Power Independence Home 
Power Independence > Book > bears Book > Open for Conversation

 Moderated by: bear  
AuthorPost
bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Something interesting, not to start a new topic, but at 1hr:12minutes:21seconds a definition of Capitalist is given and it is different than what I have seen so far and Quigley even says something about Soviet Russia being capitalist but Nazi Germany not. I found it very interesting. If you have time could you listen to a little of it? Maybe start a couple minutes earlier to get context, like maybe at 1 hour 10 minutes and then just listen til you get the gist…maybe for 5 minutes or so, and tell me what you think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bWLTM9ajFA&list=PLMMPK5eDLaV5qZ6grw1Nh8PSwJXGx7UI8

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear,

War is profitable?

That is, of course, a lie.



bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"War is profitable?

That is, of course, a lie."

Wouldn't that depend on whether you are a criminal or not? Someone funds both sides of war. Why? Profit? What kind of profit? Power?

OK, I didn't reply to that earlier because I couldn't think. I must have had a brain freeze :)

-----------------

Anyways I came back over here to ask you if you could interpret something for me. I can't understand what is being said to me. I do often see in color even if I only see black and white. And before you answer, let me say that I have already asked the author and did not hear back.

It is full of links to movies with a final link to Aleister Crowley. I am trying to connect dots and read some kind of message that may not be there. Can you understand? Or is it just some kind of meant to be fun mind trip?

Joe, if you don't mind. What do you make of this: http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2937963

-grasshopper

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear,

I don't know what to make of all those words.

Example:

"But tonight, I met a sweet girl at a bar, and I'm reminded, that girl energy is different from boy energy."

He is married, yet he met a sweet girl at a bar, and somehow a sweet girl at a bar is similar to you?

I do not know this person, I have looked up his Web Site on a Web Site Ranking page, and the Web Site looks like a money maker.

A Web Site Ranking Page

You ask:

"It is full of links to movies with a final link to Aleister Crowley. I am trying to connect dots and read some kind of message that may not be there. Can you understand? Or is it just some kind of meant to be fun mind trip?"

I don't know, and if he does not answer back, then that is an answer, especially if you ask 3 times.

I have always had a thing about asking 3 times whenever dealing with someone I could not afford to trust, like bosses at work, or even kids, it rarely happened, but when it did I made sure, like a person suffering from that stuff they call O.C.D. (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), I made sure that the event was reinforced on the spot, kind of like how people suffering from O.C.D. wash their hands a few times in a row.

I say, later, no, no, you can't tell me that, because I remember well, in fact while I was asking you I made sure that I asked you 3 times, and each time you gave me the same answer: 3 times, so no, I am not forgetting about this specific thing, you answered this way, and I know it.

Eventually I got a tape recorded to tape record my Boss telling me lies, and that was just me being too naive. As soon as I had the lies on the tape recorder, not "only" in my own head, I got up and left that job on the spot.

If the message is confusing, which it is, then the messenger is writing a confusing message to you, and it may even be confusing to him, and if you can't find out if there is any message worth sending from him to you, that is not confusing, that is a message, and it isn't confusing.

You can't find out what he means.

That is not confusing.

How do you build up trust?

Also, and very important: War is Profitable is a lie.

In a relative sense the people who gain the most from war are also losers compared to what they could have gained if war could have been avoided.

War is good for the economy <------------------- That is fraudulent in demonstrable, accurate, fact.


bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I am laughing as I think I am writing Joe like one would write a Dear Abby. Thank you for your words though. I don't know how I would expect you to know what someone else means. But I had been wondering for a month or so. I will have to think about asking 2 more times. I am not so forward and probably have a bit of fear concerning the outcome.
-----------------
Your Russian friend is writing a 20th Century History of Russia!!! How very interesting!!! I already read this morning and am so looking forward to hearing a personal perspective of Russian History instead of the canned version that may or may not be true.
------------------
"Also, and very important: War is Profitable is a lie.

In a relative sense the people who gain the most from war are also losers compared to what they could have gained if war could have been avoided.

War is good for the economy <------------------- That is fraudulent in demonstrable, accurate, fact."

Once again Joe, you look at an angle I didn't exercise myself to think about. Yes, What would they have gained if war had been avoided. Yes, and if I think about it long enough, I suppose I would see Joe's Law at work and it is almost too much to take in.

The boys are watching 20,000 leagues under the sea as they picked up the vhs at a garage sale. It seems there is some conflict with good, peaceful society being destroyed. I haven't watched it to see exactly what it was about, but it caught my attention. I had forgotten that angle. All I had remembered was the giant octopus.

They can't allow competition to exist because I suppose they want to be the only ones to profit? Control and power is more important that wealth because they have so much wealth they do not need anymore? So now it is a game of domination? Lots of question marks because I do not know if I am connecting the dots right. But to me it seems like a logical conclusion.

...

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear,

I found a possible measure of hope for you on The Daily Paul, so I want to share.

Invocation

I hope you and my friend from Russia can get along famously, but that will require some agreement to disagree on the subject of organized religion, and I use the word "organized" for what I think is good reason.

As to your dot connecting: I can say that you remain skeptical while you find reason to be confident, and that is reasonable compared to what?

Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question?

When you are ready for the next book project I have 2 ideas working.

1.
Liberty Day Challenge

2.
Mike's Illusion Explanation

3.
The History of Russia

As Publisher the book projects could be your jobs, to take on, one way or the other. I don't know. I do know that the book I am working to finish up would not exist if you did not take on that job.


bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Joe, What do the words:

"Common Sense in Modern Times"

inspire in your thinking?

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

When you are ready for the next book project I have 2 ideas working.

.....

3.
The History of Russia


So there were 3 ideas? Or 3rd just happen to come to mind at the last second?

Because I would seriously advise against planning on making book on this subject. Subject is SO messed up and falseful that I'm not sure any open-minded person can digest quickly. I'm putting things politely in that forum section (which takes quite some juice out of me, like I'm writing cursed history book), because if I didn't, I'd seem completely nuts, and I mean 'the great wall(-nut) of China' (oh, don't get me started on the subject of that wall - i'll explode) kind of nuts. There has to be a sincere wish to sort out that huge pile of dung, otherwise it would be like convincing Thomas Aquinas that he failed on his philosophy (which he obviously did, though btw - I strongly suggest learning about his famed '5 proofs' and trying to beat his logic on your own - very nice brain excercise). I'm actually seriously relieved that you didn't ask me to explain earlier history of Russia. There are so many holes in official and most review versions and explanations given are ludicrous at best. Things like "48 people held 600 tons in suspension for x amount of time". Yeah, right...

What do the words:

"Common Sense in Modern Times"

inspire in your thinking?


Sorry to butt in, but this really inspired me to say a few words (which is why I'm typing this when I should be fast asleep already).

The way you put it suggests that common sense as conception is a conditional value, rather than absolute. So I would ask to carefully elaborate on term limits. Because if we view this name as describing conditional value - we are prone to logical inconsistencies such as 'common' sense not being exactly common (and there is no 69 ways about it - that's unfortunately is the case), which would result in it being a figure of speech instead of accurate description. However, if it is an absolute value, then name of said conception is undoubtedly a figure of speech but referring to a different substance. The whole wording of 'common sense in modern times' indicates common sense changing, pointing out conditional nature respectively. However the idea of it represents at any given time throws mind toward absolute values of good and evil no matter how close to the truth understanding of those by any given individual stretches.

Last edited on Mon Apr 8th, 2013 10:33 pm by Jee-Host[gm]

kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I can add to this statement:


In a relative sense the people who gain the most from war are also losers compared to what they could have gained if war could have been avoided.

 I was listening to a radio interview of an economist. I cannot remember now the name of the show or the interviewed individual but it isn't important. He was discussing the economic effect of WWII . He said, and I paraphrase, that the same economic boost created by the war could have been accomplished if instead of a war everyone just built a bunch of tanks, planes, boats, etc. and simply dumped everything in the ocean.  Inferring that no war is ever necessary for profit; and imagine how much more economic and social growth could have been accomplished if we built useful, life enhancing products instead.

I agree with him.

Last edited on Tue Apr 9th, 2013 02:25 am by kurtwaters

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Jee-Host, you must understand that I have been reading Joe Kelley for almost a year now and I can just now read his words (most of the time) one time thru now...when it used to take 3 times thru and I still could not understand his words to me.

Now, I am on my 2nd time thru of your words, and I still don't understand. I am laughing inside as I find it very funny that I am having to expand my brain again. I appreciate your words to me and I will work at understanding. Joe is a very smart person. He has had to pound a dead horse to help me see. I am not as smart or as well read. He does a lot of outside reading. Me, I like to watch you-tube videos. So, my intellectual capabilities are, unfortunately, lacking when it comes to reading intense wordings.

I took the words "Common Sense in Modern Times" from Joe's words to me from the Daily Paul in context:

"Life is good, and that is another thing that moves Ron Paul so far from any counterfeit version of Ron Paul, if any were to dare to try to counterfeit the example who sets the bar so high.

Not Jesus, not God, no Glory, just Common Sense in Modern Times; despite the depleted demand for it."

The term "Common Sense" could have been from: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/ which, if I remember correctly, is the first reading assignment Joe gave me when I wanted to learn some history.

The term "Modern Times" could have come from the name of a village Josiah Warren started which employed Equitable Commerce: http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf
--------------------
Anyways, since Joe mentioned a new book and said that phase to me earlier, I thought it might sound like a good title for a book and I wanted to know what he meant by saying those words to me. I appreciate your input. I am working to understand it. It is not because English is not your first language. It is my deficiency.
-------------------
When you say you advise against 20th Century Russian History as a book topic do you mean that people would not take your presentation as credible because it is so far outside the norm of the politically correct understanding?

...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Now, I am on my 2nd time thru of your words, and I still don't understand. I am laughing inside as I find it very funny that I am having to expand my brain again. I appreciate your words to me and I will work at understanding.

Commendable. However, the root of the problem (at least partially) might lie in my inability to express myself in English. I try to follow the basic rules of the language, but as you can imagine I think in different terms and construct sentences in different fashion than native English speaker. Then I find myself needing to reconstruct them to suit language specifics. So certain degree of misunderstandings could and should certainly be attributed to that fact. Seeing as you say you don't understand what I am saying I must admit that you did a decent job on following through on what I asked - elaborating on term limits. Although I am slightly disappointed those are not your personal thoughts, but mere links (or so your response indicates), I get the basic gist of what you meant - and that should suffice for now.

When you say you advise against 20th Century Russian History as a book topic do you mean that people would not take your presentation as credible because it is so far outside the norm of the politically correct understanding?


First of all - me and political correctness don't mix together. Political correctness is a way of justifying a lie with fancy words - not my cup of tea. My presentation as I write it is a translation-compilation of certain sources. Even I cannot attest to it being historically accurate more than "as far as I can tell", which is a big stretch when versions differ so heavily. But If I were to write things blatantly it would sound like as if I called Ben Franklin an actual vampire who fried little children to perform dark rituals and get more power over universe. Does that sound like an epigraph to a book you would take seriously and take your time reading thoroughly? I kinda sorta doubt that. But the book should reflect an educated opinion, right? So how to convey an educated opinion that cover things vast majority never heard about, never even conceived existing? Take for instance the way human beings perceive information. Does it occur to you that at this stage it is impossible for us to prove existense of completely different way to perceive it? We cannot do it exactly because the way we perceive it. Only way we can mess around in that area is by using logic. But logic has nothing to do with things existing or not. Is it logical to think there are different way to perceive reality? Yes. Is it logical to think that our own perception probably doesn't account for the reality in it's fullest? Yes. Now of course the subject of history I talk about is not this level of alien, but anyway - what if I say that 200-300 years ago who knows who nuked half of the planet? Does that sound preposterous? Then imagine how it would sound for anyone less open-minded. I'm trying to make exceptionally obvious examples to express what I meant.

