Sophistication and Cleverness

How they rally, wording their agendas in thinly veiled semantics. Word clever and intellegent they draw out their points and secure their own ground, never even considering taking anothers point of view. Highly tuned for battle they seek out and disperse any critique if challenged. Aloof they smirk at different understanding, not noticing their own pride. Neti neti inscribed on their forehead, a mantra they will die by, smiling knowingly that they come to naught. We have our fair share of them and call them cotrarians because they hate to agree. Surprise, a catchword that is holy, but oneness is relative, choosing and selecting their own gospel. They enjoy a rise as it is what they seek. Make a fuss, without a care, hammering home a point, just to dismiss the next. Come to them, all you pleasers, and they will congratulate you on your wise decission.

Justifying their ways with few bits of truths, neglecting the overall picture, avoiding personal implications. Free from conscience, ravelling in their own views, anarchists in the true sense, they will take it as a compliment no doubt.

Just in the mood for love…

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Yeah!!
Kill 'em!
Destroy the clever, heathen sophists!!
Mwa hahaaaaaaaa!

Geez, if that's the “mood for love” I'd hate to see you when you're angry! : )

Peace Brother!
mikeS

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Om Shanti shanti shanti… : )

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Hey Bjorn,

Much of what you say could apply to me in certain moods.  I am a sophist of sorts in that I'm very intellectual but can't quite take my own intellectuality very seriously.  When in an aggressive mood, I'm a millitant agnostic… I don't know and you don't either.

But all that is just surface.  I often use my intellect in discussion because words are good at removing the chaff which gets in the way of the true emotional core.  Words, basically, are intellect.  To use one's intellect well is to use words well.  Even so, words can also be used to express the heart.

As for my own feeble understandings of life, I do justify my ways with a few bits of truths because I'm very picky (high standards or just dismissive?) about my truths.  I don't neglect the overall picture… I'm just ignorant of it… or at least very confused.  It helps to remind me of humility… when I'm feeling open to listen to my own heart.  My questioning comes from my mind and heart simultaneously.

BTW anarchist is a good term you chose because its often misunderstood.  Anarchists aren't those who seek chaos, but those who seek order on the small-scale where they can haver personal influence.  A political anarchist doesn't trust big government nor big capitalism.  They trust people and direct human relationships. 

So, a spiritual anarchist would be someone who is a bit wary of those overarching truths proclaimed by church institutions and by society in general.  They want the truth that can be found in looking someone in the eye.  A spiritual anarchist puts direct experience and personal understanding first before belief.

BTW I do take your assessment as a compliment of sorts, but I do recognize my own pride in this.  One of my talents is my intellect (sophisticated and clever at times, and other things as well)… whether or not specific other people value that particular talent or my use of it… can't please everyone.

The thing is I don't see emotion and intellect in opposition.. or I try not to.  I do understand and feel the conflict between them.  I'll admit openly that I tend to respect people the most who manage to have both strong (even clever) intellects all the while having a strong spiritual sense.  Everyone is different and we all have different values.  Nobody is perfect.

I think I understand your complaint though.  Overly clever people can annoy me to no end… I'm an INFP and not an INTP afterall.  If I had to chose, I would of course chose the emotionally genuine.  It is easy to dismiss on the intellectual level.  But, without that intellectual scalpel, getting to the essence would be much more difficult, maybe even impossible it seems to me.  What is love if it isn't lit by the clear light of truth?

Just in the mood for truth and love…

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Bjorn, dude, long time no see!  Empathizing here with the sentiment but really enjoying the writing.  You are quite eloquent in grievance.

cheers,
Michael

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Bjorn I take it you are taking the mickey out of yourself???

Otherwise your judgement is harsh indeed.

Marmalade I know your writing in English but haven't got a clue what you've said.

Maxie, that stellated tetrahedron is impressive.  Is it a new form of molecular construction?

- an eccentric Aussie

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Andrew, what don't you understand? 

I thought my wording was clear.  Are you not familiar with some of the terms or references?  For instance, I was just using the standard/general definition of anarchism.  I made some references to other things as well such as INFP and INTP.  If you aren't familiar with any term I use, you can always look it up… that is the intellectual side of me speaking.  If you're a curious person as I am, I'd think you'd enjoy looking things up to increase your understanding.

Or am I misunderstanding what you meant?  What specifically was unclear to you?  I thought I was speaking directly to the point.  I was using the very common metaphors of heart and mind… which seemed to be the metaphor that Bjorn was implying.

