Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00108)

Hi Paul, and all of you,

I think the below remark of yours has some relevancy.

I would offer the below. I could help some. Others would reject it.
And that is that - in our dualistic world.

Here is an allegory - "How to prove it" :


In the land of the fools two people were talking:

A: I am no idiot, I can mulitply numbers !
B: I don't believe it !
A: I bet this silver coin, that i can.
B: Go ahead then, lets hear you.
A: Here you are : two and two are ninety-nine !
B: Fair-enough here is your money !

Point: Either one gets it, or then not.

Did you get the idea Paul ?

Wisdom is interesting - and should be sought - and not rejected.
We should learn how much knowledge is needed, so we can find out how ignorant we are.

If to seek wisdom (in complete honesty) is to have a belief - and/or - to be a FUNDAMENTALIST. Then I will have to disagree very much. What do - you -the readers think ?

It is all right to reject - for instance Karma or Reincarnation if one - think of them as stupid issues or the like. But to explore - and seek wisdom - is the duty in life.
It is also ones duty to do good - always help and never hurt, and if one can't help, then one should at least seek to avoid hurting.
Ones conscience will help one to rethink ones actions.

We can only do our best - all of us.

All right?

Feel free to comment - everybody.

from
Sufilight



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 8:25 PM
Subject: Theos-World Emic/etic


> Having surfed a bit, I can now offer a link and a bit more 
> explanation. The terms originated in linguistics but are now 
> commonly used in anthropology. Pike and Harris respectively are the 
> authors most associated with these terms in the two fields. A link 
> explaining the terms further is:
> 
> http://www.msu.edu/~dwyer/EmicEtic.htm
> 
> The bottom line is insider/outsider. Which equates to 
> subjective/objective, of course. Insiders say "You can't really 
> understand x unless you're one of us, and approach it just as our 
> group does." Outsiders say "You can't possibly understand x unless 
> you look at from the standpoint of a detached observer rather than a 
> committed participant."
> 
> It's irritating but not unusual to be told by insiders that "We know 
> better than you because of our insider status." But it's far more 
> irritating (and rarer, fortunately) to be told that "you are morally 
> wrong, and an enemy, to approach this subject any other way than the 
> way we insiders do."  
> 
> PJ
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>