The Art of Debating

[christian]

It's also "The Art of Dealing with Conflicts with other People". Once again I pulled a few lines out of Sun Tzu's classic "The Art of War" to explain some things about human interactions, virtual and physical.

In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

Simply slamming someone and his opinion is not the most skillful thing to do.

Finding anything of value, even if only between the lines, in the other's opinion and commending and encouraging that may help in winning a new friend and ally.

Perceived flaws in someone's opinion can still be pointed out, the important thing is not to attack someone personally, as this always builds resentment and unnecessary conflict.

In my opinion a lot of those conflicts are due to the fact, that even many of the "lightworkers" are sometimes easily triggered into reptilian reactonary fight behaviour when they perceive it's for the "good cause". - But in fact giving in to such behaviour means perpetuating this behavioural paradigm here on earth.

It has to be noted, that debates in opposite to physical conflicts are much more unreal in the way, that one is always free to state just about anything and claiming it is true. Such behaviour in others can be discerned and then it's best to not allow oneself to be dragged in a "debate" with someone who doesn't really wanna debate and stop adding fuel to a divertion.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

"Without fighting" is so subtle and important. "Choose your battles wisely", not every argument is worth participating in, especially not in a way, where we just "besiege walled cities", i.e. have an argument that is all about throwing biases at each other. Do we really wanna spend our time and energy on engaging in such a way? Think about the energetic ripple effect this creates and about how we can spend our time in a more creative way.

Deciding how we spend your time and energy is where we really exert our free will. It's not so much about which decision is right or can be justified, because it is all a matter of perspective and anything can be justified. It's just about what do you really want to choose to do? What is the behavioural paradigm we want to establish?

To lift an autumn hair is no sign of great strength; to see the sun and moon is no sign of sharp sight; to hear the noise of thunder is no sign of a quick ear.

What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.

Hence his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage.

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success.

This means in a way, that more important than laying out and exerting plans is to cultivate one's conduct and one will shape oneself in a way, that one will win, wherever one goes and whatever one undertakes.

Really putting this into practice means to take on problems when they are still small, seeing problems before they really arise and getting no recognition for this by the average men, because he doesn't recognize things, that are being done this way.

Once again, it has to be noted, that a debate other than a physical conflict is much less tangible. Someone voicing some opinion loud and often does not mean those of another opinion are defeated or are needed to respond loudly and numerously. Actually responding in this manner would mean being lured into a moot fight. This doesn't mean allowing others to spread lies, but to moderate and purposefully direct one's counter measures.

I'm pretty sure, that most all of us here are willing to make an effort in one way or the other for the good cause, so I figure, what is important for us to cultivate is how we utilize our resolve. I mean, the proof is in the pudding. Whether or not we are awakened or enlightened is tested by how we deal with just about anything. It's not (just) about what we know, but about what we do. Especially the people and situations, that are uncomfortable, are the real litmus test.

My appeal to you is:
Don't get suckered into unnecessary conflicts. Someone voices something, that portrays you or something you hold dear in a bad light? If you are really on the moral highground, then show it. Be compassionate and forbearing, but not meek. Don't provide someone with a target, be aware of how you deal with energies and words directed at you. You can make them come to nothing, if you want. Discern, when there is no point in beleaguering something or someone.

Now, responding in such a way is not so much an "open victory" as calling someone out on every little thing. But in my opinion, this existence is not about impressively slamming others verbally or physically, but about empowering others and oneself.

[Paula]

Hello Christian,

This post is timely for me. It's a confirmation of what I innately know. It clears up doubts and confusion and pain I've been carrying around for the last week or so. Thank you.

With heart,
Paula

[Bill Ryan]

-------

Bumping this valuable contribution!

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by christian (here)
...

I'm pretty sure, that most all of us here are willing to make an effort in one way or the other for the good cause, so I figure, what is important for us to cultivate is how we utilize our resolve....

... this existence is not about impressively slamming others verbally or physically, but about empowering others and oneself.

Clicking the "Thanks" button was not enough.

