"Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena" vs "Wholeness stimulates infinite phenomena"
Which is more meaningful? Is there actually any meaning? Or is it actually more like art, meaning in the eye of the beholder?
Exactly, it's in the "eye of the beholder." But the new statement you created, I would have a harder time trying to get meaning out of that just because the word "stimulates" sounds about like the opposite of "quiets," so the Jungian interpretation as far as I understand it might not apply anymore. But it doesn't mean someone else can't find some meaning in it that would be just as valid.
Just because you are in intelligent human being able to find meaning in that around you doesn't mean that there was intrinsic meaning initially.
That's the problem. Nothing has "built-in" meaning. It takes a human being (or some other form of consciousness) to come along, experience something and then determine what it means. It's a totally subjective process and that's why it's not subject to empirical scrutiny, like the paper above tries to do. So in the case of synchronicities, which ties into a lot of what is on this thread, someone experiences some uncanny "coincidences" that relate in some way to what they've been thinking and feeling lately, and they attach a coherent meaning to these coincidences, and now you have synchronicities. Carl Jung was the first guy to really write about this phenomenon and he called synchronicity a "meaningful coincidence." And the person who experiences it is the one supplying the meaning.
If a charitable act is done for selfish reasons, is it actually charitable?
I think one person will probably say yes, it was, while another person will probably say no, it wasn't. Which one's right and which one's wrong? It's not something you can determine scientifically or even logically, without arbitrary standards along the way (ie, "it depends on the person's motivation," or on the other hand, "who cares what the person intended, look at the ultimate result"). Or it could be like "is the glass half empty or half full?" These kinds of questions remind me of coloring books. You can color in whatever you want here, depending on what you like.
I'm glad you could get something out of what I typed up above. I was wondering if I had not just posted a bunch of meaningless nonsense.
Seriously though, basically you remove the message sender from any onus; you take from it what is meaningful. I like that. Internalization of responsibility.
Do you view such a strategy as having or being of a distinct compartment (ref Joanna compartmentalization as a form of separation to prevent cognitive dissonance type issues)?
One of the reasons I had even posted the issue was in ref to cognitive dissonance. You are probably already familiar with the term but to clarify: it is basically a conflict between accepted informations or values within a person or mind. So compartmentalizing permits one to accept two views, even conflicting as they are meant within certain contexts. The strategy to not to confuse those contexts so that dissonance of this sort is minimized or even avoided. The breakdown of the clarity between these distinct contexts, may result in profound confusion as a mind discovers the dissonance aspects that render those informations unreliable.
Originally posted by bsbray
That's the problem. Nothing has "built-in" meaning. It takes a human being (or some other form of consciousness) to come along, experience something and then determine what it means. It's a totally subjective process and that's why it's not subject to empirical scrutiny, like the paper above tries to do.
That is to presume consciousness is not present in everything around us. It may be that everything actually does have meaning, even "built in" meaning. It may be that our attempts to find meaning as you suggest are actually subversive of a possibility to simply recognize these built in meanings. Synchronicities are marvellously explained in this type paradigm as well. The issue then is to reject BS meanings meant as a type of temptation.
Originally posted by bsbray
"who cares what the person intended, look at the ultimate result"
<sigh/>
Indeed but maybe the path taken is more important than the final destination? And maybe they are both important.
Yin and Yang.
ADDENDUM
I'm going to objectify my position a bit. I think I'm to on the wall and thus the conversation is losing a bit of meaning or direction.
Perhaps one of the biggest source of cognitive dissonance throughout history is a biblical one. Consider what the followers of Moses where asked to do when he returned from Sinai... They where asked to put their rational and values aside to trust the words of a messenger rather than decide for themselves. (ref Joseph P Ferrell about Yahwehism).
In this case, it is clear that your interpretation is correct; each of us needs to find meaning that is synchronous to our views and values. The messenger and credibility given thereabouts is secondary.
Last edited by lcam88, 5th December 2015 at 20:48.
Reason: addendum
Do you view such a strategy as having or being of a distinct compartment (ref Joanna compartmentalization as a form of separation to prevent cognitive dissonance type issues)?