Did anyone else find what I said confusing?

I must say I'm confused at your confusion, Andrew.  Well, I guess you are self-titled as eccentric.  Maybe our two versions of eccentricity aren't compatible.  Oh well, like I was saying… can't please everyone.  Can you understand that?  lol

Marmalade

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

I was just wondering if there is a cultural gap.  You're an Aussie and I'm an American.  Are the references I'm making more of an American thing or even North American?  Does my writing style seem American?

Or are my references too intellectual thus proving Bjorn's assertion of problematic intellectuals like me?  I didn't think my references were that obscure.  Is my mentioning of millitant agnosticism an obscure reference?  If you'd studied atheism or agnosticism, then I wouldn't think it would be unfamiliar.

I picked up all of Bjorn's references.  Maybe the difference is that I'm equally familiar with both spiritual and intellectual terminology.  I have spent a fair amount of time on more intellectual discussion boards, but I didn't think my first comment was all that intellectual or complex.  It wasn't like I was speaking about ancient philosophers or little known religious texts.  I thought the metaphor of heart and mind was one of the most common metaphors in all of existence… am I incorrect in that assumption?

Is there something unusual about my writing style?  Are my sentences too meandering?  I must say I tend to put a fair amount of effort in trying to be clear.  What is the point of writing if you're audience doesn't understand you?

Marmalade

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Wow, Ben, what I said was actually tongue in cheek, though you weren't to know that, I should have put a smiley face next to it.

As to your description of a militant agnostic I would have thought pyrrhonist would be more accurate

My understanding of an agnostic is one who believes God exists, but cannot be personally known.  An athiest by the strictest definition does not accept the existance of an original divine cause, or God, but that definition has been modified somewhat in recent decades to fit the mood of the person using the term to mean whatever they want it to mean.

Anarchy comes from the Greek word anarchos meaning having no ruler, which can be good or bad, depending on your perspective.

As to your referring to yourself as a sophist (of sorts), only you know your heart.

As to the psychology of being pigeon holed into certain personality types, I have steered clear of that area.  It's okay for highly intelligent people like you that choose to label yourself but can be demeaning and detrimental to those who are trying to improve their station in life.

You have said that you picked up all of Bjorn's references, does that mean you sit equally in judgement or are you taking the mickey out of yourself also???  :-)

In love and peace

an eccentric Aussie



 

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

My bad, Andrew.  lol  Talk about lack of communication.  I entirely didn't notice that your tongue was in your cheek… a good place to keep it by the way.  You were making me doubt my ability to communicate.  Its all good.  :)

Yeah, yeah. Militant agnostic, pyrrhonist, zetetic… all related.  By militant agnostic, I meant weak agnosticism I think.  The view that I don't know and that I don't know (but don't deny) whether I can know.  Strong agnosticism isn't very attractive to me and most people don't mean that when they use the term agnosticism.  I don't know what agnosticism used to mean, but I know the common definitions amongst those who post in atheist and agnostic forums.

“As to the psychology of being pigeon holed into certain personality types, I have steered clear of that area.  It's okay for highly intelligent people like you that choose to label yourself but can be demeaning and detrimental to those who are trying to improve their station in life.”

Huh?  I would assume that you haven't studied typology much.  The view you presented there is a caricature and isn't typical of those who seriously study typology.  For some reason, what you say feels a bit aggressive and dismissive.  Typology is just a viewpoint, just info.  Its not the Man trying to hold you down. 

Even if you haven't so far found typology useful personally, that is no reason to dismiss it entirely.  I don't find owning a car useful at this point in my life, but I don't dismiss the car industry and all those who own cars.

I'm sorry to have put you on the defensive (if that is what your feeling).  I was just genuinely confused at your statement of not understanding me.

Typology was partly created to help people improve themselves.  Your ability to get anywhere else is difficult if you don't know where you are.  Typology, like integral, just gives you a map that shows various landmarks and pathways.  But I understand the desire to wander aimlessly through the wilderness and blaze one's own path.  Good luck on that.  :)

“You have said that you picked up all of Bjorn's references, does that mean you sit equally in judgement or are you taking the mickey out of yourself also???  :-)”

Talk about a confusing way of communication.  Just because Bjorn communicated in a way that I understood that means I'm judging… ummm, why?  At the moment, you seem to be the person sitting in judgment.  I suppose “mickey” is Australian slang.  Would you mind explaining further?

meh… whatever…

Marmalade

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

There was no offense intended Ben.

