Do you disagree with this? Do you think disproving one theory can prove another?
Certainly disproving a theory is relevant to that theory's merits. But it is irrelevant to the merits of another based on different premises.
Do you disagree with this? If Darwin is proven wrong tomorrow, does ID suddenly become right?
Angelica, the official 9/11 story is a "conspiracy theory" in that the theory revolves around the conspiracy of 19 Arab hijackers and their associates. Just because something is a "conpiracy theory" doesn't make it wrong.
Intelligent design is not "irrational" in its core beliefs. It is irrational in its methods. Disproving Darwin cannot prove Intelligent Design. Disproving the "official" 9/11 story cannot prove an alternative case.
Regardless, little here disproves the official case. It is perfectly fine and valid to ask questions -- there are many unanswered questions from that day. But to frame a question in the form of a conclusion is completely backwards.
We cannot ever prove anything with certainty. Therefore disproving any aspect of a theory is not only highly appropriate, it's necessary for truth.
If you choose to judge it as irrational, you do not show it as irrational. What you show me is that you do not comprehend the purposes of the other person you call irrational, or that you do not understand why such processes are perfectly rational to another person.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't care about the opinion of some vague "majority". I care about the opinions of those who are knowledgeable of the science involved in the case. Steven Jones is not a structural engineer. That doesn't make him wrong, but it does mean much in the face of Ahnimus's "apparently proven" language when his colleagues knowledgeable in the applicable sciences have reviewed the work and unanimously rejected it.
Honestly I don't care about "social ostracisation". People are free to offer theories and others are free to reject them based on the merits of those theories. I have no inherent obligation to embrace poor theory just because the man who posits it wishes to be "accepted".
More power to everyone??? Agreed! I respect anyone's right here to offer theories. And I'll hold those theories to the same standards. That's equal power to everyone.
You asked why I called you out over anyone else. You implied I was acting on personal bias. I am acting on personal bias against socially ostracising methods of debate. I felt you were using smokescreen social methods that were irrelevant to the facts. I let your numerous facts and valid debatable points stand.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
We cannot ever prove anything with certainty. Therefore disproving any aspect of a theory is not only highly appropriate, it's necessary for truth.
Unless the disproof is incorrect.
If you choose to judge it as irrational, you do not show it as irrational.
It is irrational to suggest that God is the force behind Intelligent Design while being unable to prove the existence of God while at the same time saying your theory is "fact-based science". Intelligent Design is not fact-based, it is faith-based. That doesn't make it wrong, it just demonstrates their standards of science. Therefore, if they believe that Darwin can be disproved with a fact while at the same time believing that their theories cannot, it makes them irrational in that they will not hold two theories to the same standards of judgment. You know all that "bias" talk? That is what bias is: the different set of standards applied to equal situations.
What you show me is that you do not comprehend the purposes of the other person you call irrational, or that you do not understand why such processes are perfectly rational to another person.
I do understand their purposes. They wish to fit fact to their pre-existing religious conclusion. The share those purposes with some here, albeit on a different topic.
Such purposes are fine. People may believe whatever they want to believe. But such purposes are irrelevant to truth. Truth does not matter to the man whose mindet requires him to ignore it. Truth does not matter to the man who wishes a conclusion to be free of causal evidence. Truth does not matter to the man who believes rather than thinks. It's time for me to get back to my moon men.
You asked why I called you out over anyone else. You implied I was acting on personal bias. I am acting on personal bias against socially ostracising methods of debate. I felt you were using smokescreen social methods that were irrelevant to the facts. I let your numerous facts and valid debatable points stand.
Yes you did. You also let language like "apparently proven" stand without any justification. You let "debunks" stand in the absence of the theories actually being "debunked". You let similar statements to mine about the "Bush administration" stand.
When the Professor Emeritus of the structural engineering school at BYU tells Steven Jones that his theories are faulty, you accuse him (or me by quoting such language) of "ostracising". Tell me, why don't you also accuse Steven Jones of doing the same when he tells everyone else that their theories are wrong?