Last edited on Tue Apr 9th, 2013 08:08 am by Jee-Host[gm]

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Book ideas are proposals made by me to me.

Book ideas are proposals made by me to bear.

bear took up the challenge and pieced together a whole book, and it is moving toward the printing stage, and then it will move toward the e-book sales stage.

Book ideas are now proposals made by me to bear, Sergey, and Mike (Kurtwaters, who is my cousin from both our fathers who were brothers and our sisters who were sisters), and that is all it is as this stage.

The proposal concerns what I think is a very serious missing element in our current human condition. I think that we human beings have been led away from the power of discussion, and the reasons why I think these things could fill a book, if someone wanted to discuss those reasons with me.

I think that the idea of a Russian History book, a product of discussion between a person living in Russia and people living in America, may go along way toward exemplifying the power of discussion.

To those words I am going to ad a quote from Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn.

From here:
Nobel Lecture


From time immemorial man has been made in such a way that his vision of the world, so long as it has not been instilled under hypnosis, his motivations and scale of values, his actions and intentions are determined by his personal and group experience of life. As the Russian saying goes, "Do not believe your brother, believe your own crooked eye." And that is the most sound basis for an understanding of the world around us and of human conduct in it. And during the long epochs when our world lay spread out in mystery and wilderness, before it became encroached by common lines of communication, before it was transformed into a single, convulsively pulsating lump - men, relying on experience, ruled without mishap within their limited areas, within their communities, within their societies, and finally on their national territories. At that time it was possible for individual human beings to perceive and accept a general scale of values, to distinguish between what is considered normal, what incredible; what is cruel and what lies beyond the boundaries of wickedness; what is honesty, what deceit. And although the scattered peoples led extremely different lives and their social values were often strikingly at odds, just as their systems of weights and measures did not agree, still these discrepancies surprised only occasional travellers, were reported in journals under the name of wonders, and bore no danger to mankind which was not yet one.

But now during the past few decades, imperceptibly, suddenly, mankind has become one - hopefully one and dangerously one - so that the concussions and inflammations of one of its parts are almost instantaneously passed on to others, sometimes lacking in any kind of necessary immunity. Mankind has become one, but not steadfastly one as communities or even nations used to be; not united through years of mutual experience, neither through possession of a single eye, affectionately called crooked, nor yet through a common native language, but, surpassing all barriers, through international broadcasting and print. An avalanche of events descends upon us - in one minute half the world hears of their splash. But the yardstick by which to measure those events and to evaluate them in accordance with the laws of unfamiliar parts of the world - this is not and cannot be conveyed via soundwaves and in newspaper columns. For these yardsticks were matured and assimilated over too many years of too specific conditions in individual countries and societies; they cannot be exchanged in mid-air. In the various parts of the world men apply their own hard-earned values to events, and they judge stubbornly, confidently, only according to their own scales of values and never according to any others.
To me, in the face of what I call Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question, there are our own crooked eyes to see with, instead of being led to slaughter through a scientifically perfected mass hypnosis.

Literature exists, art exists, if we create it.

 

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Well, I'll say this - if you think you can write it the way some considerable part of society will comprehend, while not compromising on any vital point - go ahead. Because I certainly cannot make that way on my own. There are far easier (comparatively) and yet ridiculously difficult to wake up people to truths. That is why I sincerely hope we can eventually go past any "agree to disagree" subjects (by finding consensus), because I imagine most of them will be vital to overcome if we are to succeed in any tangible attempt of actually waking people up with our efforts.

Can bring examples if not clear.

kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Joe,

     I like that quote. Although I do wonder what his definition of mishap might be. Cortez wiping out an entire civilization would seem to me to be a mishap. The maltreatment and near genocide of the native North Americans would seem to me to be a mishap.

     Yet, I agree with Solzhenitsyn's final words. I think sometimes, Joe, you put far to much emphasis on an abject belief in falsehood, as you call it, due to scientifically perfected mass hypnosis when, in truth, it is simply humans being humans

 in the various parts of the world [where] men apply their own hard-earned values to events, and they judge stubbornly, confidently, only according to their own scales of values and never according to any others.

     The same observation applies to the population of America with its large geographic, ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity.  Some of the adversity you face when expressing your view is due to this human tendency to form a value judgement of an idea or action based on their experience and not on having been duped.

    The problem, of course, is distinguishing between the two.

    It would seem to me, therefore, that one way to avert any future impending mishaps, is continually engaging in discussions that attempt to honestly convey one anothers experiences in the hope of eliciting a common value judgement that permits all people to live in peace --- a rather lofty goal, I admit.

     This I believe, Jee-Host[gm], is what Joe intends when he talks of a Russian history book idea.

      Is it, Joe?

     

   



   


Last edited on Wed Apr 10th, 2013 01:08 am by kurtwaters

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Jee-Host,

Yes, I can see what you mean about perception. Even in day-to-day events, people perceive the happenings differently. My husband and I see things thru 2 different sets of eyes; even though we are witnessing the same thing we, may not see the same thing.

So, I can see how history can be perceived differently. And then you have to take into account that you are reading, compiling, and translating from someone else's perception of history and then write the words down thru your perception.

From my perception, it seems to me, that the Russian people have been thru hell. But that is my perception and I don't know if it is true or not. And it is only in the last year that I have come to understand that there was probably western funding that created alot of that hell. I still don't understand it all and alot of the stuff about western funding is hard for me to accept because it is new information to me and was far outside of my perception. Perception does change with new information though? So perhaps a certain person's perception is valid to add to information so that other people can clarify their perception?

I perceive that you have a very good command of the English language!

...

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear wrote:
Joe, What do the words:

"Common Sense in Modern Times"

inspire in your thinking?


Considering that we are talking about book proposals.

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear,

Yes, I can see what you mean about perception. Even in day-to-day events, people perceive the happenings differently. My husband and I see things thru 2 different sets of eyes; even though we are witnessing the same thing we, may not see the same thing.

I find that most important thing about that notion is the concept of truth. Truth is what's actually happening. Things are as they are. Whatever opinion anyone has about them is irrelevant in relation to truth because it doesn't change the truth. So in any given comparison of opinions there is no such thing as equality of said opinions, because one that is closer to the truth is obviously better. Now the question is - how to figure out which is closer without knowing the truth (which would require absolute knowledge)? Now that is where logic comes into play. An example: person wants to explain something he doesn't comprehend, so person creates a postulate that explains the phenomenon in terms person does comprehend. After further researching the phenomenon person comes across newer and newer facts which don't really fit his initial postulate. Yet person creates sub-postulate to accomodate for those facts. Eventually contradictions pile up so high that person writes a book filled with postulates to accomodate them. How do you think - logical judgment of this person was correct? I think not. Because logically If your assumption with shot in the dark is correct (truthful) - then you won't need to create such a pile of postulates since initial ones will be further solidified by new facts and developments. There will be no contradictions. And that is logical.

So, I can see how history can be perceived differently. And then you have to take into account that you are reading, compiling, and translating from someone else's perception of history and then write the words down thru your perception.

Obviously I do take that into account. But then again - logic applies. An example - many medieval-ancient Russian written books were written using font called "Ustav". However, careful analysis of said font in comparison to 19 other fonts of the periods revealed something. this one particular font is unique in a way that it is completely unusable to write a book. Instead writing - you're essentially drawing, which takes extreme amounts of time and is entirely inefficient. And there are techniques about said medieval font that are explained in attached research. Yet author of said analysis doesn't draw any conclusion from that fact. While there is quite an obvious conclusion - all books 'written' with "Ustav" are forgeries. Which means the actual written sources of the period have been destroyed. Or there wasn't any of such sources (though this is highly unlikely according to my research).

So there are ways to discern lies, regardless of perception.

From my perception, it seems to me, that the Russian people have been thru hell. But that is my perception and I don't know if it is true or not. And it is only in the last year that I have come to understand that there was probably western funding that created alot of that hell. I still don't understand it all and alot of the stuff about western funding is hard for me to accept because it is new information to me and was far outside of my perception. Perception does change with new information though? So perhaps a certain person's perception is valid to add to information so that other people can clarify their perception?

That is one perception-heavy paragraph. I wish to again stress out that I think it is very important to choose the right goal from the get-go. And that would be self-development and search for truth. So any information received is viewed in the context of 'how to transform this information into actual knowledge, to understand' rather than to just asses and ponder.

I'd love to introduce you to some compelling concepts (which are just like right postulates - do not create contradictions when further research and logic are being applied), but it seems we've gone very far off topic here already, so we should probaly move our discussion into more appropriate thread.

I perceive that you have a very good command of the English language!

LOL EX DI! If that was the case - no bloke would argue with my factual position on homosexualism being a medical issue no less than psychological. And yes - I vehemently oppose gay couples children adoptions.



kurtwaters,

This I believe, Jee-Host[gm], is what Joe intends when he talks of a Russian history book idea.

That is what I thought my response to him indicated. Because discussion or not, there has to be an audience willing to learn.

And anyway - isn't discussion is what we're constantly having? I totally expect this to turn in to a variety of threads where we share facts and forge certain consensus, which brings us closer to the truth, even if only by a little bit. Slow and steady wins the race, right? Just have to move in the right direction.

Last edited on Wed Apr 10th, 2013 07:48 am by Jee-Host[gm]

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Mike is on target (as far as I can see) here:

It would seem to me, therefore, that one way to avert any future impending mishaps, is continually engaging in discussions that attempt to honestly convey one anothers experiences in the hope of eliciting a common value judgement that permits all people to live in peace --- a rather lofty goal, I admit.
But then I see places where Mike and I can find where our viewpoints part company:

Yet, I agree with Solzhenitsyn's final words. I think sometimes, Joe, you put far to much emphasis on an abject belief in falsehood, as you call it, due to scientifically perfected mass hypnosis when, in truth, it is simply humans being humans.
A good study on that, in my opinion, is the work of Edward Bernays. I've done some study work. Another suggested source is the work of Eric Fromm. One more source, is a small book I found in Mom's Antique Store titled Prescription for Revolution by Lindner.

Here:

Prescription

To say that we are "simply being human" targets is an olive branch intending to bridge the gap in perspectives?

To all, bear, Mike, and Sergey, on my viewpoint I offer occasional updates on what I call The Liberty Day Challenge. I put copies of those updates on this forum.

Today

Please feel free to create any new Topics, in any order, since my ability to order things into order is disorderly.


bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Jee-Host,

That is one perception-heavy paragraph. I wish to again stress out that I think it is very important to choose the right goal from the get-go. And that would be self-development and search for truth. So any information received is viewed in the context of 'how to transform this information into actual knowledge, to understand' rather than to just asses and ponder.

Those words inspire me to ask, does not pondering and assesssing lead to understanding? And if the goal is to provide truth for transformation of or at the least sharing of perception, then, the author would provide information that is worth pondering and assessing in order for the reader to gain understanding.

JOE,

My friend, I am going to ask this question a 3rd time, and if you don't want to answer it you can say so. If you would like to answer it and don't have time, then you can say that too, or if you find the question trivial and not worth an answer you can say that as well. But right now I don't know if you are ignoring me, or would like me to go away, or if I missed your reply, or if you are testing to see if I will ask a 3rd time, or if you simply have not seen my question.

What do the words "Common Sense in Modern Times" inspire in your thinking, since we are discussing book proposals?

I personally think that Jee-Host offers a very competitive and very interesting topic of Russian History.