I had never thought of that in those terms until I read Joanna's post, but I like it. I know it sounds new-agey but even theoretical physics is assuming on some level that everything in existence comes from the same source and so everything is related on some level. The old hippy way of putting it (or Hindu to take it back even further) is more dramatic, "all is one." So then if we apply that to the mind and the way people compartmentalize knowledge, I can see how it can be a defense mechanism of sorts to avoid really thinking about how everything fits together in the big picture, and what we are really doing here. Society as it exists today needs that compartmentalization to function. What the hippies were saying and doing was genuinely threatening that social order (not that they necessarily had anything better to replace it with -- "better" being another subjective judgement call) and I think that's why the response from the government ended up being as hostile and aggressive as it was.
There are still a lot of different ways people can look at reality at the same time that may even contradict each other, realizing that none of them are any more "true" or "false" than the others, they just have different uses. To use science as an example again, when people talk about electrical theory or chemistry, they're treated for practical purposes as two different subjects, but both depend on considering how protons and electrons push and pull each other around in different situations. Then you have pluralism in religion where people can acknowledge that any religion can be just as valid as the next, depending on what somebody can get out of it.
Sam posted some videos from Tim Freke too that I thought were excellent, talking about how this centuries-long debate between people as to whether reality was ultimately objective or subjective could be resolved if people could just agree that whatever reality "really is," it seems to have enough room for both views to be valid.
This is one of the videos Sam's posted before from Tim:
That is to presume consciousness is not present in everything around us. It may be that everything actually does have meaning, even "built in" meaning. It may be that our attempts to find meaning as you suggest are actually subversive of a possibility to simply recognize these built in meanings. Synchronicities are marvellously explained in this type paradigm as well. The issue then is to reject BS meanings meant as a type of temptation.
This would be the position of an objectivist, one side of this old argument that Tim Freke is talking about in the video above, that he's trying to reconcile with the opposing camp on this issue. It's also the view that scientists generally seem to take except that meaning itself still can't be scientifically measured or validated, without arbitrary standards (so instead of dealing with meaning they deal with physical measurements).
You would probably like the book Gödel, Escher, Bach by Doug Hofstadter too, if you haven't read it yet. In it he talks about how Whitehead and Norton spent years working on their Principia Mathematica to prove that mathematics wasn't an arbitrary human invention but had real "meaning" and was justified by nature itself. They were obviously strongly in the objectivist camp and were determined to prove themselves in this work. And then after it was published, it was only a few years later that Godel published his famous theorem, using all the proper rules of calculus, that made a statement basically equivalent to "this theorem is not a theorem." So is it a theorem or not? It's well-formed and doesn't violate any rules, and yet the "truth" that it mathematically points to, is a denial of its own validity.
Hofstadter compares Godel's theorem to this:
"The statement below is true.
The statement above is false."
If even calculus can create theorems that seem this nonsensical, when mathematics is the core of all of our science and is supposed to be no-nonsense, then how else are we ever going to be able to prove that there is a built-in meaning to reality, that makes any sense to us at all? It goes back to us only being able to get what we can out of it, and people are still not sure what exactly to make of Godel's discovery.
I need to get versed in fallacies so I can name them when they're thrown at me.
In my experience it just makes people mad when you point out that what they're saying is literally illogical.
There was a forum I used to post on (ATS, run by a bunch of shills as far as I'm concerned, though I posted there for years anyway until they changed my email and password so I couldn't log in anymore), where I would literally have my posts moderated for quoting people's posts and then quoting from websites about logical fallacies, showing how what was being posted were fallacies. Once I even had a post of mine deleted for posting a dictionary definition of a word to show that what someone had said made no sense (probably something to do with 9/11, like the definition of the word "molten," as I think someone was arguing that a reference to molten steel in the official FEMA report, appendix C, didn't mean that steel was actually melted ). I guess the emotional part of the brain wants to believe what it wants to believe, and if logic gets in the way it just does what it does best: gets emotional.
Last edited by bsbray, 5th December 2015 at 21:50.
Peoples' experiences are real. They just can't be proven. On C2C Michio Kaki was confirming that science can 'prove' lucid dreaming. Now that it's measurable by science, it's considered 'real' and 'proven'.
It's really not a good idea to dismiss things as nonsense just because we haven't learned to make scientific sense of it.
People have known lucid dreaming is real for millennia.
Critical thinking goes beyond science and empirical evidence. Experience matters. We need to be able to talk about the reality of things beyond the bounds of science and religion.
IMO
Thanks to my fours years of direct involvement via forums with the alternative community, I have developed a rather strict set of guidelines.
One of them is this... just because I have an other worldly, unprovable experience, the paradigms these experiences suggest do not necessarily have to exist for others. This is also why I never accept the paradigms suggested by the other worldly unprovable experiences of others as hard fact reality.