It is irrational to suggest that God is the force behind Intelligent Design while being unable to prove the existence of God while at the same time saying your theory is "fact-based science". Intelligent Design is not fact-based, it is faith-based. That doesn't make it wrong, it just demonstrates their standards of science. Therefore, if they believe that Darwin can be disproved with a fact while at the same time believing that their theories cannot, it makes them irrational in that they will not hold two theories to the same standards of judgment. You know all that "bias" talk? That is what bias is: the different set of standards applied to equal situations.
I do understand their purposes. They wish to fit fact to their pre-existing religious conclusion. The share those purposes with some here, albeit on a different topic.
Such purposes are fine. People may believe whatever they want to believe. But such purposes are irrelevant to truth. Truth does not matter to the man whose mindet requires him to ignore it. Truth does not matter to the man who wishes a conclusion to be free of causal evidence. Truth does not matter to the man who believes rather than thinks. It's time for me to get back to my moon men.
Well, thanks for your opinion/point of view.
Re: intelligent design, I can tell you right now that I've had spiritual, experiential personal experiences, pertaining to evolutionary forces pulling me towards a destiny. You may be able to "rationally" dispute my assertion. You cannot disprove what I know and what I've experienced, however. My experiences are not based on religious faith, they are based on personal experience, which is entirely relevent in science. Intelligent life design directed me directly to the healing of numerous disorders. With this underlying premise that I hold, based on what is self-evident to me, I could care less how you choose to look at it. What I care about is what I KNOW. I may not be able to prove it YET. You say I cannot prove it, period--I disagree. There is not a line between natural and supernatural. The imaginary line lies between what human consciousness can accept and what it cannot accept at this time. That is not a limit of science but a limit of human consciousness. I happen to personally believe that such lines--such veils--are being pushed back by our blossoming awareness at all times. What is irrational to you, is completely rational to me.
Again, I say what you see as irrational is defined by the limits of what you perceive.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yes you did. You also let language like "apparently proven" stand without any justification. You let "debunks" stand in the absence of the theories actually being "debunked". You let similar statements to mine about the "Bush administration" stand.
When the Professor Emeritus of the structural engineering school at BYU tells Steven Jones that his theories are faulty, you accuse him (or me by quoting such language) of "ostracising". Tell me, why don't you also accuse Steven Jones of doing the same when he tells everyone else that their theories are wrong?
You are free to go to town in arguing the fine points if you like. As I say, my own bias is towards issues of socially ostracising others, and with the "majority rules" mentality pertaining to opinion/preference, or with other smokescreens that I see as invalidly "proving" one's point. Are you suggesting I pick up your bias and leave my own behind?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Re: intelligent design, I can tell you right now that I've had spiritual, experiential personal experiences, pertaining to evolutionary forces pulling me towards a destiny. You may be able to "rationally" dispute my assertion. You cannot disprove what I know and what I've experienced, however. My experiences are not based on religious faith, they are based on personal experience, which is entirely relevent in science. Intelligent life design directed me directly to the healing of numerous disorders. With this underlying premise that I hold, based on what is self-evident to me, I could care less how you choose to look at it. What I care about is what I KNOW. I may not be able to prove it YET. You say I cannot prove it, period--I disagree. There is not a line between natural and supernatural. The imaginary line lies between what human consciousness can accept and what it cannot accept at this time. That is not a limit of science but a limit of human consciousness. I happen to personally believe that such lines--such veils--are being pushed back by our blossoming awareness at all times. What is irrational to you, is completely rational to me.
None of what you say above is irrational, so I don't think we'll have a problem there.
Again, I say what you see as irrational is defined by the limits of what you perceive.
You are free to go to town in arguing the fine points if you like. As I say, my own bias is towards issues of socially ostracising others, and with the "majority rules" mentality pertaining to opinion/preference, or with other smokescreens that I see as invalidly "proving" one's point. Are you suggesting I pick up your bias and leave my own behind?
I suggest you leave your own bias behind and not pick up any. But this isn't an answer to my question. If your own bias is towards "issues of socially ostracising others", why do you not accuse Steven Jones of doing so when he tells others that they are wrong? Why do you not accuse the 9/11 government-conspiracy theorists of doing that when they tell me or others here that I'm wrong? Why are we the only ones doing the "ostracising"?