Taking the mickey means not to take yourself seriously, I didn't think it was an Australian term, and I didn't think you were taking yourself seriously.

Perhaps I was wrong.

You answered in kind to Bjorn so it was clear you were in agreement.

For some reason, what you say feels a bit aggressive and dismissive.

I get that a lot from Gaia ambassadors though it's refreshing not to have one run away and hide behind a blocked profile.

What I said I meant, sincerely, you are obviously highly intelligent and conversant and comfortable with typology. I have seen the negative effects that typecasting or profiling people can have, perhaps as a result of misuse of a tool designed for a constructive psychological purpose.

Outside of personal and sporting achievements I'm uncomfortable with anything that classifies people into separate types or qualities, that can be used to determine that one person is better or of more intrinsic value than another, particularly when it works in favour of the intelligentsia.

It would be a high handed and arrogant statement that Bjorn made if he were serious, I was interested to find out just how serious you both were.

In love and peace

An eccentric Aussie

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

I have no desire to block anyone.  If I don't want to talk to someone I won't, but I don't have to pretend they don't exist.  Oh yeah, I'm an ambassador aren't I.  Hmmm, an ambassador of Gaia… egads!  Um, well, I'm not a very good one… sorry about that.  I'm the ugly duckling of ambassadors.  Its nice of them to keep me around.  :)

I'm an irritable moody person.  I'm always taking myself seriously and I'm always laughing at everything including myself.  Life is quite funny when its not sad and frustrating.  Or is it so funny because its sad and frustrating?  I would laugh more but the jagged edges of my broken soul hurt too much where they've punctured my heart..  Have mercy!

Oh I don't know if you were being aggressive and dismissive or not.  I for sure can be aggressive which I accept to an extent because that is just how I feel at times, but I try to be careful in how I express it.  I particularly don't want to be dismissive.  Its quite easy to be or sound dismissive without even realizing it.

I was feeling a bit frustrated in my communications with you.  For some reason, I don't have a good sense of you.  I don't know if its communication style or what.  I feel like I miss your cues… as if we're on different wavelengths… which I don't think has anything to do with your self-proclaimed eccentricity.  I don't know.

Its hard to read people online.  This is especially a problem when the communication is short.  I have a strong desire for communication to be clear.  That I'm very serious about.  More than being INFP, its as a writer that I primarily identify myself.

Ahh… very very interesting.  So, ya think typology favors the intelligentsia?  I suppose it favors Intuitive types as almost everyone involved in the creation and promotion of typology are of this category, but I hadn't thought about it as intelligentia. 

Intellectuals tend to be NT (Intuitive Thinking) types, but an INFJ can be more intellectual than ENTPs for instance.  INFPs don't tend to be hardcore intellectuals and INFPs are one of the main types that are attracted to typology… or is it that INFP is one of the main types people tend to identify with when studying typology?

Intuition is also the function of imagination.  INFPs in particular often manifest their tendencies in the artistic direction.  I couldn't begin to count the number of touchy feely dreamers I've come across on the INFP board I visit sometimes.  If anything, INFPs can be quite wary of too much intellectuality…. even sometimes being outright anti-intellectual.

Anyways, typology is theoretically value-neutral.  Some even argue that it goes too far in idealizing that all types are equal.  The Integralists often see these typology systems as lesser ways of categorizing people and they prefer categories that evaluate what is better.  Integralism is much more interesting to the nitpicking intellectual types.

Is that enough serious for you?  :)

Marm

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Thank you Ben for taking the time to explain typology from your perspective.

I am always willing to be corrected if I am wrong about something.  It stings me like anyone else but I'd rather be thought of as an idiot for being misinformed than an idiot because I'm unteachable and belligerent.

You are probably aware I was an ambassador but I was too vocal in my protestations regarding petty abuse of the blockout function, which lead to my fall from grace.  I've never suffered fools gladly. 

Oh and I do apologise for referring to that aspect in relation to yourself.  I realise it was uncalled for.  You are clearly sincere and well grounded in your Spiritual confidence and integrity.

I actually started on the wrong foot because I felt Bjorns introduction was arrogant and offensive. I wanted to be proved wrong.

As I no longer am expected to act like a 'model' Gaia citizen, having been stripped of my badge, I had no problem testing the waters to see if Bjorn was serious.  You just happened to get in the way.

I'm impressed by the way you are happy to share the fact that you are honouring your long departed friend using the name Marmalade.

