Re: OK Paul. Was: Who is the real author of the Service of Womenpaper?




Hi, Ron.

Ron House (house@xxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> Hi Michael, I thank you for your kind thoughts. Coming from you, it
> means a lot. I hope that your life, too, is filled with happiness.

Yes, thanks you; busy and happy.

> You are quite right, of course, that we should 'play the issue, not the
> person'. But playing the issue does presume that we have an idea about
> the person. If someone gives a talk and takes a question from the
> audience, everyone presumes that the questioner is a sincere inquirer,
> and the speaker is answering a genuine query. But what if he has salted
> the audience with paid operatives who are actually asking dorothy
> dixers? How an audience member should evaluate the credibility of the
> speaker depends quite rightly on a lot more than the impersonal logic of
> the words spoken. Again, if the questions are prepared by the speaker,
> but he tells us so in advance, we would evaluate the proceedings
> differently yet again.

Actually, in my opinion, it still doesn't really matter. You know, it's
very interesting that reality, to a large extent, is subjective. What that
means is that some folks stroll through life imagining that everyone's out
to get them, that the whole planet is just filled with folks whose primary
focus is to attack the Baha'i Faith, who are secretly conspiring together
to see how they can bring Baha'i into terrible disrepute. Well, for them,
that's their reality. That actually is the landscape they have to cross,
imposed by themselves upon themselves, but still what they find themselves
faced with.

Now, as I understand Abdu'l Baha, he saw the world as a place inhabited by
humans. Some of these humans could be somewhat misinformed and some of
them might not be very nice to him, but they really were people and he
treated them kindly.

More than that, in my opinion, if we act as if anyone we meet here is a
person, perhaps misinformed, but well-intentioned, then we can focus on
the issues.

We could even, instead of imagining a conspiracy of evil doers, try to
gaze through eyes that perceive well-intentioned action. Consider, if we
looked upon the posts of Susan Maneck and All-Bad not as the inflexible
defence of the indefensible, but these very salted dorothy dixers, you
know, deliberate opportunities for the real well-wishers of Baha'i
(liberals) to present what's in the best interests of Baha'i, how much
different does the response become.

It doesn't matter how outrageous Susan or Pat become, or anyone else who
may wander in here, it's just an opportunity for the lurkers to encounter
the elevated spirituality of Baha'i by reading the responses to what's so
outrageous. Indeed, Susan and Pat are perceived as well-wishers hoping to
provide lurkers with the true elixir of Baha'i harmony.

> Facts, sound arguments, and so on, cannot be ignored. But if someone is
> taken to be an impartial observer, they might be expected to favour one
> group's position on one issue, and another's on another issue.

I think I'll continue this from the other account.

Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
>
> Best wishes to you, Michael!
>
> --
> Ron House house@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
> Ethics website: http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house/goodness


--
"When all is dark, search for the light, and if it isn't there, create it"
(Sheila Woodgold, June 23, 2005)
.