I suggest you leave your own bias behind and not pick up any. But this isn't an answer to my question. If your own bias is towards "issues of socially ostracising others", why do you not accuse Steven Jones of doing so when he tells others that they are wrong? Why do you not accuse the 9/11 government-conspiracy theorists of doing that when they tell me or others here that I'm wrong? Why are we the only ones doing the "ostracising"?
I continue to do what is right for me, based on my own life experiences and what I am guided to do in each moment. I've explained to you in the past that I follow what I am directed to do. It sounds like you are not okay with my purposes.
If you are bothered by/upset or whatever by my purposes, that isn't about me and what I do.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I continue to do what is right for me, based on my own life experiences and what I am guided to do in each moment. I've explained to you in the past that I follow what I am directed to do. It sounds like you are not okay with my purposes.
If you are bothered by/upset or whatever by my purposes, that isn't about me and what I do.
Angelica, I'm not bothered or upset by your purposes. I could simply choose to ignore them if I wished to. The reason I don't is that there is much beauty and potential in your purposes and your vision.
You are bothered and upset by your purposes. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. But that's for a different plane.
Angelica, I'm not bothered or upset by your purposes. I could simply choose to ignore them if I wished to. The reason I don't is that there is much beauty and potential in your purposes and your vision.
You are bothered and upset by your purposes. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. But that's for a different plane.
I'm certainly a product of my environment and my life experiences.
Considering I've openly admitted my own bias in these posts, I'm wondering why you think you are showing me something I don't see.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm certainly a product of my environment and my life experiences.
As are we all.
Considering I've openly admitted my own bias in these posts, I'm wondering why you think you are showing me something I don't see.
For each bias against, there is a concomitant bais in favor. You may see the first, you do not see the latter. I'm still wading through my own biases in an attempt to explain it.
For each bias against, there is a concomitant bais in favor. You may see the first, you do not see the latter.
Yes, any one view is only a piece of the whole picture. For each thesis, there is an antithesis. Logic works within the context of each view--truth is within the context of each view. The big picture embraces my view, your view, Abook's view, etc.
Due to your assertion that I am not speaking to the whole truth is why I embrace and align with other people's views. I choose not to make the other guy wrong NO MATTER HOW WRONG THEY APPEAR, because I know what I see is based on my own filters, and lack of understanding of their view.
I don't aspire to be an unbiased arbiter of justice. I aspire to speak my own truth as responsibly as possible. For me it goes without saying that there are other truths that are just as relevent, making up the pieces of the puzzle that portray truth.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Due to your assertion that I am not speaking to the whole truth is why I embrace and align with other people's views. I choose not to make the other guy wrong NO MATTER HOW WRONG THEY APPEAR, because I know what I see is based on my own filters, and lack of understanding of their view.
Angelica, if I can explain myself clearly you'll understand that one cannot make the other guy wrong, regardless of one's choices. Only the choices of "the other guy" himself can make him wrong.
Angelica, if I can explain myself clearly you'll understand that one cannot make the other guy wrong, regardless of one's choices. Only the choices of "the other guy" himself can make him wrong.
I agree with what you are saying in essense. The problem comes in with the approach on how to expose the other person's "error".
Obviously I'm not opposed to people showing others their errors and inconsistencies. I actually live to do so. I choose to do it in a way that does not say "you are wrong, and unreasonble, therefore "evil". I prefer to say, "here is some new information or a different perspective that might show you what I'm seeing. If you see what I see, you might be able to add it to your view, were you to choose to do so".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Angelica, if I can explain myself clearly you'll understand that one cannot make the other guy wrong, regardless of one's choices. Only the choices of "the other guy" himself can make him wrong.
Also, the concept of "wrong" is within the regular human consciousness level. From a raised level of consciouseness, wrong does not exist--only lack, ignorance, non-understanding, etc.
The only way to be at the level of universal understanding is to operate from a place of Love--from a stance of Love. If one is out of synch of that Love and therefore understanding, if one is looking to "expose" the other guy, or in anyway be untoward, one loses touch with themself as connected universally and will have to learn to return to balance through the school of hard knocks. We must learn the hard way through our conflicts.
Therefore when one tries to prove the wrongness of the other, they often end up learning much about their own flaws and "wrongness". Poetic justice.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Also, the concept of "wrong" is within the regular human consciousness level. From a raised level of consciouseness, wrong does not exist--only lack, ignorance, non-understanding, etc.