Some then contend that many folks sometimes share the same other worldly experiences and thus the paradigms those experiences suggest must be universally true for all. I see this type of thinking as fallacious.
I am able to hold these views because of the essential philosophy I hold about who/what I am which no one I am aware of in the contemporary English speaking world expresses better than Tim Freke. Who/what I am (for me) is minimally paradoxical. If this is true (and it is for me) then I do not exclude the possibility that a group of others can experience a shared other worldly reality (such as what they might experience in the astral). Yet also, it seems quite possible that another group of different folks could experience a completely different other worldly experience that suggests there to be a completely different paradigm than the one the former group's experiences might suggest.
One reason I have this view is because if I do not, I end up in endless arguments about what is true about the beyond. This seems totally senseless. Another reason I have this view is because in my personal world view is also my cosmology which is based on the view that "The BIG ME" created all which includes every one of us and myself. If I can do that then it seems certainly likely that I can also create subtle realms where different paradigms can simultaneously exist.
This view ensures I do not get caught up in senseless arguments about the purpose of the multi-verse and the meaning (purpose) of life beyond the obvious which is... to me... "I gave myself life for one reason and one reason only... and that is - to live."
There is one very important final reason I have this view... I do not have to be right as well as do you (for me) have to be wrong.
Last edited by Chester, 5th December 2015 at 22:39.
All the above is all and only my opinion. It may contain some sharing of components of my current operating strategy and some foundational components of my current world view - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.
...when mathematics is the core of all of our science and is supposed to be no-nonsense, then how else are we ever going to be able to prove that there is a built-in meaning to reality...
I'll have to watch the video and read the book later on. Subjectivity vs Objectivity seems like a nice way of describing this all.
The Electric Universe crowd really touch on the issue I quote above in a real way. Their idea is that Mathematics "describes" what is, whereas nature "defines" what is. To use the system of describing, you make your observations and then describe them. If you confuse what you are describing then you create a very logical "invincible ignorance fallecy". And in a way that Godel proof might best be described as such, I haven't looked at it enough to be certain.
The Electric Model guys sort of accuse the standard model guys of using Math to define their sciences, instead of using math to describe a science. Their position is that Math cannot be a source of truth in an of itself, and Godel proof is especially interesting conceptually to me for that reason.
Did you understand Joanna's compartmentalization analogy on an individual level or on a multi-person level? I understood it on the individual level...
Your position seems to be that as long as meaning can be found at an individual level then there is real meaning, regardless of the origin of a possibly meaningless message. Does that mean that a charitable act made by an individual motivated by selfishness is indeed charitable? Is that an unfair analogy? Is there a better analogy?
Having the benefit of some metric by which measurements of meaningfulness found by individuals can take any number of forms, scientific, religious or perhaps even parts of both, for example, a metric could be the number of prayers made per hour in reference to certain uttered phrases... <shrug/>
The article I quote above measures response by asking participants in the study to indicate a number 1 to 5 regarding how meaningful texts they are presented with happens to be [to them].
My question I'm posing above has more to do with identifying possible common factors that cause otherwise intelligent individuals to accept noise (nonsense) as something meaningful.
The reason this topic is of enough interest to me to post is simply because accepting nonsense as having meaning, even if such meaning is ambiguous or confusing, is the equivalent of accepting cognitive dissonance, into ones mind, especially when they deny their authority to specifically decide for themselves (even erroneously) in regards to aspects of the topic(s).
Sam?
One of my other hard learned rules is...
"Don't objectify what is subjective."
In the example found in this blog post, even though I shared the experience with my wife, she did not have the foundation of the experience as I did and so whereas I give this particular synchronicity experience a profundity rating of 10 on a scale of 1 to 10, she only understood why it was so meaningful to me and because of what we mean to each other, she might rate this experience as a 6 or 7. The reader of the blog post might (depending on their own degree of long term experiences with the phenomena coupled with the degree to which they are able to see the odds against this experience happening (which includes the timing factor as well) rate this anywhere from a 2 or so up to a 8 or 9... but likely few if any would rate it a ten. The only reason I have not rated it higher is because of another rule I have which says I cannot exceed my scale. If I could, I would actually rate this one as "infinite."
Last edited by Chester, 5th December 2015 at 22:57.
All the above is all and only my opinion. It may contain some sharing of components of my current operating strategy and some foundational components of my current world view - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.
