Intro: I got in a big disagreement with a colleague yesterday about certain applications of online/distance education. He is steadfastly against it to the point of red-faced, foot-stomping, yelling about its shortcomings and evils. But he also knows almost nothing about it, nor does he have any intention of ever finding anything out about it. To him, it is either face-to-face education or nothing. Anything short of face-to-face is NOT human contact. It's not that I think he's wrong in what he says (I grant him his points), it's that he is so closed minded about any alternative to his traditional ways. To me, this is just blind-faced dogma, and it bugs the crap out of me. As a Buddhist in this online sangha, I "know" that he is wrong: lots of human contact occurs here online, for example. I wanted very much to help him see this, but he is not ready to be helped, and I was not skillful enough to be of much help.
My Point: I went home and spent the better part of the evening really examining what happened and my role in it. To make a long story shorter, I realized I have a dogma against dogma, my anti-dogma dogma. This makes me the same as him: dogmatic. Thus the argument. Right/wrong, good/bad, East/West, Soto/Rinzai, etc. are relatively easy to recognize when they become dogma, but I think we can add to this list closed mind/open mind, because to cling to any of these ideas to the point of absolute denial of the other leads us to dogma. I think this open-minded dogma happens a lot, to some degree or other, in what is often a sneaky sort of way. So I guess I'm sharing as a warning to look out for what might be your anti-dogma dogma lurking nearby. Or maybe it's just me.
I hope this made sense.