On what "raised level of consciousness" does 2+2=10? On what "raised level of consciousness" does rape become just? One what "raised level of consciousness" does fiction become fact?
The only way to be at the level of universal understanding is to operate from a place of Love--from a stance of Love.
Agreed! I Love the truth and I Love the life that the truth makes possible.
If one is out of synch of that Love and therefore understanding, if one is looking to "expose" the other guy, or in anyway be untoward, one loses touch with themself as connected universally and will have to learn to return to balance through the school of hard knocks. We must learn the hard way through our conflicts.
Again, agreed! I'm not looking to "expose the other guy". I'm looking to expose the truth.
Therefore when one tries to prove the wrongness of the other, they often end up learning much about their own flaws and "wrongness". Poetic justice.
Therefore when one tries to prove the wrongness of the other, they often end up learning much about their own flaws and "wrongness". Poetic justice.
Ok. Now why apply this only to me?
If you look, I specifically say "when ONE...". For me, use of the word "one" refers to anyone, including my own self, not specifically you. If you want to personalise it, that's up to you. I thought we are on a philosophical tangent discussing the rightness/wrongness of things.
On what "raised level of consciousness" does 2+2=10? On what "raised level of consciousness" does rape become just? One what "raised level of consciousness" does fiction become fact?
When one seeks the answers to questions, one finds them.
If you feel I am biased against specific flaws in your arguments as opposed to others, I fully admit it. I've acknowledged that to you publicly and privately. I realise it's a BIG deal to me that your methods resemble my family members methods of logic=right, non-logic=wrong that contributed to mental illness in me. I acknowledged this link when I found out about your adulation of Ayn Rand, which is also the same source that certain family members of mine used to "justify" the unjustifiable. I spent 12 years empowering myself against such justification of the unjustifiable. Therefore I have the arguments that counter such justification. And I use them.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Whether I have human issues or not, does not make my valid points any less valid.
If you want me to answer to why I don't analyse this or that political issue and choose sides "accordingly", the fact is I'm one of the least politically inclined people that I know. Honestly, to this day, I have no idea who Ann Coulter is. I don't know if she's left or right. Much less the "guy" you asked about before. Frankly, 5 years ago, I wouldn't have been able to tell you who our Prime Minister was or how long he'd been in power. I failed history twice in high school . My one history credit is by correspondence course, and is a Native Canadian history course.
I'm drawn towards human interaction issues which are all over this board. At the same time, I recognise the immense importance and validity of political issues. I recognise since politics is one of my weaknesses, it is best learned by me while doing what I love to do--interacting with somewhat like-minded others. I've come to realise while I do not have a mind of political facts and figures I do have a mind for power issues and humanitarian ones, and somehow I DO have relevent information to offer. If it's not what you want to see, I can live with that.
I've told you before that I only speak to what I KNOW. And despite this philosophical tangent, my points, whereupon I called out diversionary tactics, are entirely relevent (at the very least you've not disproven validity). If you choose to ignore the relevence that's your choice. If it makes you happier having my biases on the table, well, I aim to please.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
So all the theory involved in inventing the computer you are typing on is just as valid as the any 'theory' I pull out of my ass?
I was referring to the issue at hand: theory.
We can derive practical application from within theory. That does not prove the theory with absolute certainty. It proves the potential to use the theory practically.
Because we could build our garden sheds using Newtonian physics did not mean Newtonion physics was absolute across the board. As a matter of fact, we found it was not absolute across the board and therefore, we had to redefine our parameters. With a new framework, many new discoveries came into view.
The very same can be legitimately said regarding the going 911 theory. Adhering to any theory as an absolute is not about science. Science must remain open to discovery.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Whether I have human issues or not, does not make my valid points any less valid.
Certainly!
If you want me to answer to why I don't analyse this or that political issue and choose sides "accordingly", the fact is I'm one of the least politically inclined people that I know.
And that's just fine. But you've picked an odd place to hang out then
Honestly, to this day, I have no idea who Ann Coulter is.
You're a better person for it.
I don't know if she's left or right.
Idiocy and hate runs rampant on both sides. She happens to spend her time on the right, however.