The Electric Model guys sort of accuse the standard model guys of using Math to define their sciences, instead of using math to describe a science. Their position is that Math cannot be a source of truth in an of itself, and Godel proof is especially interesting conceptually to me for that reason.
That's exactly what science is doing. You see this especially in modern theoretical physics when you have experiments like the one showing that quantum entanglement works at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light and maybe instantaneously. Nobody knows how the hell that happens so they go to making extremely complicated mathematical models assuming all of these non-physical dimensions just to make formulas that model what happens. But then there's more than one model that can explain it, and scientists aren't going to say that all of them are right. They're going to argue about "the" correct model. But then like you say, someone will then confuse all of this and start saying that the math itself has proved something.
I can take what Joanna is saying either on a personal or social level, since society is really just a bunch of individuals anyway. For me personally it makes total sense with how I try to approach anything, by comparing it to more or less everything else I can relate to it, so in that way I'm busting up the walls of the various compartments. But from what I was posting above I guess I was focusing on the social aspect as far as what the hippies were doing with their "peace and love" movement threatening the normal order of society. It does seem very typical of society today to segregate different kinds of knowledge in discrete little boxes and separate them all from each other.
In a way, what you describe is a protection mechanism from cognitive dissonance.
If you understand cognitive dissonance to be the acceptance of contradictory informations, the "I don't have time" and "I don't have time to think" is the rejection of an idea being presented to him that he is distasteful to. Almost to the point where he is protecting something that he is unwilling to share.
Blaming the opposing team is an ego thing plain and simple. <shrug/> Rejection of noise or "non-sense" depends very much on what and how you interpret signals, not about being right or wrong, initially anyway.
But within his mind, he does reject, as I state his strategy to be above, to avoid dissonance.
I find this is something at play in my personal relationship even now, I am much more aware of how much I reject ideas I don't like from people close to me (my partner) and how that doesn't always work out. The problems caused has gotten me to listen more, at the cost of greater dissonance; the cool part is that sometimes I find that I "fix" ideas or preconceptions that I hold that I hadn't questioned before.
Few humans on Earth at this time are able to grasp the following.
Someone makes a point and that point appears to be true to those who have heard it as well as to the one who made the point. Then someone else makes a point which appears to contradict the first point yet... because of the context, this second point is also seen as true by others as well as the one who made the point.
So I ask, which of the two would be actually true? The answer is both... depending on the context.
Example - I find myself in a relationship and I think everything is fine. One day I come home and find that the one I was in relationship with stole my stuff, left a note that they did it and disappeared.
From one point of view, I may have been wronged.
Yet, when I find myself in these types of situations I always ask this - "What lesson at the level of my deepest self might I learn from this experience?" I ask this because I have the fundamental view that at the very least at a deeper level of my being, there are no coincidences and thus I seek to understand what about "me" (that deepest individuated expression of who I am) attracted this experience into my life. When I do this, I usually find one or more components of the foundation of my world view was the cause. I then seek to discover why I made the decision to incorporate that componet into my world view. I then ask if this component still serves me. If so, I retain it. If not, I eject it and this adjusts my world view.
Soooo back to the primary point. On one level "I" (Sam and his one life and the story of Sam's one life) was wronged. On another level, I played a direct role in creating this event in my life and from this perspective, no wrong was done.
Both are true for me. And each, when considered by the common human mind, seems to make the other impossible.
All the above is all and only my opinion. It may contain some sharing of components of my current operating strategy and some foundational components of my current world view - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.
I need to get versed in fallacies so I can name them when they're thrown at me.
Maybe I'm being too simplistic. I think people are failing to take responsibility for their thoughts and actions. It's too much of a burden. They just point to leaders and authority.
I can't tell you how many times people get uncomfortable simply because I question or think critically. It's almost like I'm doing something wrong.
They don't want me to rock the boat or upset the apple cart or whatever.
In today's day and age, I have made an adjustment to my prior operational protocol.
I used to feel that I was fully responsible for all my thoughts. Yet now that I am aware of psychotronics, demons, archons, black magicians, etc. I realize that it may be possible that some of the thoughts that pop into my head may not be my own... that they may be created by or at least influenced by an external third party. Of course, I am coming from the point of view of "me" being Sam, this one life, this one lifetime experience.
So what I do now is I examine all my thoughts and determine if it is a thought I wish to take ownership of. Once I take ownership of a thought... until I might change my mind, I am now responsible for that thought.
This process has relieved me of the guilt I used to experience because of some of my thoughts.