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Those words inspire me to ask, does not pondering and assesssing lead to understanding? And if the goal is to provide truth for transformation of or at the least sharing of perception, then, the author would provide information that is worth pondering and assessing in order for the reader to gain understanding.

I meant that the goal should be accurately articulated. Just pondering and assessing doesn't lead to anything. But if It's not JUST pondering and assessing, but also acting as a result of it - then some knowledge is probably gained. So if we allow things like "Agree to disagree" to persist then it would seem understanding hasn't been reached. Goal is of course getting closer to the truth. Maybe I misspoke and my English failed me yet again? These are the times I absolutely inexplicably despise English language. It's like rainbow with colors lacking... Sorry for that.

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Ah Jee-Host,
"agree to disagree…"
bear’s desire is this: http://www.dailypaul.com/246727/can-friends-of-liberty-to-agree-to-disagree-be-agreeable-while-doing-so

Jee-Host, Will you agree with me on everything?

I believe I am ready to die for the Lord Jesus Christ should that time come upon me.

Would you also die for the Lord Jesus Christ, or would you be the one to annihilate me?

Or will you agree to disagree with me and allow me to continue on in my faith? Will you be my friend anyways?

I think liberty demands that we agree to disagree. To me the question is whether we will do that in an agreeable way.

But then again, perhaps there is relevance to that which is essential for agreement and that which is not?


...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear,

In my mind this position defies logic. There are basically two major ways of coming to such a conclusion as "Agree to disagree" position. First is lack of knowledge. Second is ignoring certain information. I cannot attest which is more prominent in your case since I don't know you all that well. I also admit the possibility that it maybe neither.

Regardless, allow me to explain what I meant.

Truth is singular, it is illogical to assume otherwise. Truth about something is the exact nature of something. Which ever opinion about that something someone has doesn't matter. Object in question is how it is. If two people think about it differently - they can never be both correct. They maybe relatively the same distance away from truth, that is the only probable equality of judgmental opinions.

Consensus, as I understand it, comes from word "sense", both verb and noun. Verb signifies process of acquisition of information. Noun signifies knowledge resulted from working out that information. If one says "2+2=4" and the other says "2+2=10" then consensus is not "something in between". I wish there to always be a "sense" in consensus. And that can be achieved by mutual strive for truth.

How can one protect oneself from self-delusion on that path? What is the logical answer? Being deluded is the same as accepting something as irrefutable without knowing everything to prove it irrefutable. So the key notions would be 'challenge' and 'doubt'. Until you know everything there can't be anything you can call an absolute truth. You must challenge everything that composes your worldview regularly to not become arrogant. You must have doubt, otherwise you're likely to fall prey of a self-delusion.

People are stupid. They will believe any lie if they WANT to believe it or if they are AFRAID that it might be true. There is no way counter this other than be mindful of that fact. How can one build one's life and understand one's purpose without succumbing to a delusion? Same way. Knowledge is the answer.

I happen to have certain knowledge about person you call Jesus. And it's not what most people would think. I have only admiration towards this person, but I would never insult neither him nor myself by forfeiting my strife for truth - making him something he isn't and accepting anything for granted.

You said for what you would die. I should be fair and do the same. I would gladly give my life and my soul to full capacity - to clear out the fog of lies that parasites weaved around humanity to feed upon us. It physically pains me to see all this unfold. English doesn't word that can accurately describe what I feel when I see people becoming mindless creatures, refusing to think, depraving themselves of the means to fulfill humanity's purpose. But at the same time I know some people who didn't give in to the temptation of granted 'truths', who couldn't allow themselves to let go of their minds. Every time I think about them I feel that they are those who will survive the mass degradation. True champions of our species. Ironic that they are in a way much closer to the person you call Jesus that any religious person I have even known.

I would also die for my family, my people. There is certain knowledge that allows me to make this decision without regard for my own future, effectively sacrificing my own personal purpose. Maybe one day, if it all works out, I'll teach you this knowledge. If that day comes, I can predict that will be able to intuitively understand it.

I'm sorry that I can't explain myself very clearly. There is a huge gap between what I want to say and have to ability to express.

After all - maybe you are exactly right. Maybe all I do in my life is for nought. Maybe there isn't any truth besides faith or mathematics, maybe Wittgenstein was right. But I refuse to fall into that ignorant bliss until I've exceeds all other possibilities.

I'm not angry or frustrated. I just want you to understand that I think walking forward and moreover walking together requires mutual effort. For me to "Agree to disagree" would be like kill my own parents. I can change any of my positions (done some on numerous occasions) and I never force my position upon anyone. I only want proof that I'm wrong. I agree to work together towards the truth. I agree to help you on your way if you choose to strive for truth. But one thing I won't do - I won't turn away from truth. There is nothing religion can offer me that I don't have on my own simply by virtue of being human.

I can be your friend, friends help each other, especially when one does something stupid. I wouldn't stand and do nothing when my friend is sinking into the depths of addiction. Since you were able to speak with Joe on your own - I think you have enough of an open mind to change for the better. I would be glad to see you self-develop.

When I think of liberty I think of the word 'freedom'. Freedom is the right. Any right in any way, as much as any power, transfer into responsibility. Such as right to life.Responsibility for life is to live it good, not waste it. I don't think liberty is about allowing everybody to do whatever they want - that is in fact happens regardless of whether liberty exists. Current lack of liberty mostly manifested in inability to do right things legally, wrong things - far less so, because the nature of wrong things cares not about legal aspect more times than not. I think of liberty as a freedom from parasites, freedom from stupidity, freedom from self-delusions. Maybe I'm asking too much out of it, but I think if something is worth doing - it's worth doing well.

What is essential for our agreement? For me it is only one thing - strife for truth. If we can agree on that - everything else will fall into place eventually (if the strife is genuine by both).

Sorry for making this so long. There just things that had to be said. Trust me when I say that I wouldn't bother to explain nay of this if I didn't care. I always have something to do and it doesn't exactly bring me joy to make lengthily explanation without too much hope of reaching other person's heart. But Joe said good things about you and I value his opinion.

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Jee-Host,

Truth is singular, it is illogical to assume otherwise. Truth about something is the exact nature of something. Which ever opinion about that something someone has doesn't matter. Object in question is how it is. If two people think about it differently - they can never be both correct. They maybe relatively the same distance away from truth, that is the only probable equality of judgmental opinions.

John 14:6 KJV
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way , the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


So, when I speak of Jesus, I am not speaking of religion. I am speaking of truth. Jesus is either telling the truth or he is a liar. I have faith that believes that Jesus speaks the truth. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ who lives inside of me.

In Liberty, are people who are deluded allowed to exist? Who is to say I am deluded? Logic? The Bible is the Word of God and that foundation is the beginning of my Logic. Why? Because I am human and God is greater and higher than I am so I look to His Word for Logic.

Now, one might say, it is illogical to believe the Bible is God's Word. So, that is the starting point of finding truth? I say, "Yes, and when one does not accept the Bible as the Word of God, then I cannot work within the same realm of logic as that person."

I will not move from my realm of logic. So, I allow you your opinions of truth, but I will not agree. However, I will be agreeable when disagreeing because you as a person are due that respect. God's Word says that the only thing I am to owe another person is love:

Romans 13:8 KJV
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law


And to me that is very logical because if I give love regardless of whether I am in agreement, then I am also doing this:

Hebrews 12:14 KJV
Follow peace with allmen, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:


When I think of liberty I think of the word 'freedom'. Freedom is the right. Any right in any way, as much as any power, transfer into responsibility. Such as right to life.Responsibility for life is to live it good, not waste it. I don't think liberty is about allowing everybody to do whatever they want - that is in fact happens regardless of whether liberty exists. Current lack of liberty mostly manifested in inability to do right things legally, wrong things - far less so, because the nature of wrong things cares not about legal aspect more times than not. I think of liberty as a freedom from parasites, freedom from stupidity, freedom from self-delusions. Maybe I'm asking too much out of it, but I think if something is worth doing - it's worth doing well.

I believe that when I follow peace with all men and live in holiness (or in doing what is right as much as I in my humanity know how), then I am living and allowing others to live in liberty.

To me when others do the wrong thing "legally" it is not "liberty," but rather "licentiousness" http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=licentiousness&s=References&ps=10

And then the question must be asked, is your (not you Jee-Host) licentiousness going to affect me? If so, what can I do about it? Perhaps remove myself from the area, or perhaps licentiousness will remove the other person from the area. No man is an island, IMO.

...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
There are times when I look back at my past and see things that I could have done significantly better. And it becomes more obvious to me the more experience in life I get. At times like those I feel so relieved that I'm no longer that inexperienced, naive and incompatible with reality as I was back then. Sometimes people get sad that after becoming adult they can never truly return to that blissful childhood of no responsibilities and no worries. Some of them try really hard to ignore that eventuality and force themselves to 'return'. It makes me somewhat sad, like some piano pieces. After learning something I can no longer pretend that it doesn't exist.

Your response turned out to be the way I feared it might be. Though I still have some hope since you've done some awakening once - might be able to do that again. But I won't be making any more attempts to explain unless directly asked. Some things person can only understand on it's own. Granted there is a wish to do so.

So I suggest we drop any essential (for me) discussions until then.

Last edited on Wed Apr 10th, 2013 10:35 pm by Jee-Host[gm]

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Jee-Host,

So I suggest we drop any essential (for me) discussions until then.

And if never/or if until then, may we agree to disagree? I am willing to agree to drop the topic, tho I filter everything thru that topic and my reply thru that filter may include that topic from time to time.

And if
essential discussions
means you rather not speak with me at all, I can agree to that as well. I include that last sentence so that I can clarify in my own understanding what your wishes are concerning speaking with me.

I'll be 50 in 9 days and have had life threatening cancer. I am long past childhood and childish things. My life as well as my nearing eternity are staked on that fact.

...

kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Joe,

I don't understand this question:

 To say that we are "simply being human" targets is an olive branch intending to bridge the gap in perspectives?

  Are you being rhetorical?  Because I didn't say  humans simply being human targets.  Nobody is a target because anyone doing the aiming is also a human being human. It's a top to bottom thing which creates a long chain of cause and effect as portrayed in that Dr Suess book,  Because a Little Bug Went Ka-choo. Very high on my recommended reading list.

  And if you are being rhetorical you've lost me.

  Either way, I'll start with the Lindner book from your recommended reading list.
   

kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Jee-Host[gm],

    Truth is singular, it is illogical to assume otherwise. Truth about something is the exact nature of something. Which ever opinion about that something someone has doesn't matter. Object in question is how it is. If two people think about it differently - they can never be both correct. They maybe relatively the same distance away from truth, that is the only probable equality of judgmental opinions.


     I feel compelled to comment on this.

     Truth is !  Whatever truth is, it must be singular.  I am 53 years old and I began my quest for truth at the age of 19. I have been as earnest and honest in my search for truth as I am humanly capable of being. I believe there are  only two requirements one needs in order to find it: earnestness and honesty.  And, of course, but this should be obvious, to never quit seeking.

     And how do I rate my own description of The Truth ? It's full of holes. Furthermore,  I fear greatly anyone who claims to understand A Truth that isn't. (full of holes, that is).  Interestingly enough, the descriptions of truth that I personally find the most revealing are the contradictory ones such as can be found in zen or in quantum physics.

    I cannot agree to disagree either.  I think people with two different versions of truth, (or two societies for that matter )  can co-exist peacefully if they were simply to allow that whenever two perceptions of truth exist neither must be right so we must continue in our earnestness and honesty to explore together.