Much less the "guy" you asked about before. Frankly, 5 years ago, I wouldn't have been able to tell you who our Prime Minister was or how long he'd been in power. I failed history twice in high school . My one history credit is by correspondence course, and is a Native Canadian history course.
Ok.
I'm drawn towards human interaction issues which are all over this board. At the same time, I recognise the immense importance and validity of political issues. I recognise since politics is one of my weaknesses, it is best learned by me while doing what I love to do--interacting with somewhat like-minded others. I've come to realise while I do not have a mind of political facts and figures I do have a mind for power issues and humanitarian ones, and somehow I DO have relevent information to offer. If it's not what you want to see, I can live with that.
Cool. It is what I want to see -- do you understand that?
I've told you before that I only speak to what I KNOW. And despite this philosophical tangent, my points, whereupon I called out diversionary tactics, are entirely relevent (at the very least you've not disproven validity). If you choose to ignore the relevence that's your choice. If it makes you happier having my biases on the table, well, I aim to please.
I don't ignore the relevance -- to my arguments or anyone else's.
Because we could build our garden sheds using Newtonian physics did not mean Newtonion physics was absolute across the board. As a matter of fact, we found it was not absolute across the board and therefore, we had to redefine our parameters.
Fact? What is fact? According to you there is no fact, only each individual's perception of things that is valid only for that person and that is what matters most. You can't all of the sudden play the 'fact card'.
Fact? What is fact? According to you there is no fact, only each individual's perception of things that is valid only for that person and that is what matters most. You can't all of the sudden play the 'fact card'.
Oh, there is fact--it's just that it's not absolute. It's what we know to be fact today, that may appear entirely different with new information tomorrow.
Which reminds me of the point I was making, that you seem to be glossing over: what we legitimately believe to be true today we may legimately find to be something very different tomorrow.
as you quoted:"We cannot ever prove anything with certainty."
(you might notice this phenomena happening on this very message board....there is potential for you to bring a new issue to the table that may alter and affect what I already know, or vice versa. The catch is that it works only if each party is willing to be open to hear new information.)
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Fact? What is fact? According to you there is no fact, only each individual's perception of things that is valid only for that person and that is what matters most. You can't all of the sudden play the 'fact card'.
I think you missed angelica's point. I might be wrong, but I think she is saying that you shouldn't close yourself off to different perspectives and methods. Any scientist will tell you that new discoveries happen all the time and these discoveries change the way we view the world. Angelica used a great example with Newtonian physics. You can also look to mathematics & other areas of science to find theories that replaced or expanded on current theories.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Oh, there is fact--it's just that it's not absolute.
That would be both a fact and an absolute.
The rest of your post there is quite right. A "fact" today may only be part of a bigger fact. But just because some "facts" change, doesn't mean they all do. And it doesn't mean that the flawed perception of them invalidates their reality.
Comments
We cannot ever prove anything with certainty. Therefore disproving any aspect of a theory is not only highly appropriate, it's necessary for truth.
If you choose to judge it as irrational, you do not show it as irrational. What you show me is that you do not comprehend the purposes of the other person you call irrational, or that you do not understand why such processes are perfectly rational to another person.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You asked why I called you out over anyone else. You implied I was acting on personal bias. I am acting on personal bias against socially ostracising methods of debate. I felt you were using smokescreen social methods that were irrelevant to the facts. I let your numerous facts and valid debatable points stand.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Unless the disproof is incorrect.
It is irrational to suggest that God is the force behind Intelligent Design while being unable to prove the existence of God while at the same time saying your theory is "fact-based science". Intelligent Design is not fact-based, it is faith-based. That doesn't make it wrong, it just demonstrates their standards of science. Therefore, if they believe that Darwin can be disproved with a fact while at the same time believing that their theories cannot, it makes them irrational in that they will not hold two theories to the same standards of judgment. You know all that "bias" talk? That is what bias is: the different set of standards applied to equal situations.
I do understand their purposes. They wish to fit fact to their pre-existing religious conclusion. The share those purposes with some here, albeit on a different topic.
Such purposes are fine. People may believe whatever they want to believe. But such purposes are irrelevant to truth. Truth does not matter to the man whose mindet requires him to ignore it. Truth does not matter to the man who wishes a conclusion to be free of causal evidence. Truth does not matter to the man who believes rather than thinks. It's time for me to get back to my moon men.