If I were to do the same thing my online name would be Jeremiah. He was an extraordinary cat, and I think slightly brain damaged… he was the runt of the litter.  He had a balance problem so he couldn't lay down like other cats.  When he wanted to lay down he'd stop walking and fall over. It didn't seem to bother him, he didn't have a nasty bone in his body, just a beautiful relaxed good natured friend.

In love and peace

an eccentric Aussie

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Hi Andrew,

I see you and Marm have been having a great chat, just thought I'd mention that we have had a very interesting thread about typology a while back and Marm is very knowledgeable about it -

MBTI: Jungian Personality Types

Love,

Nicole

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Please enlighten this poor parochial American, what does taking the mickey out of yourself mean?

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Andrew,

A bit off-topic here, but the stellated tetrahedron linked on my profile page is an interesting bugger indeed.

“Is it a new form of molecular construction?”

Very interesting question Mr. Eccentric Aussie Andrew.  Btw, what does it take to be an eccentric Aussie?  I thought all of you lot round yonder were engaged in the perpetual O-lym-pics of eccentricity - (heh heh) a vibe I actually find quite comforting being somewhat an eccentric meself.

Huge story there with this shape.  Odd as it may seem, it has never been articulated in any journal of geometry, crystallography, mineralogy or hippie-ass cystal pontifiction before it “emerged” into view in my forebrain some 20 years ago.

As far as “molecular” construction goes, I don't think so because there are no structural analogues manifest in this apparent reality that show a recursive relationship to this shape*, but,  I do propose and have written a long-winded justification for, the possibility that this geometry is the shape of dark matter and, consequently, the first and most stable form of “matter” (interpreted broadly to include both baryonic and hadronic forms of matter as well as the gross grit we can “feel” in the hand) Ahem.

Might I ask what your background is in such things?  I might help me to know so that I could guage the language of my responses to further inquiries about this subject should you remain curious.

cheers,
Michael

*There is one mineral, (“Goethite” of all things!!) that does show a tendency towards this shape expression, but it does not carry it out fully and thus, formally does not qualify - but, when I was researching the field just after “discovering” this shape, I came across the only mineral analogue that resembled what I had found and was blown away that it was named after one of me greatest heroes, ol JWG himself!!  Will wonders never cease!!

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

What caught my attention Michael was that the shape looked like it could only work if it was a representation of a molecular structure.

It is beautiful in its intricacy, in a geometric way.

Please don't use big words or assume I'm a chemical or materials engineer.

I studied engineering at university level for 12 months a LONG time ago and have maintained a cursory interest.  I have no aptitude for calculus so that pretty much barred me from pursuing engineering

I like to figure out how things work.

You allude to some joy over the pressure test in your profile.  I think you are worthy of a verbal pat on the back.

In love and peace

an eccentric Aussie

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Is it “clever” to be locked in a one-sided fallacy (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/inflogic/onesided.htm)?  Or, perhaps, is it “foolish?”

Why do they use sophistication (intellectual approach, perhaps) and cleverness?  I would guess that some wish to win.   At times, I wonder what it is they wish to “win.”

So many of us exercise in persuasion, wit, and rhetoric due to our adherence to one-sided fallacy, and hence fail in finding the truth, regardless of our application of logic. 

Hence, we will hear cries of ”Argumentum ad logicam!!!! ” oft and loudly, as some choose to baffle us with the bullshit of “logic.”  This application of logic, in their minds, makes them look smart. They are contemptuous in showing that their has made an error in reasoning.  The icing on the cake is that they can can give that error a name as well (in Latin!), which they believe demonstrates taht they can think on their feet and, from a one-sided fallacy standpoint, that they understand the opposition's argument possibly better than they do.

Peace to you, brother Bjorn, for perhaps they are not as sophisticated and clever as the Kosmos may warrant. 

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Gee Jeepdog, if I'd known you were going to say all that I wouldn't have bothered responding.

You have a far more logical turn of phrase than I. 

Unfortunately I was standing in the wrong queue when the poetic gifts were handed out.

-an eccentric Aussie

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Jeepdog, that's what I meant! : )

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Bjorn -

I surmised as much.  Just thought I'd throw my perspective and words into the fray.  :)

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Marmalade, Your heart response made me melt, thanks. 

Hello Michael, yes long time, good to see you too : )

Hi Andrew, I'm not taking the mickey, I mean every word, you slanderer : )

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

You can't upset me Bjorn, I've been insulted by experts… :-)

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

: )

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

How great God is, that God loves us all, as different as we all are in styles of relating and understanding.