After I found out about "Trivium Education", and realized (finally) what specifically has been deliberately omitted from modern education (post Carnegie's and Rockefeller's conspiracy) to dumb us all down, I recognized that it is no wonder we generally have poor debate (a subset of "classical rhetoric") skills and most "debate" is a dueling monologue punctuated by outbursts of frustration.

As Christian states in this thread's title, debate is an art. Arts require basic skills and lots of practice. I'm better than I was last year - I have moved up from abysmal to awful in my debate skills. My practice continues. Wax on. Wax off.

Thank you Christian!

Dennis

[christian]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
After I found out about "Trivium Education", and realized (finally) what specifically has been deliberately omitted from modern education (post Carnegie's and Rockefeller's conspiracy) to dumb us all down, I recognized that it is no wonder we generally have poor debate (a subset of "classical rhetoric") skills and most "debate" is a dueling monologue punctuated by outbursts of frustration.

Indeed! By the way, I found different accounts on where the seven liberal arts -- grammar, logic, rhethoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy -- originated, some say among Greek philosphers and some say in Egyptian mystery schools, whereby the 7 arts are both cases the same and arranged in a trivium and a quadrivium, only the compilation of what is where differs in both cases.

[Cidersomerset]

Very well put Christian I notice conflict normally comes from frustration on how to put over a point or a question. Its easy to get the tone wrong
this only comes with practice. Some times I put up something and think, it sounded a lot better in my head or I could not get the right tone
on the message I'm trying to relay thats why I learn't how to link, U/tube, and put up a picture link.Something David Icke uses to perfection.

I suggest look at Pauls sand box thread , I learn't from there and trial and error !! I am a computor novice only learning how to post,
create a thread etc since joining as a member.Thats why I never joined at the start , until I was brave enough to have a go.
When I joined last year my two fingered typing responces were so slow by the time I answered a particular thread especially a
busy one they were several posts further on..LOL..

Now I enjoy posting and it is fun !! Which is also why we are here to learn, listen and hopefully impart a little wisdom !!

Cheers Steve

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...518#post517518

[NancyV]

As much as I've always LOVED a good debate I have found over the years that it is also important to be able to communicate on the level of the person with whom you are communicating. Of course it's good to attempt to initiate a debate using principles such as those in the Trivium methodology.(thanks for posting info about it!) But once I know the person I'm communicating with is completely unable to engage or undesirous of engaging in a logical and respectful discourse, I pay attention to how THEY communicate and attempt to incorporate their patterns into my responses as much as possible, because they can HEAR their own patterns more easily.

I have found that if I can speak their language in the way they are wanting to communicate, I have a lot more ultimate success in keeping a conversation going. When I listen to them and empathize with them despite WHATEVER way they speak, even if they cuss a lot or attempt to use intimidating tactics, and then I respond with an acknowledgment that I hear and understand how they feel, it is then easier to guide the conversation into a more productive path. Of course I only do that if the conversation holds some promise. If it and they are completely uninteresting to me I avoid them and don't engage or maybe blast them with some of their own disagreeable nature mirrored back tenfold. (if I'm feeling bitchy) LOL..

It would be great if more people communicated logically, without so much "heat", without taking offense and feeling threatened so often... and without personal attacks. But I think the majority of people are not capable of dispassionate debate using more logic and less emotion. My guess and estimate would be that only about 5-10% of humans could debate without taking offense or getting upset if their beliefs are challenged. So it behooves us to learn to communicate with all types of people in their particular styles. It's an ongoing challenge and one I've greatly enjoyed for many decades. Before the advent of the Internet the challenge was different because the majority of communication was personal and in personal communications we have the advantages of body language/expression, voice and smell. Even communications via telephone offer more "clues" because hearing the tone and vibration of a voice confers more information on an energetic and physical level.

The Internet is more of a challenge, but, in fact, it may help us progress more rapidly in the art of debate and communication because there are multiple and subtle levels existing beyond the written word. These levels are accessible if we develop our more subtle senses. Communicating on the Internet may force us to more rapidly develop our ability to sense energy... simply because the challenge is there.