Yes you did. You also let language like "apparently proven" stand without any justification. You let "debunks" stand in the absence of the theories actually being "debunked". You let similar statements to mine about the "Bush administration" stand.
When the Professor Emeritus of the structural engineering school at BYU tells Steven Jones that his theories are faulty, you accuse him (or me by quoting such language) of "ostracising". Tell me, why don't you also accuse Steven Jones of doing the same when he tells everyone else that their theories are wrong?
Re: intelligent design, I can tell you right now that I've had spiritual, experiential personal experiences, pertaining to evolutionary forces pulling me towards a destiny. You may be able to "rationally" dispute my assertion. You cannot disprove what I know and what I've experienced, however. My experiences are not based on religious faith, they are based on personal experience, which is entirely relevent in science. Intelligent life design directed me directly to the healing of numerous disorders. With this underlying premise that I hold, based on what is self-evident to me, I could care less how you choose to look at it. What I care about is what I KNOW. I may not be able to prove it YET. You say I cannot prove it, period--I disagree. There is not a line between natural and supernatural. The imaginary line lies between what human consciousness can accept and what it cannot accept at this time. That is not a limit of science but a limit of human consciousness. I happen to personally believe that such lines--such veils--are being pushed back by our blossoming awareness at all times. What is irrational to you, is completely rational to me.
Again, I say what you see as irrational is defined by the limits of what you perceive.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You're welcome.
None of what you say above is irrational, so I don't think we'll have a problem there.
Ok.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I suggest you leave your own bias behind and not pick up any. But this isn't an answer to my question. If your own bias is towards "issues of socially ostracising others", why do you not accuse Steven Jones of doing so when he tells others that they are wrong? Why do you not accuse the 9/11 government-conspiracy theorists of doing that when they tell me or others here that I'm wrong? Why are we the only ones doing the "ostracising"?
If you are bothered by/upset or whatever by my purposes, that isn't about me and what I do.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Angelica, I'm not bothered or upset by your purposes. I could simply choose to ignore them if I wished to. The reason I don't is that there is much beauty and potential in your purposes and your vision.
You are bothered and upset by your purposes. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. But that's for a different plane.
I'm certainly a product of my environment and my life experiences.
Considering I've openly admitted my own bias in these posts, I'm wondering why you think you are showing me something I don't see.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
As are we all.
For each bias against, there is a concomitant bais in favor. You may see the first, you do not see the latter. I'm still wading through my own biases in an attempt to explain it.
Due to your assertion that I am not speaking to the whole truth is why I embrace and align with other people's views. I choose not to make the other guy wrong NO MATTER HOW WRONG THEY APPEAR, because I know what I see is based on my own filters, and lack of understanding of their view.
I don't aspire to be an unbiased arbiter of justice. I aspire to speak my own truth as responsibly as possible. For me it goes without saying that there are other truths that are just as relevent, making up the pieces of the puzzle that portray truth.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Angelica, if I can explain myself clearly you'll understand that one cannot make the other guy wrong, regardless of one's choices. Only the choices of "the other guy" himself can make him wrong.
Obviously I'm not opposed to people showing others their errors and inconsistencies. I actually live to do so. I choose to do it in a way that does not say "you are wrong, and unreasonble, therefore "evil". I prefer to say, "here is some new information or a different perspective that might show you what I'm seeing. If you see what I see, you might be able to add it to your view, were you to choose to do so".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Also, the concept of "wrong" is within the regular human consciousness level. From a raised level of consciouseness, wrong does not exist--only lack, ignorance, non-understanding, etc.
The only way to be at the level of universal understanding is to operate from a place of Love--from a stance of Love. If one is out of synch of that Love and therefore understanding, if one is looking to "expose" the other guy, or in anyway be untoward, one loses touch with themself as connected universally and will have to learn to return to balance through the school of hard knocks. We must learn the hard way through our conflicts.
Therefore when one tries to prove the wrongness of the other, they often end up learning much about their own flaws and "wrongness". Poetic justice.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
On what "raised level of consciousness" does 2+2=10? On what "raised level of consciousness" does rape become just? One what "raised level of consciousness" does fiction become fact?
Agreed! I Love the truth and I Love the life that the truth makes possible.