In addition, I am fully responsible for all I speak/write and do.
All the above is all and only my opinion. It may contain some sharing of components of my current operating strategy and some foundational components of my current world view - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.
In the example found in this blog post, even though I shared the experience with my wife...
I liked your blog post; synchronicity at its finest. Once you know it, you can never stop noticing, always amazing indeed.
Indeed it would be curious to know just how much of our reality is coincidentally synchronous and where we may not know or perceive it.
I know that you where willing to find that out...
I generally dislike heuristics as a guide to life very much; I prefer to find myself wrong on an issue than be bound by heuristics to be right.
Originally posted by bsbray
from what I was posting above I guess I was focusing on the social aspect
social compartmentalization is a bit harder for me to understand. I always end up with social segregations like white collar, blue collar, ethnic, religious and social dispositions of every kind. What makes these groups distinct, besides the obvious classes extends in a good part to values and information that they live by being conflicting or at least differing. It would be difficult to "transplant" an individual from one group into another without a certain amount of attrition.
I see compartmentalization on the individual level to be much more an issue of personal choice... At the social level it is much less so.
It is (now and finally) impossible for me to judge whether another's approach to life is good or bad, correct or incorrect, etc. It does appear to me that at your conscious, waking state of your being, you have built a world view that is firmly anchored by foundational components which have been determined by sincere efforts of reasoning. Most folks I know that seem to manifest this expression which suggests the likelihood of the conclusion I have drawn to be pretty spot on, I have found to be very well grounded. I am speaking generally. I have found them (again generally) to be quite reliable. I find them to be more dependable in general.
I, on the other hand, have experienced a world where magic manifests just as much as the likely results of cause an effect. I may be alone though I have read writings of others, heard the words of others and witnessed others who experience the magical and acknowledge that the magical is every bit as real as the mechanistic world. Living a magical life (as I now do) has opened me to amazing new levels of meaning, raised my enthusiasm for life and provided me the evidence I need for my mind to accept quantum possibilities. This "thing" I experience which is nothing short of a "magical life" is something I wish more folks could open to. Why? Because at the heart of the experience emerges a "knowing" (as in gnosis) of "who/what" we might be such that this knowing leads one to the understanding that to harm another is harming oneself. (This last part is a completely subjective opinion).
If I have profiled you incorrectly, I do apologize. What prompted me to write this post is your comment that used the word "heuristic."
What I have noticed is sometimes important to you is sources. I share this same view though I take my own experience as my number one source and why I do this is because I (Sam, this one life) am ultimately responsible for all my expressions. I find relying on third parties to be (sometimes) dangerous (for me).
Yet one thing I have also discovered which I have yet to discover expressed by any other being I have ever met is this: that just because my own experiences suggest there be a paradigm within which I am experiencing does not mean that a single other being is subject to this same paradigm. It is my opinion that the single biggest mistake most Earth humans make is that they believe the paradigms they experience beyond the dense physicality are universally true for all other beings (or at least all other Earth humans).
Now - back to sources... if you at all respect Carl Jung, here is something Jung had to say that illustrates my point -
I hope you will give this excerpt from Jung's Red Book a reasonably contemplative look... Sam
All the above is all and only my opinion. It may contain some sharing of components of my current operating strategy and some foundational components of my current world view - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to donk For This Useful Post:
bsbray (7th December 2015), Chester (7th December 2015), Dreamtimer (6th December 2015), Joanna (7th December 2015), Lansing (7th December 2015), lcam88 (7th December 2015), sandy (7th December 2015)
I'm more a dreamer than firmly anchored by fundamentals.
I have realized that the only way dreaming is going to do me any good is if I can base it on fundamentals as a way to make them part of my reality.
Indeed that is my approach, and as you may agree, there is no way to say it is good or bad. Even as a strategy because circumstances/synchronisity always brings its own wind into our lives. But for now I think the best way to build a dream in reality is to base it on what is absolute and true [to me].
If you understand that "whatever will be, will be", then suddenly the efforts made to try and mold and shape things around seem much more futile. That was when I started experimenting with intuitive guidance, synchronicities in a way. My efforts can then to be much more "aimed" than I may be able to aim them consciously.
I mentioned heuristics because you seem attached to rules. The problem with rules is that you then avoid thinking about what it is really about; sometimes rules don't fit.
I thought for some time yesterday about your 10 of 10 synhcronisity blog that you shared and I have a question to pose for anyone following here.