The written word is the most dense vibrational frequency in an attempt to communicate, but it leads us like a trail to the actual energy of the being who is typing those words. If we develop our compassion and accept the way that being communicates, it is the key that unlocks the door which leads one onto the trail...and the energetic trail takes us into the heart of the one who is attempting to communicate. No matter how obtuse or annoying their "words" may be, their souls are (most often) filled with love and they just want to BE loved. (if they're fully human and not a largely negative entity) So if it takes cussing or yelling to break through...I am not at ALL adverse to engaging on that level. In fact, it's often a hell of a LOT of fun!

[Zencat]

Posted by NancyV (here)
As much as I've always LOVED a good debate I have found over the years that it is also important to be able to communicate on the level of the person with whom you are communicating. Of course it's good to attempt to initiate a debate using principles such as those in the Trivium methodology.(thanks for posting info about it!) But once I know the person I'm communicating with is completely unable to engage or undesirous of engaging in a logical and respectful discourse, I pay attention to how THEY communicate and attempt to incorporate their patterns into my responses as much as possible, because they can HEAR their own patterns more easily.

I have found that if I can speak their language in the way they are wanting to communicate, I have a lot more ultimate success in keeping a conversation going. When I listen to them and empathize with them despite WHATEVER way they speak, even if they cuss a lot or attempt to use intimidating tactics, and then I respond with an acknowledgment that I hear and understand how they feel, it is then easier to guide the conversation into a more productive path. Of course I only do that if the conversation holds some promise. If it and they are completely uninteresting to me I avoid them and don't engage or maybe blast them with some of their own disagreeable nature mirrored back tenfold. (if I'm feeling bitchy) LOL..

It would be great if more people communicated logically, without so much "heat", without taking offense and feeling threatened so often... and without personal attacks. But I think the majority of people are not capable of dispassionate debate using more logic and less emotion. My guess and estimate would be that only about 5-10% of humans could debate without taking offense or getting upset if their beliefs are challenged. So it behooves us to learn to communicate with all types of people in their particular styles. It's an ongoing challenge and one I've greatly enjoyed for many decades. Before the advent of the Internet the challenge was different because the majority of communication was personal and in personal communications we have the advantages of body language/expression, voice and smell. Even communications via telephone offer more "clues" because hearing the tone and vibration of a voice confers more information on an energetic and physical level.

The Internet is more of a challenge, but, in fact, it may help us progress more rapidly in the art of debate and communication because there are multiple and subtle levels existing beyond the written word. These levels are accessible if we develop our more subtle senses. Communicating on the Internet may force us to more rapidly develop our ability to sense energy... simply because the challenge is there.

The written word is the most dense vibrational frequency in an attempt to communicate, but it leads us like a trail to the actual energy of the being who is typing those words. If we develop our compassion and accept the way that being communicates, it is the key that unlocks the door which leads one onto the trail...and the energetic trail takes us into the heart of the one who is attempting to communicate. No matter how obtuse or annoying their "words" may be, their souls are (most often) filled with love and they just want to BE loved. (if they're fully human and not a largely negative entity) So if it takes cussing or yelling to break through...I am not at ALL adverse to engaging on that level. In fact, it's often a hell of a LOT of fun!

Couldn't agree more, NancyV .... OUR problem often is that we focus more on the person than on the message. That's when the personal attacks begin and compassion takes a back seat.

Thank you Christian for this thread!

[Christine]

Yes! Thank you Christian for this intelligent thread, most valuable. I agree with Dennis Leahy that pushing the thank you button isn't enough. I found myself wanting to triple thank Christian.. instead a few words of gratitude will do. Thank you, thank you and thank you.

[christian]

Posted by NancyV (here)
But once I know the person I'm communicating with is completely unable to engage or undesirous of engaging in a logical and respectful discourse, I pay attention to how THEY communicate and attempt to incorporate their patterns into my responses as much as possible, because they can HEAR their own patterns more easily.

Simply mirroring someone's behaviour can provide for great aha moments I figure, this is like pulling out a needle with a needle, it can be very effective but it is also very peculiar and potentially dangerous -- but then again what isn't?

It's a thin line, I find, between being sucked down to a particular level of talk and behaviour on the one side and being flexible and adapting to the other's overall framework on the other, between standing for what you consider to be right and allowing yourself to play a role, so that the other may benefit.

Reminds me of this Rumi quote: "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there."