Again, agreed! I'm not looking to "expose the other guy". I'm looking to expose the truth.
Ok. Now why apply this only to me?
If you look, I specifically say "when ONE...". For me, use of the word "one" refers to anyone, including my own self, not specifically you. If you want to personalise it, that's up to you. I thought we are on a philosophical tangent discussing the rightness/wrongness of things.
When one seeks the answers to questions, one finds them.
If you feel I am biased against specific flaws in your arguments as opposed to others, I fully admit it. I've acknowledged that to you publicly and privately. I realise it's a BIG deal to me that your methods resemble my family members methods of logic=right, non-logic=wrong that contributed to mental illness in me. I acknowledged this link when I found out about your adulation of Ayn Rand, which is also the same source that certain family members of mine used to "justify" the unjustifiable. I spent 12 years empowering myself against such justification of the unjustifiable. Therefore I have the arguments that counter such justification. And I use them.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So all the theory involved in inventing the computer you are typing on is just as valid as the any 'theory' I pull out of my ass?
Whether I have human issues or not, does not make my valid points any less valid.
If you want me to answer to why I don't analyse this or that political issue and choose sides "accordingly", the fact is I'm one of the least politically inclined people that I know. Honestly, to this day, I have no idea who Ann Coulter is. I don't know if she's left or right. Much less the "guy" you asked about before. Frankly, 5 years ago, I wouldn't have been able to tell you who our Prime Minister was or how long he'd been in power. I failed history twice in high school . My one history credit is by correspondence course, and is a Native Canadian history course.
I'm drawn towards human interaction issues which are all over this board. At the same time, I recognise the immense importance and validity of political issues. I recognise since politics is one of my weaknesses, it is best learned by me while doing what I love to do--interacting with somewhat like-minded others. I've come to realise while I do not have a mind of political facts and figures I do have a mind for power issues and humanitarian ones, and somehow I DO have relevent information to offer. If it's not what you want to see, I can live with that.
I've told you before that I only speak to what I KNOW. And despite this philosophical tangent, my points, whereupon I called out diversionary tactics, are entirely relevent (at the very least you've not disproven validity). If you choose to ignore the relevence that's your choice. If it makes you happier having my biases on the table, well, I aim to please.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
We can derive practical application from within theory. That does not prove the theory with absolute certainty. It proves the potential to use the theory practically.
Because we could build our garden sheds using Newtonian physics did not mean Newtonion physics was absolute across the board. As a matter of fact, we found it was not absolute across the board and therefore, we had to redefine our parameters. With a new framework, many new discoveries came into view.
The very same can be legitimately said regarding the going 911 theory. Adhering to any theory as an absolute is not about science. Science must remain open to discovery.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Certainly!
And that's just fine. But you've picked an odd place to hang out then
You're a better person for it.
Idiocy and hate runs rampant on both sides. She happens to spend her time on the right, however.
Ok.
Cool. It is what I want to see -- do you understand that?
I don't ignore the relevance -- to my arguments or anyone else's.
okay.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Fact? What is fact? According to you there is no fact, only each individual's perception of things that is valid only for that person and that is what matters most. You can't all of the sudden play the 'fact card'.
Oh, there is fact--it's just that it's not absolute. It's what we know to be fact today, that may appear entirely different with new information tomorrow.
Which reminds me of the point I was making, that you seem to be glossing over: what we legitimately believe to be true today we may legimately find to be something very different tomorrow.
as you quoted:"We cannot ever prove anything with certainty."
(you might notice this phenomena happening on this very message board....there is potential for you to bring a new issue to the table that may alter and affect what I already know, or vice versa. The catch is that it works only if each party is willing to be open to hear new information.)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
--Albert Einstein.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think you missed angelica's point. I might be wrong, but I think she is saying that you shouldn't close yourself off to different perspectives and methods. Any scientist will tell you that new discoveries happen all the time and these discoveries change the way we view the world. Angelica used a great example with Newtonian physics. You can also look to mathematics & other areas of science to find theories that replaced or expanded on current theories.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
That would be both a fact and an absolute.
The rest of your post there is quite right. A "fact" today may only be part of a bigger fact. But just because some "facts" change, doesn't mean they all do. And it doesn't mean that the flawed perception of them invalidates their reality.