - dogmatically pragmatic or ideologically motivated institutions might be a different story. Anyway, wherever this sort of laissez faire atmosphere is allowed to flourish, you can be sure that the human element - with its dogmas and commitments - will play out as shouting matches, and occasionally, fist fights, like the one I described, pitting one scrawny intellectual flailing his arms against another scrawny intellectual flailing his arms. People who get into fist fights over high brow ideas are not MMA fighters who have lethal weapons on the ends of their arms. In the case I referred to, no one went to the hospital, and if anything was bruised, it was the egos of those two communists when they sobered up.

My real point, and I did not articulate it clearly was that in the recent past, we enjoyed a period where this Liberal view of speech was the norm at institutions of higher learning. Controversy, debate, conflict were prized as tools to uncover Truth. For some of the reasons I enumerated (parents suing universities to fire professors who hold views they don't agree with, the prevalence of guns and that ugly part of our culture that has if not normalized, at least made a fact of life, gun violence) and myriad others, the arena of free speech is on the retreat. Instead, as the OP described, University classroom in the US are no longer bastions of the Liberal view of Free Speech.

I believe that the Liberal forum in which Liberal notions of Free Speech are implemented are a form of enlightenment. Losing these forums is sad for us.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
madhusudan
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:54 pm

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by madhusudan »

To reassess one's position is frightening for people ego attached to their opinions. When people are scared, they often lash out in anger.

To begin to entertain opinion's outside the pale of acceptability is, essentially, to embark upon a path that may lead to a rejection of society as it currently is expressed. This is alienating, whereas most people are attracted to being part of the group. Again: fear ---> anger.

I came upon an older Chris Hedges article with the following quote, which I found relevant:

"Corporations, who hire attractive spokespeople like Barack Obama, control the uses of science, technology, education and mass communication. They control the messages in movies and television. And, as in “Brave New World,” they use these tools of communication to bolster tyranny. Our systems of mass communication, as Wolin writes, “block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue, anything that might weaken or complicate the holistic force of their creation, to its total impression.”
The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B. "

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/201 ... a_20101227" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Hieros Gamos
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:25 pm

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by Hieros Gamos »

madhusudan wrote:The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B.
:thumbsup:
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14418
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by Queequeg »

madhusudan wrote:To reassess one's position is frightening for people ego attached to their opinions. When people are scared, they often lash out in anger.

To begin to entertain opinion's outside the pale of acceptability is, essentially, to embark upon a path that may lead to a rejection of society as it currently is expressed. This is alienating, whereas most people are attracted to being part of the group. Again: fear ---> anger.

I came upon an older Chris Hedges article with the following quote, which I found relevant:

"Corporations, who hire attractive spokespeople like Barack Obama, control the uses of science, technology, education and mass communication. They control the messages in movies and television. And, as in “Brave New World,” they use these tools of communication to bolster tyranny. Our systems of mass communication, as Wolin writes, “block out, eliminate whatever might introduce qualification, ambiguity, or dialogue, anything that might weaken or complicate the holistic force of their creation, to its total impression.”
The result is a monochromatic system of information. Celebrity courtiers, masquerading as journalists, experts and specialists, identify our problems and patiently explain the parameters. All those who argue outside the imposed parameters are dismissed as irrelevant cranks, extremists or members of a radical left. Prescient social critics, from Ralph Nader to Noam Chomsky, are banished. Acceptable opinions have a range of A to B. "

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/201 ... a_20101227" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't disagree with the gist of your post, but I don't think criticism is as futile as suggested. Dissent is one of those things that authoritarians try to squash, but people find ways of expressing themselves anyway. Even in some of the most aggressively censored cultures, its there. You can look at soviet Russia, or China as far back as the 4th century through the present where avoiding censorship is a rarefied art. Even now with the soft censorship coming with the demise of net neutrality, and the well financed marketing campaigns of major corporations - dissent comes out. Just for example, twitter is used to great effect in expressing dissent - see:
The New York City Police Department initiated a campaign for people to post pictures of people with police officers in a community relations move and they ended up getting flooded with images of police brutality.
And there have been numerous fails by major corporations. Sure, the marketers and publicists have wised up to the mistakes, but its inevitable that chinks in the armor will be found and exploited as long as there are efforts to stifle criticism and control the message.
There are shifts in views and perceptions over the years - inequality used to just be something the fringe talked about. In the US, now even Republicans are talking about it and how to address it; global warming has gone from being a fringe concern to mainstream - some of the biggest producers of renewable energy are actually the reddest red states like Texas, and corporations are making contingency plans. Admitting there's a problem is the first step - and anyone paying attention to American popular discourse over the years has to notice a shift in opinion in a progressive direction on these issues. Maybe not as much as us fringe types might wish.