    Joe and I have blood ties and for he and I, this statement rings particularly true.





bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
kurtwaters,

What does I cannot agree to disagree either. I think people with two different versions of truth, (or two societies for that matter ) can co-exist peacefully if they were simply to allow that whenever two perceptions of truth exist neither must be right so we must continue in our earnestness and honesty to explore together.
mean?

specifically the words neither must be right???

A. Neither can be right
B. Neither are right
C. Both parties agree to disagree?

If I perceive my truth to be the truth, and I perceive that your truth contradicts my perception of truth, then I cannot agree that you are right. (not you, but whoever happens to have other truth that is in direct contradiction of my truth).

I think agreeing to disagree allows co-existence. That does not necessarily mean that multiple truths are true just because there are multiple perceptions.

If I perceive that my car is in the driveway full of gas just the way I left it, when in fact someone has stolen either my car or my gas, I then become an involuntary part of their perception. My perception is no longer true no matter how much I want my car to be in the driveway, it will not be there if someone else is driving it.

So I don't sound like a no-it-all, please understand, I am just writing down the way I perceive things to be, and if in your perception you cannot agree-to-disagree, then I guess in my perception I can agree to disagree with you and you can believe there are multiple truths all being true as long as they are within a given perception, even if that perception does not agree.

...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
kurtwaters,

Truth is ! Whatever truth is, it must be singular. I am 53 years old and I began my quest for truth at the age of 19. I have been as earnest and honest in my search for truth as I am humanly capable of being. I believe there are only two requirements one needs in order to find it: earnestness and honesty. And, of course, but this should be obvious, to never quit seeking.

It's good to hear this. These words - 'never quit seeking' - in this particular context can be repharsed into different but telling shapes. The goal of self-development, trying to become more than one's are or if you prefer - to realize one's hidden potential. I think that this is consistent with sarch for truth. Don't you agree?

Information is a message about events happening around and inside us received through the organs of sense.

Knowledge is a reflection and understanding of events happening around and inside us.

So in gathering knowledge one edges closer to the truth. And if he doesn't need to formulate excessivve amount of new axioms as he goes along, if he doesn't contradict his earlier axioms - he's probably on the right path towards the truth.

And how do I rate my own description of The Truth ? It's full of holes. Furthermore, I fear greatly anyone who claims to understand A Truth that isn't. (full of holes, that is). Interestingly enough, the descriptions of truth that I personally find the most revealing are the contradictory ones such as can be found in zen or in quantum physics.

I want to comment about quantum physics. The problem of comprehension that science came acroos when they stepped into quantum physics is that microcosmos is the level where actual natural laws are at work themselves. Humanity's earlier perception is one from mid-world, between macrocosmos and microcosmos. And this mid-world there are only consequences - manifestation of said laws. Science didn't consider this when forming it's postulates. So when it came the time to look at the laws at work in microcosmos - things stopped make sense for mainstream science. All these mind-boggling theories attributed specifically for quantum mechanics are simple misunderstandings born from lack of vision. First they assume that what we see is what is. Then they assume that what our equipment can pick up - is what is. then they assume that what they can neither see not detect with equipment, but 'should be there because otherwise nothing makes sense' is exactly the way they think about it. How many times we've heard this conjuration at work? Things like 'higgs bozon' and 'dark matter' turned out to be so elusive (btw recent reports about finding bozon is just a media trick, manipulation). It never occurs to them that as long as they hold on to the failed paradigm - they are never gonna explain things without contradicting themselves. But it's not a secret why humanity has so little in terms of actual science.

I cannot agree to disagree either. I think people with two different versions of truth, (or two societies for that matter ) can co-exist peacefully if they were simply to allow that whenever two perceptions of truth exist neither must be right so we must continue in our earnestness and honesty to explore together.

Yes, that seems to be about right. Honor. Conscience. Knowledge. I'd like to add these 3 virtues-conceptions to honesty. They are the closest terms (albeit quite not exact) in Egnlish that I could find which decribe requirements of self-development for me.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear,

I made the mistake of thinking that I answered your question indirectly.

My error included the error of assuming that you would see the indirect answer to your question, and thanks for the persistent effort to remove ambiguity where it exists.

I very much want to be specific with this question.

Here:
Joe, What do the words: "Common Sense in Modern Times" inspire in your thinking?
First the general answer and then the specific answer.

General Answer:

Human beings are generally good, if the measure for goodness is based upon the idea that life is good, and therefore there are many human beings alive, proving the point.

Does that make sense?

Life = good.

No humans alive = no good.

Many humans alive = good.

Many more humans alive = better.

Question:


Joe, What do the words:

"Common Sense in Modern Times"

inspire in your thinking?
The general measure of common sense is the measure of how many people are alive today compared to how many people were alive before human beings ever existed anywhere (assuming that human beings at some point in time did not exist).

Generally speaking, in that frame of reference, common sense in modern times measures human beings as being better today than yesterday.

There is deeper meaning here, and I wish to convey that deeper meaning with one curious illustration called The Jelly Bean Experiment.

Here is a link:

The Wisdom of Crowds

The dots I connect here, bear, has to do with the realization of why the Ancient Greeks in Athens invented, and produced, and maintained government by sortition.

Sortition is the word we found from one of the Daily Paul members.

Sortition is a way of accessing The Wisdom of Crowds.

I can cut this General answer short at this point and move onto the specific point, with one final General statement.

Trial by Jury based upon Sortition is not the same thing as Trial by Jury based upon dictatorship (Legal Crime).

Question:


Joe, What do the words:

"Common Sense in Modern Times"

inspire in your thinking?
Common Sense was a book written by Thomas Paine and in that book there are these words:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." Tommy 1776

If MODERN MAN keeps on investing in CRIME MADE LEGAL, then we, as a species, will get what we pay for, in spades.

World War III is now on the schedule.

Back to the General Answer:

No Human Beings Alive = Poor Investment = No Sense Whatsoever

Thanks again bear.

Note: Modern Times was a place where Equitable Commerce was proven to be as valuable as the words suggest.

 


bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Well, I was thinking it was a neat book title.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
My daughter has artwork ready for the next book, and the title of the next book can be anything the author and the publisher agree to print on the book.

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
My daughter has artwork ready for the next book

That is very exciting, Joe!

kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Bear,
Sorry for taking so long to respond. Joe keeps me busy.


Your example of the car in the driveway is helpful. The key item to notice is that you have “left” the van. You now can no longer perceive it. You are no longer in the vicinity where you can see, hear, smell, taste ( not that you would want to ) or touch. Your mind cannot bear witness to it. You can deduce that it remains in the driveway based on previous experience, reasoning and logic but that is all. O K so far?


So, what do I mean? Let me explain with a story.


One warm, sunny Sunday in spring I decided to ride my bicycle to my brother's house 18 miles away. The ride is not difficult as the way is flat and the few hills encountered are quite small. Half of the journey is along a paved bicycle path which threads its way through a patch of woods that are part of a nearby state park and, upon leaving the woods, continues on in a near perfect straight line for several miles along the boundry of a golf course and some preserved farmland. I look forward to these rides.


I packed a water bottle, cell phone, some sun screen and a few snacks, went outside, unloaded my bicycle from my van and, with spirits high, began pedaling to my brother's house.


Five miles into the trip, due to my own inattentiveness, I narrowly avoided running over a large, pointed stone with my front wheel. The rear tire hit the stone and with a thump traveled up and over the rock. As I was thanking my lucky stars for having averted a painful case of road rash I heard the hiss of air leaking fast and, sure enough, within another ten feet my rear tire was completely flat. The damage to the tube was too extensive to repair so I used the cell phone to call home.


My wife, Kathy, answered.
“Hello.”
“Hi, it's me. Listen. I got a flat. Can you get in the van and come and pick me up? I'm on the road by the reservoir.”
“But, honey, I just got back from taking the garbage out to the dumpster and your van isn't here. I thought, maybe, you drove to the head of the bike trail so I didn't think anything of it.”
“What do you mean its not there? It has to be.”
“Well, it isn't.”


As director I know cry out, “Cut!”

It is at precisely this moment in the story that what I mean happens.


Kathy and I disagree. Our reason, our logic and the sequence of events we have witnessed has led us to two separate and opposite conclusions. Furthermore, because we have the potentially serious situation of the missing van we cannot simply agree to disagree, end the conversation and ignore the discrepancy. So what do we do?


“We allow that whenever two perceptions of truth exist neither must be right so we must continue in our earnestness and honesty to explore together.”


In other words, we each decide that there must be something wrong with our own conclusions of the whereabouts of the van. So, in earnest and with honesty we reevaluate.

      There was silence on the phone. I moved the cellphone to my left ear and tilted my head so as to wedge the phone between my ear and shoulder so that my hands were free. I began frantically searching my pockets for the key to the van. Maybe someone stole it, I thought to myself. I found the key. Not likely. I was searching for other possibilities.


My wife, meanwhile took an even bigger step. She doubted her very senses.


“Maybe I just overlooked it,” She said.


    Unlike those unanswerable questions by which the inquisitive mind of human beings is constantly plagued in his quest to find meaning to his or her existence, whether or not the van is there can be easily ascertained.


    “Hang on a second, let me look again. Oh, it is there. You parked in a different parking spot. I must have seen the empty space where you usually park and figured you took it.”


“Phew, you had me scared for a second.”
“Me, too. I'll be by to pick you up in 15 minutes”


Does this help?


All I ever ask of anyone is that they allow that there is another possibility. A small speck of doubt until a consensus is reached. They don't have to change their mind. I regard anyone who professes to know the absolute truth, who will not allow that other possibilities exist, as dangerous. I was a pious christian once many, many years ago. One of the reasons I became apostate with regard to Christianity was their intolerance for another person's religious beliefs. And I am not suggesting that you are one of them. But I do know how important it is to the foundation of the christian belief that it is the one truth. Yet I am certain that should there be a true day of reckoning and you were before god to be judged he would give you a hug and say, It's ok that you were unsure. I created you that way. You loved unconditionally and that is what mattered most. Welcome to the fold.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Anyone,

I'm going to unload some here as to what is or is not true.

No one has yet been able to challenge the one perceptive truth that remains a perceptive truth and yet those who claim to do so have the audacity to transfer their error upon other people, as if other people are in some way responsible for the error instead of the individual making the false claim.

I am right, they say, you are wrong, they say, as if their words and their viewpoints become true because they say so, as if by their statements the fact that I perceive vanishes, and is no longer true, when in fact, no such event occurs, and therefore their dictatorial statements of falsehood are proven as such in fact.

Even if, by some unbelievable, immeasurable, imperceptible power the perception of other people by me, is nothing more than a perception by me, me being the perception that does exist, the claim remains demonstrably false, even if perception itself produces the demonstrably false statement.

Perception exists, not the words perception, not the perception of perception, but the fact of perception exists, and no matter how many perceptions appear to suggest that perception does not exist, the fact that perception still exists proves that those perceptions refuting the existence of perception are false.

The word false is a perception, or it is imperceptible, and therefore not a perception. If the word false is a perception then what is the measure of the perception, the word, the symbols arranged in that order, and what is the meaning of that perception if it is a perception?

False is a perception?

No?

The people who say no, write the word no, say no, negate, put down, destroy, remove, set aside, win, overpower, gain control, take, insist, render powerless, my statement of demonstrable fact have the audacity to tell me that my perception is false, and the basis of their claim is that they are right?

How absurd can such a competitive exchange of perspectives become if on the onset there is a baseless negation of one perspective by another perspective?

Perspective is.

So another perspective claims that the perspective reporting the fact of being is shot down, destroyed, removed from observable reality, and the basis of this negation, this destruction, is a superior perspective?