John 14:

1 “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3 “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. 4 “And you know the way where I am going.” 5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?” 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Light and peace to you all, my dear friends,

Nicole

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

In my two hands I hold one thing each:  In the right I hold my sophistication and cleverness - all 63 years and counting of it, born of necessity, honed by decades of trying to maintain poise and look-good dignity in the face of a relentless, suffocating mirage of conscious misrepresentation of the Truth; in the left, I hold the yearning to be stripped free of the attachments and, yea, even spiritual materials that will, as Bjorn suggests, not fit through the eye of the looming needle through which we are being drawn.

I bring my two hands and all they contain together and hold them to my heart while consciously turning my will over to the care of God as I understand God knowing from repeated experience (faith) that, regarding any dilemma as to how to balance these two forces of innocence and expertise, it will be my higher self that decides and, in its own time, will be pleased to show me how to proceed.

cheers,
Michael

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

That is the true confession of a humble heart Michael.

Nothing can stop you, but you.

- An eccentric Aussie

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Amen, Andrew - really, appreciate your resonance.  Affection arises …

hey wait!  does this mean, if we agree, that we are not eccentric to … each other??  its a good thing that you are way over-around-under there or it might get a bit crowded up here in Alaska.

cheers,
Michael

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Michael I think it means that you and I may be the only normal ones left, it's actually the rest of the world that's insane.

But we can't tell them…

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

“But we can't tell them…”

I don't know about that Andrew, they don't call me  the “Pontificator” around here for nothing.  (heh heh)

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Andrew and Michael, you guys are hilarious :)

Hugs,

Nicole

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

I'm interested in who determines whether a response is “sophisticated and clever”? And could that determination simply be used when in disagreement?

Judeo-Christian ideology is probably some of the most sophisticated and clever arguments ever devised, this is evident in reviewing some of the apologists and their clever stringing together of propositions giving the impression of logical sequences of truth.

Or how about the massively sophisticated Buddhist and Zen ideologies which seem to grow in sophistication and cleverness in postmodern times?

Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen have both weaved together some of the most sophisticated and clever theories on the spiritual ever devised. And many in this thread have proclaimed value in those theories. Should they be ignored and dismissed due to their “sophistication and cleverness”? Or, if we agree with those theories are they then no longer sophisticated and clever? Who is to judge?

So what spiritual-religious dogma does not have it's sophisticated and clever theoretical arguments?

Or will we employ the “sophisticated and clever” argument simply when others disagree with our propositions and declarations on the naure of “truth”? That would be disingenuous and inauthentic

Just wondering…..
mikeS

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Hi Mike,

Excellent questions - it's all in the point of view, isn't it?

I appreciate all of the participants in these discussions so much, and find it encouraging how much we can grow in our understanding of each other when we ask questions and are open and receptive.

Love,

Nicole

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Mike,

I suppose it would boil down to whether or not those arguing are attempting to “win.”  What is the agenda?

I never found KW particularly clever, quite honestly.  Integral theory is quite complex, as is his interpretation of it, so perhaps a bit sophisticated it is.

Yet, I rarely get the impression he is trying to “win” something.

Not sure about the others, but I was pointing to the rhetoric of politicians, and their twisting of spirituality to get the to end result of a political desire.

~

Re: Sophistication and Cleverness

Mike,

“I'm interested in who determines whether a response is “sophisticated and clever”? And could that determination simply be used when in disagreement?”

Interesting question, I agree with Nicole.  It used to be that “sophistication” was a compliment of sorts and the same could be said for “clever.”  Now, they both have a perjorative air about them, especially when used together.  In a way, this current state kind of mirrors the value that the departing political regime placed on the intellectual realm.

On the other hand, it seems that, despite the profound mystery of the Kosmos and all the ways that it manifests itself, when you get down into it, it always seems to reveal itself as simpler than if first appears, and despite its overwhelming beauty, even more elegant the closer you look at it.

So, how to apply the “sophisticated-and-clever” scratch test to the mystifying simplictiy and profound elegance of what we have before us?

My take in the present is that sophistry and cleverness suit exploitation and exploitation requires governance, thus, when employing sophistry and cleverness, the practitioner ought remain open to moderation or risk being unmasked as hypocritical and opportunistic, thus neither “sophisticated,” really, nor “clever” in the end.

cheers,
Michael