If you had done the work what I said would be clear. Nobody wants to do the work. What everybody wants is a quick answer and for the most part so they can dismiss it.
I'm sure with all the consideration you seem to be doing, you can see just how arrogant this sounds. I could ask, "Who are you to say I haven't done the work?!", and get all huffy puffy as most would, but I'm more perplexed as to why you assume you've done more "work" than I? Most importantly, I'd like to know what "work" you mean. If you are going to acuse someone of not doing the "work", please be explicit as to what "work" you're referring to.
It's an absurd tactic to take "They don't have a choice" out of context and propose an argument.
What argument do you think I was proposing? In fact, I was trying to find out just what context you were even speaking in. I didn't know what you meant by, "They don't have a choice" - just what choice don't they have?
When I respond to posts I always go back to check if I responded completely. Please give me some latitude on what I am about to write without taking it personally.
I'm sincerely trying, and you may not have intended it to be so, but your writing comes off as (1) very arrogant and (2) belittling.
What was your interpretation? How can I begin to respond without knowing what you interpreted? Notice how we both assumed we knew what each other was talking about and we assumed what the expectations might be when the question was answered.
If I start a sentence, "I am interpreting...", it's very important that you read the rest of the sentence. This will usually answer the, "What are you interpreting question?". Or do you mean something else here?
How can what I say be clear to me and vague to someone else?
Are you being sincere with this question?
That's kind of arrogant isn't it? Since when do you need to get up to speed with me?
I wouldn't call it "up to speed", but different "ground" does seem fair. It isn't that anyone is above, or below, one another necessarily
. It is just that to effectively communicate sometimes it is imperative someone "gives way" and makes an effort to relate to the other. "Bridging the communicative gaps", so to say.
The "ground" you stand on is the legacy of mis-conceptions and presuppositions (including "character" (see previous postings) that have been passed down to us.
Because I mentioned "character", I am standing on a legacy of misconceptions and presuppositions? Again, I'm sure you realize how insulting this sounds. I won't be offended. Please, though, explain what you mean.
I have made the leap across the chasm that lies between "The Legacy" and "Be-ing". I deal with "The Legacy" every day and yet in every "instant" I make the distinction between "The Legacy" and "Be-ing" and I choose Be-ing. Don't mis-understand me, sometimes I choose "The Legacy", notice when I do and then choose "Be-ing".
If one is enlightened, it is essential that one does not flaunt their enlightenment. This only serves to drive others away, and the epiphany will not be considered or remembered as one wishes it to be.
What you have brought to my attention is that I can know the ground you stand on and I can know what you are saying when you talk about The Legacy, but I can only point to the ground I stand on and hope you do the work.
The communicative work rests on both
of us. Regardless how enlightened you think you are, or how enlightened I think I am, this communication rests on our
patience, resilience, and kindness. If we do not work together, this building will come crashing down.