Who do you think you are fooling?

I think you may want to look in the mirror.






Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I think some of that was directed at me. I like the fact that you get all hot and bothered about it (or so it seems) - that would mean that there is doubt.

But anyway. Things are not as black and white as perception or no perception. Logic is relative and is doesn't judge. Within some parameters certain things are logical. With broader perspective - more things are logical, including some that disprove prior ones, even though those were logical in their extent. Same goes for conception of perception. You probably have a hard time imagining the kind of process that wouldn't classify as perception. Yet your lack of imagination doesn't disprove it automatically. And since there is no knowledge of said process except awareness of it's existence possibility - there is yet no way to account for it or it's effect on the whole picture either. If you would say that your notion is an absolute truth WITHIN such a system and NOT COMPLETELY ABSOLUTE - it would be fine with me. Because that would mean that you have come in terms with unknown. Yet you refuse to do so, setting rules to have yourself victorious by definition. Yet life doesn't ask opinion of either of us. Things are as they are and whatever make-believe rules we would try to make - we would end only self-deluding ourselves. No one is insured against it. And that simple fact I think is the way to go about it.

I hope I cleared the air a little bit. I admire your firm stance, yet I have no right to share it for reasons explained above. This is your choice (obviously) to do things the way you do or change according to what other people say, or disregard what they say or whatever. I don't blame you for stubbornness, if that's your way - that's your way. Maybe in fact your perception is superior to everyone else's. Maybe you do account for anything and everything. Or maybe I don't need to try and account for it. That is not our fault if you're far more evolved that us.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Sergey,

Your power to dictate my perceptions to me, as if you perceive for me, is perceived by me as being demonstrably false, but my guess is that there is no way in which I can demonstrate how false your power to dictate my perceptions to me are, in fact, as can be demonstrated over time, as you continue to dictate my perceptions to me, despite any effort on my part to demonstrate precisely how false your dictations of my perceptions are in fact.

I think some of that was directed at me. I like the fact that you get all hot and bothered about it (or so it seems) - that would mean that there is doubt.
That is a case in point.

How many times can I confess that there is doubt, always doubt, and yet for some strange reason you continue to dictate my perceptions to me as if there is no doubt?

A million confessions won't be enough?

Despite all doubt, however, each attempt to disprove perception results in proof of perception, and how many times will be sufficient, without ever a negative result, to prove the case that perception exists?

I see no point in asking for your absurd version of my perceptions, since each time you absurdly claim to know that there is no proof, when each time I perceive, that is proof positive.

Why would I ask for more of your false dictatorial statements concerning my perceptions, when so far you prove that your version of my perceptions are false?

I don't, because your versions of my perceptions prove to be false, so there is no point in me asking for more false versions of my perceptions, unless you can come up with one, one that isn't demonstrably false to me.

Things are not as black and white as perception or no perception.
I perceive that sentence as a dictatorial statement of some nebulous fact being reported by someone propping themselves up as a false authority over what someone else may perceive, and in particular there is someone else I have in mind, which is this perception that exists in the form of me.

I don't have any use for that dictatorial message written by that false authority concerning what I perceive, but I suppose that other people exist, or that other perceptions exist, whereby that sentence has some use for them.

I know that perception does exist. I do not know if perception does not exist. I call one of my perceptions Black, when I see Black, I use the word Black, if my intention is to communicate what I see, when I see Black; same goes for White.

Logic is relative and is doesn't judge.
Logic, according to the authority on logic, does this, and does that, I suppose; however someone who can't even deduce the fact that perception exists, as far as my perception goes, is in no position to dictate to me what is or is not logical, or what is or is not an accurate judgement.

Within some parameters certain things are logical.
Someone incapable of perceiving that perception exists, again, and again as far as my perception goes, is in no competitive position to dictate to me anything about logic, or the supposed parameters that supposedly contain this nebulous logic stuff.

With broader perspective - more things are logical, including some that disprove prior ones, even though those were logical in their extent.
Someone incapable of proving that perception exists, as far as I can logically deduce, is in no position to broaden perspective, since perception isn't even proven. Failing to even arrive at a perception that perception exists, as far as my perception goes, can't broaden what does not even exist, as far as they are concerned, if I could understand such a limited perspective, but I can't, and so why bother with any further limitations from a perspective that proves to be false concerning what I can prove to myself to be true every time I endeavor to prove or disprove it, perception to me, if not to anyone else, proves itself to be a fact.

Again, someone claiming to have authority over my power to prove to myself that perception exists for me, as they claim otherwise, is in no position to dictate to me the facts about anything else in any case where my perspective is not in agreement with their perspective.

It is unreasonable for me to perceive that my perception is not proof of my perception as one of my perceptions (you) claims that is it is true that perception is not proof of perception, an obvious false perception, from an obviously false source, so of what calculation can that measurably false source be in any way trusted to be the source of any supposed fact of any kind whatsoever? I am to trust your perception over my own when yours proves to be false on the simplest thing, the only thing that proves to be true every time?

I see little room for reason in that case.

You probably have a hard time imagining the kind of process that wouldn't classify as perception.
What I perceive is perception and you can't even acknowledge my perception of perception, which is obvious enough to me, and yet failing to even acknowledge that I do perceive, you go on to suggest that you have some vague perception of what I can or cannon perceive?

If you cared to know what I perceive or what I don't perceive, you could find out, but failing to even acknowledge the fact that I do perceive, to me, in my power of perception, creates no authority on your part to actually know what I perceive or what I do not perceive, since you can't even get the most basic thing I do see understood, as far as your words suggest to me.

I do like challenges.

One of many processes that would not classify as a perception to me is imagination.

Whatever you do is what you do, and my trust in your ability to know what I perceive is rapidly declining to zero, since you apparently place my perceptions at that zero point.

Yet your lack of imagination doesn't disprove it automatically.
Someone who claims that perception is no proof of perception dictates to me with nebulous authority about proof of other things?

This someone who claims to be the authority over my perception of one thing that can be proven is dictating to me his negative measure of my imagination?

Do you expect me to perceive any reasonable significance concerning your measure of my imagination, and if you did not then why did you write such a sentence?

And since there is no knowledge of said process except awareness of it's existence possibility - there is yet no way to account for it or it's effect on the whole picture either.
The perception that perception exists, in my measure, is a measure of knowledge, and from this perception of this fact, that perception exists, I, if not you, can move onto further discoveries of knowledge, such as:

Do not look directly at the sun.

Where you are, considering your false authority over my perception, the negative measure of my imagination according to you, or what is or is not logic, or what is or is not knowledge, is lacking authority in my measure, since it is measurably obvious that your perception of my power to know that perception exits is demonstrably false.

I know that perception exists. Your false claims to the contrary are within my perception as being demonstrably false claims.

If you would say that your notion is an absolute truth WITHIN such a system and NOT COMPLETELY ABSOLUTE - it would be fine with me.
On what basis of perception, on what measure of any kind, am I to agree to have you dictate to me what I perceive to be true, demonstrably true to me, or not in any case?

If I perceive, then I perceive, and if you can't even acknowledge that fact, than of what use, what basis of perception, am I to agree to giving you the power to dictate to me what I will or will not perceive?

You are now setting up parameters of reality for me to agree to perceive despite the fact that you already reject, negate, the one thing I can confidently prove to be a fact to my own sense of accurate perception?

That makes no sense to me. I can trust my own "crocked eye" as Solzhenitsyn wrote, to some extent, to the extent I report to you, in fact, to the limit that I know, to the limit that proves to be true each time so far, that perception exists, and I can't trust myself any further than that, and yet you are claiming to have some reason in which I can trust your perception, yet you negate my one definite step toward knowledge?

You define for me the meaning of absurdity.

Because that would mean that you have come in terms with unknown.
You can't even recognized, acknowledge, understand, or reason out, the fact that I perceive, and yet you prop yourself up as an authority over the things I perceive?

What, may I ask, is the source of your authority over my perception, the same perception that you can't even recognized as existing?

Should I trust that you can provide me with an accurate answer, according to you, or is the answer self-evident in this case?

Your authority comes from you because you say so?

Because that would mean that you have come in terms with unknown. Yet you refuse to do so, setting rules to have yourself victorious by definition.
Your pretense of authority over my perception continues into greater detail, and at this point my trust in your power to accurately perceive what my perceptions are: are reaching into the negative where I begin to suspect that you are willfully distorting the observable facts for some reason, and at this point there is no reason for me to ask for the reasons, since distrust of motive, or beginnings of a trust that you are falsifying willfully, is unreasonable in the context of productive discussion. I see what I see.

Whatever game you are playing, where you are now claiming that I refuse to do something, and where now you are claiming that I set myself up as winning something, is abhorrent to me.

You are stepping into a false report of me that I do not like in the least, and here is your notice to cease misrepresenting me in this way.

The concept of discussion to me is a competition of finding a more accurate perception. If you twist that knowable perception of my own, and I know that is my perception, if you twist that around into me working to win something, by deceit, if you go that far, you will effectively end any cause for me to have anything more to do with you.

I know that I perceive. That knowledge I command is the one known fact that continues to prove to be a fact each time I test it, and if you cannot understand that then that is a point of disagreement between your perspective and my perspective, and this extra garbage you are now attaching to me is your invention, your fabrication, and your projection from you onto me, and that is demonstrable to me, because I know my perceptions intimately and you do not, so by what reason, by what accurate measure, do you have this authority over what I perceive or what I do not perceive?

Because that would mean that you have come in terms with unknown. Yet you refuse to do so, setting rules to have yourself victorious by definition.
If you continue to misrepresent me in this way you will be called on it, and if you step over into obvious, and accurately measurable, claims of me employing deceit to "win" some nebulous game, or whatever, then know the consequences of that willful act on your part.

"setting rules to have yourself victorious by definition"

If I perceive than I perceive, which is demonstrable as fact, to me; and to me that is not a case of me "setting rules," that is a case of me perceiving, and a case of me acknowledging that I perceive. That is what that is according to me. What I perceive, according to you, now, as I read, is that I am "setting rules to have" myself "victorious by definition", yet a rule is being set, by someone, whereby my perception is not proof of my perception.

Who is setting that rule?

Why is that rule being set?

The rule being set, obviously, and measurably, is that perception is not proof of perception. I set no such rule. I perceive. That is a fact.

I don't decide to set the rule that I perceive.

Someone set the rule that perception is not proof of perception, as far as I can perceive, and it is not me.

Things are as they are and whatever make-believe rules we would try to make - we would end only self-deluding ourselves. No one is insured against it. And that simple fact I think is the way to go about it.
Which things are what they are, and again by what measure am I to measure any answer from any source while I seek the accurate answer, certainly not from you, since you can't even prove the simplest thing, the easiest thing, or the only thing that can be proven?

Who is making rules? As far as I can perceive, you are making these rules that dictate to me what I perceive, and so far your rules misrepresent what I perceive, and if not you making the rules, then who, or from what source are these rules you perceive being constructed?

As far as your perspective goes, as far as I can perceive so far, your claim is that I am deluding myself, and you are in a position to let me know this fact?

What I am actually doing is perceiving, and by what measure, in your perception, am I deluding myself, if that is your claim?

You have the authority to speak to me about facts, when the perceptible perception of perception, according to you, is not a fact?

Again, to me, that is the definition of absurdity.

I hope I cleared the air a little bit.
If you step any closer toward constructing a false me, which you are doing, whereby you step over the line, if you may, and I'm not saying you will, I am merely offering you a warning concerning how I perceive such things, if you step over that line of misrepresenting me, and step into representing me as me being someone who is willfully deceptive (to win something), then I will have all the proof I need to trust that you are willfully deceptive, and at that point there will no longer be any reason for me to continue associating with you voluntarily. At that point, which I hope never arrives, you will make our association an involuntary one.