The efforts to stifle communication from the top down are not what is concerning to me - its the self-censorship that the OP was raising concerns about.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
madhusudan
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:54 pm

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by madhusudan »

Dissent certainly does always find a way to express itself. Humor can be one of the most devastating. Nothing undermines falsely claimed authority more than making it appear ridiculous. If you haven't read these Soviet jokes recently, they are a treasure:

http://www.johndclare.net/Russ12_Jokes.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is one I like from that website:
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What is the difference between capitalism and socialism?”
We’re answering: “In a capitalist society man exploits man, and in a socialist one, the other way around.”

The point I was making, and using Hedges to illustrate, in my post is that after the top-down narrative is established and disseminated through the echo chambers it takes some courage to oppose it, especially within a peer group in which a dissenting opinion is not welcome and double-especially with younger people who may not yet have developed the fortitude to stand alone.

The easier path is self-censorship - with all the social benefits it brings. Anyhow, these are my musings on the topic
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14418
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by Queequeg »

You get no argument from me - I was just dissenting to offer up some hope against the depressing picture. :)
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2743
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by Zhen Li »

Jikan wrote:
tlee wrote: Is critical thinking disruptive?
Critical thinking is, by definition, disruptive. This is because critical thinking is reflective thinking--it requires one to take an outsider's position to comment not only on the content of the debate, but also the terms of the debate, the power relations of those involved, assessing the stakes of those relations terms & contents, and so on. Critical thinking is not the same as mere dissent. It is a reflective practice, a negation.

See:

Marcuse, Herbert. Reason and Revolution.
Nizan, Paul. The Watchdogs.
&c
If I may share my understanding on this issue ;)
I believe that this perspective is determined by relative language - the English, and other Indo-European languages, most commonly use aggressive and hostile words in discussing debates, e.g. "defend an argument," "attack the opponent's points," "win an argument," "debate strategy." In other languages the metaphors employed to discuss debate are sometimes different, e.g. a certain New Guinean language uses dance as a metaphor. But even in English, we can, and sometimes do, use different metaphors in language, e.g. art ("well crafted words," "gives us a new perspective," "expressed clearly"), cooperation ("important contribution," "your ideas complement mine," "we shared our understandings of the issue," "this helped us come to a consensus"), journey ("explain step by step," "going in circles"), quest ("search for the best solution," "looked for best approach"). I also recall noticing that in some Taiwanese political campaigns, the slogans used were more like the "quest" notion, and sometimes involved Buddhist metaphors (the path to enlightenment on this issue, etc).

We should not encourage aggression in criticism as Buddhists, this is simply 'not' the only way to engage in discussion in a civilised or skilful way, and it is not right speech. We should try to develop kind and considerate dialogue, and discussing language using any of the above alternative metaphors to those of warfare is a good start.
User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 6965
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by kirtu »

Zhen Li wrote: We should not encourage aggression in criticism as Buddhists, this is simply 'not' the only way to engage in discussion in a civilised or skilful way, and it is not right speech. We should try to develop kind and considerate dialogue, and discussing language using any of the above alternative metaphors to those of warfare is a good start.
Well, ideally. But sometimes people really are just morons.

Kirt
Kirt's Tibetan Translation Notes

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche

"Most all-knowing Mañjuśrī, ...
Please illuminate the radiant wisdom spirit
Of my precious Buddha nature."
HH Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
User avatar
Berry
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:19 am

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by Berry »

kirtu wrote: But sometimes people really are just morons.
That's not a very skillful description of other people ...

mo·ron n.

1. A stupid person; a dolt.

2. Psychology A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moron
Leave the polluted water of conceptual thoughts in its natural clarity. Without affirming or denying appearances, leave them as they are. When there is neither acceptance nor rejection, mind is liberated into mahāmudra.

~ Tilopa
User avatar
Kaccāni
Posts: 1083
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:03 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: "Protecting" Society from Critical Thinkers

Post by Kaccāni »

Whatever is currently discussed as "prevalent truth" is simply opinions that are agreed upon. The act of agreement is some form of investment as identification with the idea.

Andybody who criticizes or brings up new ideas smashes and threatens those investments.

The basic problem is not seeing that everything out there is merely a point of view, and there are as many other points of view as there are instances of consciousness. Even this is.

Sticking to a certain point of view is trying to stop change (in point of view).
Shush! I'm doing nose-picking practice!
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”