| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Open for Conversation | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 02:14 pm |
|
21st Post |
|
bear Guest
|
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? ...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 04:02 pm |
|
22nd Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 05:06 pm |
|
23rd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
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. ...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 05:33 pm |
|
24th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
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 05:35 pm by |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 07:25 pm |
|
25th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
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. ...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 07:48 pm |
|
26th Post |
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 09:05 pm |
|
27th Post |
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 10th, 2013 10:06 pm |
|
28th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
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. ...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 02:28 am |
|
29th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 11:30 am |
|
30th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 01:26 pm |
|
31st Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Well, I was thinking it was a neat book title.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 09:08 pm |
|
32nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 10:44 pm |
|
33rd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
My daughter has artwork ready for the next book That is very exciting, Joe!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 15th, 2013 01:35 am |
|
34th Post |
|
kurtwaters Guest
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 15th, 2013 02:45 pm |
|
35th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 15th, 2013 03:17 pm |
|
36th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 15th, 2013 05:21 pm |
|
37th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 15th, 2013 06:33 pm |
|
38th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 16th, 2013 10:17 am |
|
39th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 16th, 2013 11:11 am |
|
40th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
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 And I have just shared my perception, so certainly perception does exist. I have have it. ...
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:27 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 |
| Power Independence > Book > bears Book > Open for Conversation | Top |