I am speaking about this:

Because that would mean that you have come in terms with unknown. Yet you refuse to do so, setting rules to have yourself victorious by definition.
That to me is too close to a misrepresentation of me along the lines of fabricating a person that is willfully deceptive and then attaching that false character to me.

I may be very wrong about how I see those two sentences, but that is how I see it.

I admire your firm stance, yet I have no right to share it for reasons explained above.
I do not ask for you to share my "firm stance" as you call it. I offer my perspective, which continues to be an obvious fact to me, despite any words you may write to the contrary. The mere fact that I perceive the words that you write prove, rather than contradict, the fact that I perceive.

This is your choice (obviously) to do things the way you do or change according to what other people say, or disregard what they say or whatever.

Within the parameters of "whatever" are my perceptions that include me not disregarding anything someone says, instead, when at a point of contention the words defining that point define that point, so words elaborating upon that point can be put aside until such time as that point is no longer a point of contention.

Example:

Perceptions is proof of perception.

Perception is not proof of perception.

If that is a point of contention, well defined, then by what reasoning can elaboration on that point of contention be inspired?

I know that perception is proof of perception if the word proof means anything, and if the word proof means nothing then there is no reason for the word to exist, and this is, again, merely elaboration, having no capacity, no power, to remove the point of contention, as far as I can tell, so what would be the point of further elaboration?

I don't blame you for stubbornness, if that's your way - that's your way.
Can I list all the negative perception you have so far reported to be the measure you have of me?

Why have I become such a poor example of a human being?

Maybe in fact your perception is superior to everyone else's.
Elaboration on the accurate measure of the meaning of the word "superior" may go along way toward my power to accurately perceive your perception in this case; otherwise your sentence does not have anything to do with me or my perceptions of the present point of contention.

Maybe you do account for anything and everything.
I perceive that sentence to be another case of meaninglessness to me, to my perceptions, and of no use or relevance to the present point of contention, as if you are speaking about someone unknown, and unknowable, to me, when you write the word "you" and use the word "you" in that sentence.

Or maybe I don't need to try and account for it. That is not our fault if you're far more evolved that us.
I have a lot of experience with the political tactic known as hyperbole.

I can see it when I see it.

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Oh, Joe. I love you. Especially the "dictating" part. No matter haw many times I say you the same thing, you repeat me your same thing back. To me 'doubt' and 'absolute truth' are the ends that don't meet. This is obvious fact to me that they don't. I asked not to get overly picky over my wording in English. Yet I'm continuing to 'dictate' your opinion/perception/vision/faith/whatever. All the negative perception allegedly reported by me to you is your own way to perceive what I say, has nothing to do with what I meant. But it would be a one million sixty ninth time that I tell you that. And - yes - I didn't use hyperbole last time. Perceive sarcasm in it all you wish, won't change the nature of what I actually mean. I'm not going to make a wall of quotes repeating and re-explaining to you things I find obvious and 'demonstrable'. Not even once I pretended to certainly know what you think/perceive/believe/whatever. I say that who knows which time. Yet you continue to read in it whatever you feel/perceive/think/whatever like it. Brings me back to our mutual dislikes on assumptions. I told back then that when I say things in succession I won't be making conditional excuses after every sentence to not have my thought just ripped out of context and done whatever. I think in categories, not words. But, hey... Why am I going on and on? I've 'dictated' a bunch of stuff already. And yes - this time there actually is some irony involved.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I perceive this:

To me 'doubt' and 'absolute truth' are the ends that don't meet.
I perceive this:

Things are not as black and white as perception or no perception.
I love you too.

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Joe, I am perceiving that you guys love each other! And I think that means that you can agree to disagree because neither one of you may ever budge.

I Peter 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Besides, I think that if perception exists, then all things exist in perception and Sergey's reality in his perception is different than your reality.

So his perception exists and you can not poof it away.

Perception does exist. Everyone has one

Or maybe the word everyone too inclusive. Well then, lets just say one person has perception.

That person may be Joe. Therefore perception exists.

Noah Webster's percetion:
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,perception

perception
PERCEP'TION, n. [L. perceptio. See Perceive.]

1. The act of perceiving or of receiving impressions by the senses; or that act or process of the mind which makes known an external object. In other words, the notice which the mind takes of external objects. We gain a knowledge of the coldness and smoothness of marble by perception.

2. In philosophy, the faculty of perceiving; the faculty or peculiar part of man's constitution, by which he has knowledge through the medium or instrumentality of the bodily organs.

3. Notion; idea.

4. The state of being affected or capable of being affected by something external.

This experiment discovers perception in plants.


And I have just shared my perception, so certainly perception does exist. I have have it.

...

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
bear,

I see you wrote the following to me:

So his perception exists and you can not poof it away.
I am not the one claiming that I can poof away any perception and that is a signficant difference in my opinion.

If I try to think back to the times when I thought it static time then I can imagine having a problem with doubting something while being confident that something is absolutely true; otherwise I have no problem.

I don't see things as being Black or White as if time is stationary and not moving, and by time I don't mean a stationary thing that is not moving, what I mean is to convey a dynamic perception of constant movement as far as I can perceive such a perception, which is doubtful, as to the accuracy of the perception, but none-the-less a perception.

Like this:

1.
Perceive things as if they must be the way I say they are, and therefore I stop those perceptions as if taking a picture of them, and then, by that method of perception, I have something held constantly as it is while I perceive it, and it cannot change, ever.

2.
Perceive things as if I may be able to understand things while they constantly change and my act of perceiving things may actually be changing the things I perceive.

So I can see myself in my past as someone who can be perceived as a being stuck in a perception that resembles the description 1 above, and I can see myself reaching for someone who can be described as someone existing in the description described in case 2 above, and if I have a problem with "doubt" and "certainty" being a simultaneous perception occurring in me, then I see that happening in case 1 above, and I don't see that being a problem in case 2 above, since I pretend to be, or I strive to be, or I willfully employ my power to direct my perception to be in case 2, more so than case 1, as I may be able to do, with what I perceive to be an accurate measure of success.

I Peter 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Funny how things work, that works on me as being relevant to the fence I find myself meeting my cousin Mike.

This experiment discovers perception in plants.
How about hydrogen neutrons?


bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Joe, I did not mean that you were trying to poof it away. What I meant is that it cannot be poofed away. I should not have said "you."

It was part of building my case.

Sergey has a perception
Joe has a perception
Noah Webster has a perception
bear has a perception

perception exist.

What is so hard about that?

or am I missing the whole idea?

Is the idea to prove that perception does not exist?

...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Joe Kelley wrote: I perceive this:

To me 'doubt' and 'absolute truth' are the ends that don't meet.
I perceive this:

Things are not as black and white as perception or no perception.
I love you too.

First is a reference about popular idiom about meeting ends. To me 'absolute truth' excludes 'doubt' in it by definition of being 'absolute'. To me 'absolute' is 'including every scenario'. Including 'doubt'. But since 'doubt' is included - it no longer has its substance being a doubt, because otherwise truth wouldn't be 'absolute' - without it.

Second doesn't contradict the first IF that was the intended meaning by said quoting. 'Absolute' would account for unknown that is neither 'perception' nor 'no perception' and the for the unknown way it affects these two. Yet again - dropping 'absolute' for the fact of possibility of unknown. Perhaps you are saying that there are different shades to being 'absolute'. Yet it seems to defy the purpose of the term. At least that is how I see it.


I am perceiving that you guys love each other!

It's a tough love. The manly one. Common knowledge goes that it requires Vaseline. But actually using it (if we talk about questionable and unnatural sexual practices) is very bad for one's health. So that makes things more tough to an extent. This joke is starting to look like one nasty euphemism so I'm gonna shut up now.

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
But the way I see perception is that whether it is true or not is not the point. The point is that everyone has perception. That does not mean that everyone is right. It just means to me that people have opinions. Their opinions are filtered thru their perception. If you go back a page, you will see that I quoted Noah Webster or you can just click this link: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,perception

Basically perceptions are received thru impmressions by the senses.

I may perceive a room to be cold while you may perceive a room to be warm. Who is right if the temp is 74 f?

When I had cancer I was comfortable at 84. Everyone else was hot. I wasn't my perception was that the temperature was just right.

Perceptions exist, every one has one. It does not have to do with absolute truth or doubt as far as I can understand.

I perceive that you have some measure of enjoyment in being vulgar. You may perceive that you are not vulgar at all.

...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I perceive that you have some measure of enjoyment in being vulgar. You may perceive that you are not vulgar at all.

I don't find it to be vulgar or inappropriate in this instance. I find it to be a healthy laugh. Obviously that I don't find anything gay-related to be actually natural or in any way justified. Nor would I allow anyone dear to me to be brainwashed by parasites saying otherwise.

I may perceive a room to be cold while you may perceive a room to be warm. Who is right if the temp is 74 f?

Doesn't work. In either perception instance in this case perception is applied to a different situation. One person in the rooms with temp 74f as compared to the other person in the rooms with temp 74f. They don't have to come to the same conclusion to be compared by being right or wrong. They weren't asked what temperature air in the room is. Now the question is what if one person has per say appendicitis seizure? In that event senses are likely to fail. So does the measure of one being right or wrong in one's judgement of the situation. Same goes for your example - different situation, doesn't contradict.

Last edited on Tue Apr 16th, 2013 05:58 pm by Jee-Host[gm]

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Exactly

I don't find it to be vulgar or inappropriate in this instance. I find it to be a healthy laugh. Obviously that I don't find anything gay-related to be actually natural or in any way justified. Nor would I allow anyone dear to me to be brainwashed by parasites saying otherwise.

I have Amish friends, they do not even say the word "pregnant" in mixed company of men and women. My grandmother would not even use the word pregnant.

Their perceptions were based on their reality. I find your words about vasaline and your favorite number that you throw around randomly here and there as being vulgar.

It is my perception. Perception is a person's reality. Perception is not about absolute truth or fact.

Are you denying that there is even such a word as "perception?"


http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,perception
perception
PERCEP'TION, n. [L. perceptio. See Perceive.]


1. The act of perceiving or of receiving impressions by the senses; or that act or process of the mind which makes known an external object. In other words, the notice which the mind takes of external objects. We gain a knowledge of the coldness and smoothness of marble by perception.

2. In philosophy, the faculty of perceiving; the faculty or peculiar part of man's constitution, by which he has knowledge through the medium or instrumentality of the bodily organs.

3. Notion; idea.

4. The state of being affected or capable of being affected by something external.

This experiment discovers perception in plants.


Are you denying that out of the billions of people on this planet that not one single person has a perception?

...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I find your words about vasaline and your favorite number that you throw around randomly here and there as being vulgar.

Well, some people always assume the worst. Vaseline or if you prefer - petrolatum - has a very specific intended use. And unless you find electric isolation of technical substances being vulgar - you can have whatever make-belief or 'perception' - it won't change anything. Same goes for number 69. It's not my favorite number. But I find it fun that when someone says 'blue' as compared to 'pink' general opinion of many people goes as 'gay and lesbians'. They themselves set themselves to be offended or affected by it. And it's their own fault they assume that. Am I provoking such a reaction? Yes. Do I find it funny? Yes. Why am I doing it? To sort out those who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Because those that are won't ever be offended by it. If some stranger calls me a communist for being Russian - why should I care about this? I don't even know that person. And if this person is not a stranger and says that - there are always signs that person is joking if that is the case. And not seeing them is my own fault, same as if I for some reason get offended by it. Simple logical conclusion. Or at least it should be after shown once.