Sam associates/links his synchronisity experience through details of a movie. In our everyday life we compartmentalize and one such compartment is fact or fiction, Transcendence clearly falling into the latter. And even though your associations/links though the movie was only based on details, like the affection for sunflowers and the height difference you mentioned. Overall, how does breaking down compartmentalization insofar as to create synchronous links with works of Fiction create or permit a ficticious element into the coincidence you experience? Could this be an example of what Joanna meant by "unity consciousness"?
All of lifes problems are solved in movies, even at a metaphoric level... But does the ficticious nature of movies somehow taint the association?
I'll preempt my answer to the question above, I think its not a problem when your coincidences are wrapped in details or even fiction. However, I'm going to say that seeking out synchronisity in any form with the intention of "finding evidence" or "proving" that circumstances are something "more" is a road better passed up, it is a short circuit of sorts. Synchronicity doesn't require that you believe of theorise it's validity, it is something you simply know. To act on synchronisity to prove that you know is distinct from actually knowing. You know?
Originally posted by Sam Hunter
...that just because my own experiences suggest there be a paradigm within which I am experiencing does not mean that a single other being is subject to this same paradigm. It is my opinion that the single biggest mistake most Earth humans make is that they believe the paradigms they experience beyond the dense physicality are universally true for all other beings (or at least all other Earth humans).
YES!
We are all individuals, and the vector (direction and magnitude) of our current moment is a result of all our previous moments.
and no
There are many thing we all do that is part of solving problems that is shared by many. The ego for example.
I'll read your source, no promises, and thanks.
PS Thanks bsbray, for putting a nice knot on the "why do we believe bs, contemplation"
ADDENDUM regarding the Tim Freke video: Paralogical Perception, Tim Freke
I think I'd started watching the video and had given up. Continuation now. "Opposites coexist" seems about right.
I had to stop again, ohhhggggg, the speaker is just so mind numbingly boring, like being sentenced an hour of a semi-coherent rationalization in all the minutia. I'll then make up my mind about how I like the idea presented. With this video I can't even stay focused enough to dwell on the concepts the speaker is sharing.
I am not particularly fond of darwinism, the standard model, or atheism but the late Christopher Hitchens is by far more entertaining to listen to as his rationalization is not unfolded and reduced into the mash one would expect to find at the end of a child's feeding spoon.
Last edited by lcam88, 7th December 2015 at 11:48.
If someone asked me what is my primary goal for taking time to share my thoughts I would answer as follows.
Though I see the world through two sets of eyes and hope that I can see them through a third set which would be a continuance of an individuation beyond the death of my physical body, through the second set of eyes, I desire to see a better world for all. Better would be subjective but note that my second set of eyes is "me" (Sam... this one life).
I also believe that Sam, this one life, has made discoveries which, if Sam is able to share them and share them in a way far more others react to positively to than negatively... where they are able to achieve that first set of eyes (as is done via various practices, one being Zen - "liberation enlightenment") then he will have raised the odds that a better world (again... his opinion as to what would be a better world) is achieved.
This is the whole purpose of all my posts now.
Sometimes I read responses to my posts which I am unable to respond to because I cannot see any discernible connection to anything I actually wrote (said). That may be due to a lack of clear articulation on my part. Another factor perhaps might be that the reader does not share any common space with my own world view (which by the way and as I have stated often is not fixed) which almost forces the reader to interpret limited to the extent of opennes their own world view provides.
What makes things even harder to respond to is when someone makes a statement framed as an absolute that applies to all.
For example, a comment regarding a video that "the speaker is just so mind numbingly boring"...
The way that statement is phrased does not include the fact that the writer found the talk given by the speaker to be boring. It is written in such a way that a third party reader could conclude the talk to be universally boring for all so why bother listening and thus why bother considering Tim's (not new by the way) idea of "paralogical perception" (it is just the label he came up with that may be new).
So a question I have asked myself -
If I write words that are serious and covering perhaps the most important subjects discussed in a publicly accessed forum, perhaps I should put a great deal of care into how I phrase things?
Just thoughts... shared.
Last edited by Chester, 7th December 2015 at 16:00.
All the above is all and only my opinion. It may contain some sharing of components of my current operating strategy and some foundational components of my current world view - all subject to change and not meant to be true for anyone else regardless of how I phrase it.
Originally posted by lcam88
Reply With Quote
). I guess the emotional part of the brain wants to believe what it wants to believe, and if logic gets in the way it just does what it does best: gets emotional.
Bookmarks