lyra wrote:It sounds to me like you expect that you're supposed to never find something that he says which disagrees with your own philosophy. And I suspect you may have encountered this disappointing "slap with reality" in other authors you may have admired, who turned out in the end to have flaws and faults and personality traits that you don't agree with and opinions you disagree with...? Just guessing. Could totally be wrong here. But it is a recurring problem with many people who tend to put their favorite authors on pedestals. These people are never allowed to be human, never allowed to show their flaws, or have differing "out there" opinions.
Mmm. . . yup you are totally wrong!
OK well not totally wrong, but mostly wrong. I know much better than to put anybody on a pedestal. We're all on the same field here (though perhaps not all playing the same game). I do understand the dynamic you are referring to, and I can understand how you may have thought that's what was going on.
I was just surprised to see him expressing that particular view, considering that he is generally on the fringe of the fringe, and tends to see past even the dogma of free thinkers. And of course, he is free to change his mind, express a view he doesn't fully agree with just for effect, or to wholeheartedly believe that pot smoking completely eliminates one's chances of "escaping the sphere." Though in my opinion out of character, I by no means would expect him to always act in character, especially what I believe would be in character because well, I don't even know the guy.
It would kind of be like if I logged on NR during a full moon and I found that you had posted something declaring that all Noble Realmers were idiots and that anybody who didn't agree with G.W. Bush's war strategy was a communist and a traitor.
I would certainly be surprised, and probably think "Holy crap, the full moon madness has even got to Lyra this month!" I would be confused. I would probably ask you to clarify your views and state that they seem rather distorted to me. But I wouldn't be disappointed in you, or mad at you, because I don't have a vested interest in you showing up a particular way.
tenetnosce wrote:Well, no need for the sarcasm, tenetnosce, because I wasn't being sarcastic to you.
I wasn't writing with sarcastic intent, but my apologies if it appeared that way to you. It was an attempt at humor. And I know you would never "high five" me on a post, because that's not your style. That's kind of the point I was trying to make. Similarly, it's not my style to say anything in a post with the intent of cutting anybody down, making them feel "less than", or baiting them into a flame war. You know that. So breathe easy, I'm not gearing up for another Lyra bash. If anything I'd be one of the first to jump in and defend you against those kinds of attacks, if it weren't for the fact that you seem to defend yourself quite well without my assistance.
lyra wrote:And yes, I did agree with you. You, and others are right about not overly focusing on the physical.
I know you did. Actually I'm not quite sure what we are in disagreement about, other than the validity of certain argumentative strategies.
Yes, I plucked one little statement out and made a huge example of it. But I still believe that saying "If you smoke pot you've got no chance." is irresponsible, dogmatic, and just plain incorrect. But whatever, that's just my opinion. Except on the incorrect part. 
But I don't believe you were ever arguing that the statement was correct. Were you?
lyra wrote:Maybe I can be the world's first "logic super hero." 
Maybe if you believe in it with enough conviction, it will become true. YCYOR, you know! 
Well in any case I hope this thread serves as an example of how two very opinionated people can argue about a topic without taking personal offense or cheap shots or getting their feelings hurt, and still like each other in the end.
Well I won't speak for you, but I still think you're swell. 
It is not for us to understand love, but simply to make space for it.