Some people extensively use the word 'statist' to describe certain individuals. I have the word 'casuals'. I try so people are neither statists nor casuals. Waking up is not an easy-doing job. But it's very humane as results show. And if even one out of hundred will stop being a casual as result of my influence - It's worth 99 other casuals getting really angry with me.

Perception is a person's reality. Perception is not about absolute truth or fact

So you're saying Joe lives in his very own private reality with complete disregard for the truth? The fact that whatever it is he comes up with to describe or in any way make sense out of anything is limited by his own perception automatically invalidates any attempt for reaching the truth by him? That is a nice one (sarcasm intended).

Now BEAR in mind that since you are also a subject for this - you formulating this statement and implication of it is also limited by your own imperfect perception. Thus the statement's validity can never be refuted (according to the base premise), making it an axiom. Then what right do you have to make a statement that caves in on itself just like that? If it isn't about truth, what is true about it? Who can tell? Logic? Having a hard time seeing sense in this.

Are you denying that there is even such a word as "perception?"
Are you denying that out of the billions of people on this planet that not one single person has a perception

Case and point. You'd probably like Tractatus Logico-Philosphicus by Ludwig Wittegenstein. He pretty much supported your idea, but went an extensive mathematical way about it. Failed, eventually, but was convinced that he didn't.

Last edited on Tue Apr 16th, 2013 07:46 pm by Jee-Host[gm]

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I am saying that perception is not bound by truth.

I can perceive something incorrectly. That does not mean that I am right. But it is still, however, my perception.

I think if you go back and read your words about vaseline and tough love you might be able to decide why I perceived a certain vulgarity. However, I am perceiving that you would have the same perception of vulgarity.

As far as you being a communist because you are from Russia, I have never perceived that. When I see a Russian, I do not say, "There goes a communist."

I may think, I wonder how communism has affected that person's life.

I worked at NASA. We had a meeting with some Russians regarding the MIR space station. There were several Russians. None of them smiled. None of them showed any emotional expression. It was strange to me. But maybe in a business meeting that sort of thing is not appropriate?

That doesn't mean I think it is because of communism. I don't know. It could be cultural.

It did make me wonder though. And it made me a bit sad not to read happiness in their countenance.

And as far as the number I have associated with you, if it is shock value you are trying to get, to me it is more an irritation that I have to go thru the mental gymnastics to read past it.

...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I am saying that perception is not bound by truth.
Nothing is bound by truth. Truth is just how things are. It doesn't bind them to be that way - it's just a description of them being what they are. If one can change state of things - one changes truth about them. Perception is not an exception out of anything. It's material process. Yet talking about is relevant to the truth. Because how ever we perceive perception - we either delude ourselves or not.

I can perceive something incorrectly. That does not mean that I am right. But it is still, however, my perception.

Doesn't mean that you are right. And doesn't mean that you can't be right. And doesn't mean that it is irrelevant in relation to truth.
I think if you go back and read your words about vaseline and tough love you might be able to decide why I perceived a certain vulgarity. However, I am perceiving that you would have the same perception of vulgarity.
As I said - some people tend to assume the worst. If you look it up - 'tough love' is actually a common slang term in IT industry. For one, it refers to parts of any electric device that require application of strength with both hands in an awkward position to assemble them together. And - oh my gosh - sufficient grade isolation lube is not uncommon. Ah... I guess you never figured which part of it was the joke and what I referred to. But it's your 'perception' that makes it vulgar, not me.
As far as you being a communist because you are from Russia, I have never perceived that. When I see a Russian, I do not say, "There goes a communist."
I never even suggested that you do.
I may think, I wonder how communism has affected that person's life.
Hopefully I don't expire before I get to something relevant in that little history lesson topic.
I worked at NASA. We had a meeting with some Russians regarding the MIR space station. There were several Russians. None of them smiled. None of them showed any emotional expression. It was strange to me. But maybe in a business meeting that sort of thing is not appropriate?
Closing MIR was entirely political decision. And ever since the end of USSR all (now - just almost all) political decisions here are for US benefit. Science folk somewhat get the gist of things. Hard to to pursue science wholeheartedly with people, whose government destroys your field of work.
It could be cultural.
It isn't.
It did make me wonder though. And it made me a bit sad not to read happiness in their countenance.
I myself find that I can't judge people by their appearance. Have a decent sample size of people who are simply better than others, but you can never tell about it from the outside. And you won't hear about it from them either. Some people won't outburst and open their hearts willy-nilly. And it's because they value their hearts so, not because they are afraid. Don't get me wrong - people with easy friendliness are great. But thoughtful mysterious type I find to be ever much more capable being a capital P personalities.
And as far as the number I have associated with you, if it is shock value you are trying to get, to me it is more an irritation that I have to go thru the mental gymnastics to read past it.
Think of it as a test. If person can't workout with iron weight - that person probably shouldn't get a rubber weight resembling the iron one. That is just pretending. There was a time when I couldn't speak very comprehensively. Always sounded somewhat clunky and mediocre. Didn't take me long to get past that problem on my own. Food for thought. Doing certain thinking 'motion' one has a good chance to learn to think with more efficiency. That doesn't mean that I try to hide stuff under the wall of words. But then when one is able to read such constructions - there is much more feel to the words than before. How can I put it...

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
But actually using it (if we talk about questionable and unnatural sexual practices) is very bad for one's health. So that makes things more tough to an extent. This joke is starting to look like one nasty euphemism so I'm gonna shut up now.

BU tit's you 'perception' that makes it vulgar, not me.

Perception exists.

It was probably during the early/mid 90's when I was in a meeting with the Russian scientists. It was the beginning effort for the Space Shuttle to doc with MIR. I had to document minutes to the discussion of safety issues and mitigations. Government work includes a lot of paper pushing...after all...it tain't their money their spending.

I did alot of smiling. I wonder what they thought? I was willy-nilly wearing my feelings on my sleeves, or I was a friendly American happy to have the opportunity to be present in the room of such reknown scientists making history?

I was just a technical writer and an engineering aid. But I found the work very interesting.

I am not as well educated as you are Sergey. I doubt if I could read

Tractatus Logico-Philosphicus by Ludwig Wittegenstein.

but no worries, I do not need his mathematic equations to prove perception exists. You my well-read Russian Friend who understands all that stuff, have already told me so:

BU tit's you 'perception' that makes it vulgar, not me.

tis only my perception...and I can count to 1...or would that be 3: Me, Myself, and I?

I could ask you for your perception on whether it is 1 or 3,
but then we would have to decide if it is 2 or 6;
we 2 (or is that us 6) could include Joe,
but then we would have to decide if it is 3 or 9;
should we ask Mike too?

Is too a number or a word?

If I asked you that question audibly, what would be your perception?

Oh no, now we have to start multiplying the number of perceptions each person holds along with deciding how many people each person really is.

Joe's perception is that perception exists and that there is a perception, so indeed, perception exists.

...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I am not as well educated as you are Sergey. I doubt if I could read

Tractatus Logico-Philosphicus by Ludwig Wittegenstein.


Well, your choice. Book is not that difficult. 'Ulysses' by James Joyce is much more difficul for example. I am not extremely well-educated by the way. True - I have batchelor grade from university (or however you name that in English) behind me, but most of my actual education is a personal effort by me. So don't overestimate it )).

could ask you for your perception on whether it is 1 or 3,
but then we would have to decide if it is 2 or 6;
we 2 (or is that us 6) could include Joe,
but then we would have to decide if it is 3 or 9;
should we ask Mike too?


How about we play a little game. You might know this one, but still, let's see if you find it as funny as I do:

Question: 2 + 2 = ?
Answer: 11
Response: Correct. Why?

Now if you manage this out without prior knowledge of it - then you get pure 'kudos' (as they say it nowadays) from me.

Joe's perception is that perception exists and that there is a perception, so indeed, perception exists.

There were also certain words about 'absolute truth'. And that is what rustles my jimmies, I made that apparent. Think about any conception in relation to it's development in scientific way. Broadening the horizon, including more facts. It changes less general theories about anything withing the conception. Perception is no different. Now think about what it is exactly that compels me to argue about all this. Is it just me messing around? Or following my 'perception'? Or maybe, just maybe, I have some knowledge that points me towards conclusions I profess, which are so hard for certain people to BEAR?

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Sergey, I do not know the answer readily to why 2+2 = 11 and I will be gone most of the day. I can assure you it will be along with the foremost things in my mind. I do want to earn your kudos. I may not arrive at the answer though, but I will try. I will report in later today.

Yes, Absolute Truth Exists. I believe that without a doubt. If truth is not absolute, it is really not truth at all? It may be conjecture or perception, but that is not truth until it is proven to be absolute, IMO.

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Yes, Absolute Truth Exists. I believe that without a doubt. If truth is not absolute, it is really not truth at all? It may be conjecture or perception, but that is not truth until it is proven to be absolute, IMO.

Amen, sister ))). Seriously, though, I agree with this statement. So 'perception exists' is more like a conjecture (that word means something like 'guess', right?), rather than 'absolute truth'.

Last edited on Wed Apr 17th, 2013 03:15 pm by Jee-Host[gm]

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
perceive seems a little different than conjecture in that conjecture is maybe more like a theory or hypothesis where as a perception is more like something that someone might believe based upon their own personal imput. I may perceive that you are mad at me for some reason or another, or I might perceive that is cold outside because it is cloudy and windy.

I cannot really know whether you are mad at me unless you confess the fact. (just an example, I don't really think you are mad at me.)

I really wont know that it is cold outside until I walk outside and find that it is indeed cold (to me). Today I found out after I left the house that I had dressed too warmly based upon the view outside my window and the early morning temperature.

Monday however, I did not dress warmly enough because the day before had been absolutely beautiful and I expected the same weather Monday. I was cold all day because my perception was wrong.

Perception does not have to be wrong. Perception could also be correct. I perceive that I will not be sitting here much longer. Time will tell whether my perception is correct or not.

Now Joe and I go round and round on definitions, so you might ask Joe what his perception of the word perception is. We just had a conversation about the word pretending. The way he thinks about the word pretending had never crossed my mind before. And I probably still would not use that word the way he does. However, I can see what he means now.

I still don't have the answer to the number quiz you have given me. I am tempted to ask the Amish folk I am with, but I figure if I can't get it on my own, I will give you the privilege of disclosing the answer, if you are so inclined. So far the only thing I can see about

2 + 2 = 11 is more along the line of integer placement. i.e. 2 and 2 are 2 integers 1 and 1 are two integers.

(I don't even know if i am using the term integer correctly, but I am waiting for the Amish to finish an appointment so I am not going to take the time to look the word up to see if I am using it right. I think an integer is basically just a number.)

I hope you enjoyed this "nothing note" from an American and that it was not a total waste of your time :)

...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I can give you a clue (made it white so you won't read it if you don't want a clue yet):


2 + 2 = 4
Yet
2 + 2 = 11
So what?
4 = 11 ?
That's right. Figure out in which case that happens - and you will solve the puzzle.

Last edited on Wed Apr 17th, 2013 07:34 pm by Jee-Host[gm]

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
When is 4 = 11?

It depends on Where you are in the world.

Pick a place: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/custom.html?continent=all&sort=2&low=4

I looked at your clue and this is the thought it gave me. But I don't know if it is the answer you are looking for.

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Well, no, but I like the thought. Tell you what, if all conditions are met (including that 2 + 2 = 11), thenit might as well be considered the right answer.

However, intended answer is this:


2 + 2 = 11 is true in ternary (base-3) numeral system
Such is a system when you use just 3 numbers for counting, unlike common 10. In ternary system counting from 0 to 10 looks like this:

0, 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 100, 101

So, naturally, in this system 2 + 2 = 4, you just write 4 in a different way. The fun part is that it is generally assumed that '11' means 'eleven' while it's just a notation. Little trick.

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I'm not looking yet...I want to think about it some more, since I went in a different direction. But thank you for including the answer, I imagine I may have to look at it :)

In this case, my perception of the quiz ended with a correct answer even though it was not the intended answer.

Absolute truth can have more than a single truth?

Just tossing out another suggestion

2 + 2 = 11

when 2 = 5.5

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
2 is not a variable here, so no.

Absolute truth can have more than a single truth?
Is it me, or does that sound self-contradictory?

Truth is single even in terms of quantum non-locality.

I called the answer "might as well be correct", because it meets conditions. However, it's not the same kind of satisfaction as in finding the intended answer now, is it? )))

Last edited on Thu Apr 18th, 2013 05:06 pm by Jee-Host[gm]

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Truth is single even in terms of quantum non-locality.

Sergey, I have never even heard the word Quantum nonlocality so I looked it up on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality is the phenomenon by which the measurements made at a microscopic level necessarily refute one or more notions (often referred to as local realism) that are regarded as intuitively true in classical mechanics. Rigorously, quantum nonlocality refers to quantum mechanical predictions of many-system measurement correlations that cannot be simulated by any local hidden variable theory. Many entangled quantum states produce such correlations when measured, as demonstrated by Bell's theorem.
---------------------
I bearly even know what all that means and I suppose I could read it 3 more times to try to let it sink in, but at the moment I am not interested in what it means because I am going to give you 4 absoulte truths:

I am a Sister
I am a Wife
I am a Mother
I am a Daughter

Why does microscopic measurement have to be the determination of absolute truth?

OK so I go back and look at the wiki article. I can't even understand the supposed experiment. It is too much for my chemo laden, 50 year old, unexercised brain to keep straight. And I do not have the desire to try to figure it out. I suppose that is quantum physics stuff? I don't even know what that is. Really, I don't even know what quantum is. I guess I might look up that word to see.

And after that self-debasing sentance I decided to go and look at the answer to the quiz:

2 + 2 = 11 is true in ternary (base-3) numeral system
Such is a system when you use just 3 numbers for counting, unlike common 10. In ternary system counting from 0 to 10 looks like this:

0, 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 100, 101

So, naturally, in this system 2 + 2 = 4, you just write 4 in a different way. The fun part is that it is generally assumed


No, I would have never gotten the answer, never, in a million years. I know nothing about ternary counting systems. But I am inspired to ask. What is the value of 0? Is it truley 0 or is it 1? Why? Says Who?

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Well, you probably heard of binary numeral system. One that computers use at low-level. Using only 0 and 1. Ternary system is not much more different. Same goes for any numeral system. You might have heard of HEX addresses. Those are written using base-16 system. Aztec people are thought to have used base-20 system. And decimal, our most used system now is base-10. Nothing special about any of them in fact. It's just the way to present counting. Some are obviously easier to implement on hardware level. That is why binary system used there. By charging negatively and positively (having 2 states) we can represent binary system, thus enabling easy-to-implement hardware counting.

What is the value of 0? Is it truley 0 or is it 1? Why? Says Who?

In Taro zero is the Fool aka Jester aka Black Card aka Wild Card. Specifics of such a card is both inner emptiness and infinite potential, because it can represent any other card.

I am going to give you 4 absoulte truths:

Why does microscopic measurement have to be the determination of absolute truth?


Meh... It doesn't. I used it as an example that even in notion that revolves around non-locality truth is singular. Your 4 so-called truths are just playing with words. You can't juice much out of that. It's like saying that rain is made out of wet compound. Doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Am I allowed to speak for myself?

Doesn't get anyone anywhere.
I was able to understand the communication offered and I can check to see if my understanding was accurate. I can ask the source of the communication offered to see if she got anywhere.

By using the words offered I was able to see that the person is not just a female person, she is a female person who was not manufactured from an unknown source, as a daughter, it stands to reason, she was born naturally, from a father and a mother, and further this female person, not being merely a female person, is by her account, a person joined as one with a male person, being married, and to add to the list intended to be communicated, to get somewhere, she adds that she is not only a female person, a daughter, and a wife, she is also a mother who has by her capacity to do so, reproduced, and now there are examples of her DNA, combined with her husbands DNA, alive today.

I think I got somewhere, if I am allowed to speak for myself.


Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
If am allowed to speak, then I'll say that thanks to intrepid and mind-boggling deduction we finally have a firm grasp of the obvious. Achievement get!

Don't mind me. Nothing worth listening ever comes out of me. All I do is just messing with people's minds. Some even do like it. For some it's enough to start thinking for themselves. So I guess I shouldn't complain. I'm gonna shut up now before I made some more poeple write things which leave the impression that they are just slightly upset.

Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6383
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I am impressed with thoughts of absolutes and infinity, as I read your writing, if that is of any measure of value to you, then my cost of writing the communication is well spent in my opinion.

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
If am allowed to speak, then I'll say that thanks to intrepid and mind-boggling deduction we finally have a firm grasp of the obvious. Achievement get!

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins103652.html :

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Albert Einstein


I think Joe gave me that quote one time.

I couldn't make 4 simultaneous absolute truths more simple.

Doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Why is it that I need to get anywhere with that truth? Are we trying to get somewhere? If so, where?

Well, those 4 truths have already enabled me to become an Aunt. And there is still the hope that someday I may become a Grandmother.

And the absolute truth is, Sergey, if you are as male as I think you are, you will never experience my absolute truths. Nor I yours.

I am simple. I do not even know what non-locality truth is.

Truth that is not based on location? Or truth that does not have a location. Or truth that is not local to me? I could look it up and see, but right now I am going to go to sleep listening to a Jewish Holocaust survivor. I am in the middle of her story. She was from Poland and she is in the Forest carrying ammo as a Partisan for her Partisan husband who carries the machine gun. It looks like they are assisting the Russians, or should I say the Russians are assisting them, against the Germans. I find her story much more compelling than ending up in a camp some where and barely squeaking by. But then again, her story isn't yet finished. Maybe she does end up in a camp some where.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYvTmBEUVcU&list=EC1DEE787E7468D11C

...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Oh, gosh... (with strong 'Russian' accent): "What can a mun do against such reckless h..." Ah, nevermind.

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Albert Einstein


"Such parlour tricks can get stuffed". Or better yet: "Don't MAKE things simple or complicated, KNOW them to be what they are".

And besides, I have a serious deal of despise towards the figure of Einstein.

I couldn't make 4 simultaneous absolute truths more simple.

"I've been waiting a long time for this, my little green friend..." Wait, what? See now? I can't even get serious when I encounter an "enlightenment" such as this. Even my 'extra provolone' mode doesn't allow me to downplay certain grotesqueries these words of yours imply.

Why is it that I need to get anywhere with that truth? Are we trying to get somewhere? If so, where?

What happened to search for truth? Ah, YES !!! Golly !!! That is THE ABSOLUTE BLOOMING TRUTH already !!! But wait... Thinking ahead would be a horrible thing, something someone refers to as 'competent'. Can't have that!

And the absolute truth is, Sergey, if you are as male as I think you are, you will never experience my absolute truths. Nor I yours.

Whoops, WRONG! But I probably shouldn't explain why, or I might go facepalm-tilt from anything that my response will surely provoke.

I am simple. I do not even know what non-locality truth is.

"There are many things, my friend Horacio, of which our sages never even dreamt"

Truth that is not based on location? Or truth that does not have a location. Or truth that is not local to me? I could look it up and see, but right now I am going to go to sleep listening to a Jewish Holocaust survivor. I am in the middle of her story. She was from Poland and she is in the Forest carrying ammo as a Partisan for her Partisan husband who carries the machine gun. It looks like they are assisting the Russians, or should I say the Russians are assisting them, against the Germans. I find her story much more compelling than ending up in a camp some where and barely squeaking by. But then again, her story isn't yet finished. Maybe she does end up in a camp some where.

Speaking with me about 'holocaust' will not end well. So unless you want to get upset - better not. Reminds me of one sick scenario where main character has to make a stupid choice of either saving his life (for later sudden realization and suicide) or pursuing truth (to be tricked and ending up killing innocents). Sort of like Tower Taro card in reversed position. Problem is - people have problem seeing beyond what is apparent.

But hey, who cares what I say? 'Extra provolone' mode is not going to be disengaged anytime soon it seems.

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
But hey, who cares what I say?

I do Sergey.

And I would like to know what you say about the holocaust in just a few words. Not fighting words. Just your view. You see, I am over here, and you are over there. I have only been listening to these videos because I have listened to some revisionists as well.

What I think is that a large number of Jews died. In multiple kinds of death. Just like large numbers of other nationalities and people groups were murdered. I told my husband last year that all I have ever heard about was the 6 million Jews, when there were a lot more people than just the Jewish people who met horrible fates during WWII.

So, I am on a quest for truth. But for me truth does not have to include hatred for Jewish people just because they are Jewish (I am not saying that is your case.) I am just saying that truth does not have to inspire hate. Truth can just be objective. Oh you mean 50 million people died during that war? 44 million, give or take, that were not Jewish? How come I never knew that until now?

As far as I can tell a factual conversation does not have to end poorly. I think information can be exchanged and the persons receiving the information can take the information for what it is: information until confirmed.

Is that not the quest for truth?

I, personally, like extra sharp cheddar and I'll take some blue cheese on my salad as well.

...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Well, if you want to gain insight in the topic of holocaust then may I suggest a book of sorts that might be a good place to start.

If I recall it is called "Did six million really die?" by Richard Harwood. Now before you try It I have a few words to say about blatant lie that is written in regards to this book in wikipedia. Publisher actually won to court trial set against him, despite what wiki says. No data provided was ever proven false. Essentially that means that vast majority of public data about holocaust is a forgery. Yet as per usual trial results met all-too-familiar media blackout. Ask any mindful german what he thinks about holocaust and reparations his grandchildren will be forced to pay for it still. Though in Germany you go to jail for any public word against holocaust myth.

Last edited on Fri Apr 19th, 2013 02:01 pm by Jee-Host[gm]

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Ask any mindful german what he thinks about holocaust and reparations his grandchildren will be forced to pay for it still. Though in Germany you go to jail for any public word against holocaust myth

When I read those words, and Joe knows I like to connect dots, and I don't always do a good job.

But I hear: maybe a situation has been purposefully set up to put the German people under such a burden that instead of pity for people who went thru a horror, anger is inspired.

Could this conflict have been set up on purpose so that 70 years later, instead of healing, a festering wound continues? A burr under the saddle does what?

OK that is my uneducated simplistice green cheese synopsis not having yet looked into the book you so kindly suggested for me.

...

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Well, I see it as a big lie (for the most part) that is set to reach many goals. One of which is mental enslavement. To raise a constant complex of guilt and push atrocious laws and regulations with such excuse. One other is racket. I urge you to read the book , it's not at all difficult. And then judge for yourself whether its contents are worthy of trust.

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Is this the book: http://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd01.html ?

Jee-Host[gm]
Member


Joined: Sat Apr 6th, 2013
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 107
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Looks like it

bear
Member
 

Joined: Thu Nov 15th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 748
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
You guys, I can't talk. I have so much to do it is not even funny. The boys have 2 weeks of school left and there is something every night and things alot of the days. I have to get my garden in too. We had snow the first of May so everything is behind. I am not sure when I will be back to talk. Joe, I will try to concentrate on getting bookwork down when I have down time. You will know when I am working on it as I will be updating the editing forum.



UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems