I'm just going to point out that there is an OR statement in that wikipedia definition, not an AND statement. There is a fundamental difference in that, to be a nihilist, you do not need to share all of those views. One definition of nihilism is to see things with no comprehensible truth. You've expressed this with claims of alogic and acausality.
Again, you are perceiving a flawed premise. I know there is a comprehensible truth.
That is how a truth claim should be presented. I've made the claim, and given examples of it. When you make claims about my behavior, you haven't provided any examples, but simply claimed there are examples.
I'm Being true to my Self. Shoulds/shouldn'ts are about your conflict with what I say.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You are discussing me now. You must feel a need to.
Detach your emotional associations with these terms and take them for their real definitions. If someone makes a truth claim like "I saw a ghost", then I might say "That is a common psychotic experience". If someone told me I had a psychotic experience, I wouldn't take near the offense you do, because I use the clinical definition of the term.
There was a book by psychologist Erich Fromm called "The Sane Society" where he proposes that not just individuals, but entire societies "may be lacking in sanity". Is this a personal attack on society? Certainly not, since that would be impossible. It's a strict use of the term.
Well yes, we are discussing each other now. That's the topic....unfortunately.
If it were only your use of psychotic or insanity that was the problem...it goes much deeper than that and you know it. Deny it all you want.
Perhaps you need to read back through the thread. I knew you wouldn't agree with what I posted and also knew you'd point out why. There was no problem there. The problem came in when you aggresively decided to put down my beliefs with your negative remarks and try to force your view onto me as being the only acceptable way to be. I'm absolutlely fine with you disagreeing but I'm not fine with they way you chose to conduct yourself when doing so.
I called the science "Bullcrap" and "Junk Science" and "Obviously false"
Then you said
"Fuck off. It's not hurting a damn thing that I believe in good vibes."
My negative remarks were directed at the science. "Fuck off", well that is a pretty personal attack, wouldn't you say?
You made plenty of personal attacks after that "You give science a bad name. " and "your callous atttiude and disrespect of their perspective"
Notice, I never threw a fit about these statements.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Again, you are perceiving a flawed premise. I know there is a comprehensible truth.
I'm Being true to my Self. Shoulds/shouldn'ts are about your conflict with what I say.
Alogic/Acausal is incomprehensible.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Again, in principle it's no different than what you say. If you detach emotionally from the words, then the message becomes quite different. I have admitted several times that I am not perfect. I am perfectly human, which for various reasons includes getting pissed off, irritated and irrational. Neither of those posts have anything to do with my use of the terms "psychotic" and "insane".
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I called the science "Bullcrap" and "Junk Science" and "Obviously false"
Then you said
"Fuck off. It's not hurting a damn thing that I believe in good vibes."
My negative remarks were directed at the science. "Fuck off", well that is a pretty personal attack, wouldn't you say?
You made plenty of personal attacks after that "You give science a bad name. " and "your callous atttiude and disrespect of their perspective"
Notice, I never threw a fit about these statements.
I told you to feel free to post your disagreements but to not force your views onto me because I didn't want to butt heads with you for pages. When you choose to completely ignore my wishes I told you to fuck off. Let's roll the clip:
'Bullcrap. It's junk science. I'm going to defend the credibility of the scientific community by nipping this in the bud. Here at least. Unfortunately Emoto has already written 6 books and sold 2 million copies. Got his crap plastered all over that movie WTBDWK and convinced people with preconceived ideas about reality to buy his shit. He's a scam artist Abook. Or maybe he really believes it, but you can do this same thing with dirt or feces and get results you are looking for. But you can't do it in a controlled environment. I mean, it sounds like you are saying that you will just believe whatever suits your map of the world and ignore everything else, even if it's so fucking obvious as this. I didn't want to be aggressive about this, I'm sorry, but come on, wake up.
__________________
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I told you to feel free to post your disagreements but to not force your views onto me because I didn't want to butt heads with you for pages. When you choose to completely ignore my wishes I told you to fuck off. Let's roll the clip:
'Bullcrap. It's junk science. I'm going to defend the credibility of the scientific community by nipping this in the bud. Here at least. Unfortunately Emoto has already written 6 books and sold 2 million copies. Got his crap plastered all over that movie WTBDWK and convinced people with preconceived ideas about reality to buy his shit. He's a scam artist Abook. Or maybe he really believes it, but you can do this same thing with dirt or feces and get results you are looking for. But you can't do it in a controlled environment. I mean, it sounds like you are saying that you will just believe whatever suits your map of the world and ignore everything else, even if it's so fucking obvious as this. I didn't want to be aggressive about this, I'm sorry, but come on, wake up.
__________________
So, you are an authority in a position to tell me what to do?
Can I tell you to do or not do something? Is that how this works?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It is only incomprehensible using logic and cause and effect. It's very much comprehensible.
Explain it then. Again, you are making a truth claim without anything backing it up.
com·pre·hen·sion (kmpr-hnshn)
n.
1.
a. The act or fact of grasping the meaning, nature, or importance of; understanding.
b. The knowledge that is acquired in this way.
2. Capacity to include.
3. Logic The sum of meanings and corresponding implications inherent in a term.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Does that mean there is no objective truth justam?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So, you are an authority in a position to tell me what to do?
Can I tell you to do or not do something? Is that how this works?
No, I'm in no authority to tell you what to do. All I can do is ask. The reason i have to ask that of you in the first place is because I don't trust to respect me or my feelings when engaging in a discussion....so I'd rather just skip it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Explain it then. Again, you are making a truth claim without anything backing it up.
com·pre·hen·sion (kmpr-hnshn)
n.
1.
a. The act or fact of grasping the meaning, nature, or importance of; understanding.
b. The knowledge that is acquired in this way.
2. Capacity to include.
3. Logic The sum of meanings and corresponding implications inherent in a term.
When we're talking about spirituality and religion, YES.
Could it be objectively true that particular religions are false?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No, I'm in no authority to tell you what to do. All I can do is ask. The reason i have to ask that of you in the first place is because I don't trust to respect me or my feelings when engaging in a discussion....so I'd rather just skip it.
You don't trust me, which evokes a surge of testosterone in most people. I could claim that you started the emotional conflict by distrusting me. But, you know I'm not into blaming people. I respect you, feelings, not so much.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You aren't looking to comprehend truths that are beyond logic and linearity. You are only willing to accept that which is scienfically verifiable.
There are many ways of understanding truths.
I'm still waiting for your comprehensible explanation of something that is alogical.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You don't trust me, which evokes a surge of testosterone in most people. I could claim that you started the emotional conflict by distrusting me. But, you know I'm not into blaming people. I respect you, feelings, not so much.
I distrust you based on my experience with you. I didn't want any conflict with you that's why I asked you not to start one with me.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I never said I didn't trust you until now. You still have had interactions with me to cause me to not trust you before I ever started that thread or I asked you not to butt heads with me. So me saying I don't trust you didn't cause you to feel or say anything up until now.
And to answer your question, if someones says they mistrust me, the first thing I think of is what I could have done to make them feel that way.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You will not understand something until you are ready, so it is dependent upon you.
I share comprehensible explanations all the time, given the symbolic signifying and therefore lacking nature of logic in comprehending alogic truths. Comprehension and understanding on the receiving end includes reception, and if you are not receptive, nor attuned to reception of these truths, you will not perceive them. It's like tuning in to a radio station. It's obvious on my end when people tune in and when they tune out.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You will not understand something until you are ready, so it is dependent upon you.
I share comprehensible explanations all the time, given the symbolic signifying and therefore lacking nature of logic in comprehending alogic truths. Comprehension and understanding on the receiving end includes reception, and if you are not receptive, nor attuned to reception of these truths, you will not perceive them. It's like tuning in to a radio station. It's obvious on my end when people tune in and when they tune out.
Isn't this whole statement nihilism? You are saying I cannot know until I am somehow receptive to it. In other words, an alogical system cannot be explained, you use alogic as an explanation for an unexplainable system and are thus no closer in explaining the system.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Isn't this whole statement nihilism? You are saying I cannot know until I am somehow receptive to it. In other words, an alogical system cannot be explained, you use alogic as an explanation for an unexplainable system and are thus no closer in explaining the system.
If I teach you math, and you are not receptive to it, you will not understand math. That has nothing to do with whether the objective exists or not. math will continue to exist, and I will continue to believe in it whether or not you are receptive to it.
I explain alogic stuff all the time. Explaining it logically falls short of full comprehension, but I wouldn't be on this board talking logically about this stuff all the time if it fell short of comprehension.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Could it be objectively true that particular religions are false?
Anytime religious beliefs and spirituality are involved, there is no way to be objective. It's not a physical thing which can be proven to be true or false.
It is always individual choice to believe one thing or another.
The only thing which can be proven objectively true or not is whether the men who originally presented their ideas were ever alive or not.
Could it be objectively true that particular religions are false?
I say for sure that it's objectively true that particular aspects of what is done/said in the name of religion can be false.
And that objectively, base tenets of religions are either true or false, for sure.
However the only true understanding comes between objectivity/subjectivity melding into plain encompassing awareness. Anything less tries to attribute human flaw onto the objective world. And therefore flawed attempts to objectively understand religion will garner flawed outcomes.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Anytime religious beliefs and spirituality are involved, there is no way to be objective. It's not a physical thing which can be proven to be true or false.
It is always individual choice to believe one thing or another.
The only thing which can be proven objectively true or not is whether the men who originally presented their ideas were ever alive or not.
We always seem to fall into an abyss at this point.
We can look back on history and say "In all honesty, it doesn't appear that Jesus Christ every existed." but proponents of Christianity will just choose to believe that history does prove Christ's existence. I mean, it all becomes nihilism in the abyss.
What do we base public policy on? The belief of the majority? I don't know. I think we are stuck.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I'm Being true to my Self. Shoulds/shouldn'ts are about your conflict with what I say.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well yes, we are discussing each other now. That's the topic....unfortunately.
If it were only your use of psychotic or insanity that was the problem...it goes much deeper than that and you know it. Deny it all you want.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4426574&postcount=189
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4418427&postcount=108
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I called the science "Bullcrap" and "Junk Science" and "Obviously false"
Then you said
"Fuck off. It's not hurting a damn thing that I believe in good vibes."
My negative remarks were directed at the science. "Fuck off", well that is a pretty personal attack, wouldn't you say?
You made plenty of personal attacks after that "You give science a bad name. " and "your callous atttiude and disrespect of their perspective"
Notice, I never threw a fit about these statements.
Alogic/Acausal is incomprehensible.
Again, in principle it's no different than what you say. If you detach emotionally from the words, then the message becomes quite different. I have admitted several times that I am not perfect. I am perfectly human, which for various reasons includes getting pissed off, irritated and irrational. Neither of those posts have anything to do with my use of the terms "psychotic" and "insane".
I told you to feel free to post your disagreements but to not force your views onto me because I didn't want to butt heads with you for pages. When you choose to completely ignore my wishes I told you to fuck off. Let's roll the clip:
'Bullcrap. It's junk science. I'm going to defend the credibility of the scientific community by nipping this in the bud. Here at least. Unfortunately Emoto has already written 6 books and sold 2 million copies. Got his crap plastered all over that movie WTBDWK and convinced people with preconceived ideas about reality to buy his shit. He's a scam artist Abook. Or maybe he really believes it, but you can do this same thing with dirt or feces and get results you are looking for. But you can't do it in a controlled environment. I mean, it sounds like you are saying that you will just believe whatever suits your map of the world and ignore everything else, even if it's so fucking obvious as this. I didn't want to be aggressive about this, I'm sorry, but come on, wake up.
__________________
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So, you are an authority in a position to tell me what to do?
Can I tell you to do or not do something? Is that how this works?
Explain it then. Again, you are making a truth claim without anything backing it up.
com·pre·hen·sion (kmpr-hnshn)
n.
1.
a. The act or fact of grasping the meaning, nature, or importance of; understanding.
b. The knowledge that is acquired in this way.
2. Capacity to include.
3. Logic The sum of meanings and corresponding implications inherent in a term.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/comprehension
a·log·i·cal (-lj-kl)
adj.
Beyond or outside the bounds of logic.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alogical
touche. Very valid point.
If ever there was a thread that needed a little levity, twas this one.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Well, after considering the first post of this thread as well as your question above, I'd say:
all of these ideas that were presented by religious leaders are their own, one person's idea sold to others
they have gained prominence at one time or another, in various locations of the world because they have influenced other people to agree with them
if no one agreed with them, they'd be just a single person with his own creative story of how the universe and spirituality works
therefore, it seems that all of these really can be considered equal, in that, they are a single person's vision of truth
the only thing that gives them weight is the number of people believing a particular story in any given place or time
it's so horrible to call all these explanations of truth "stories" isn't it?
which is not to say that they haven't been useful stories for some people at one time or another
When we're talking about spirituality and religion, YES.
No, I'm in no authority to tell you what to do. All I can do is ask. The reason i have to ask that of you in the first place is because I don't trust to respect me or my feelings when engaging in a discussion....so I'd rather just skip it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You aren't looking to comprehend truths that are beyond logic and linearity. You are only willing to accept that which is scienfically verifiable.
There are many ways of understanding truths.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Could it be objectively true that particular religions are false?
You don't trust me, which evokes a surge of testosterone in most people. I could claim that you started the emotional conflict by distrusting me. But, you know I'm not into blaming people. I respect you, feelings, not so much.
I'm still waiting for your comprehensible explanation of something that is alogical.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I distrust you based on my experience with you. I didn't want any conflict with you that's why I asked you not to start one with me.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Is that like forever?
How does it make you feel when someone says they distrust you?
http://www.oxytocin.org/oxy/trust.html
I never said I didn't trust you until now. You still have had interactions with me to cause me to not trust you before I ever started that thread or I asked you not to butt heads with me. So me saying I don't trust you didn't cause you to feel or say anything up until now.
And to answer your question, if someones says they mistrust me, the first thing I think of is what I could have done to make them feel that way.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I share comprehensible explanations all the time, given the symbolic signifying and therefore lacking nature of logic in comprehending alogic truths. Comprehension and understanding on the receiving end includes reception, and if you are not receptive, nor attuned to reception of these truths, you will not perceive them. It's like tuning in to a radio station. It's obvious on my end when people tune in and when they tune out.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Isn't this whole statement nihilism? You are saying I cannot know until I am somehow receptive to it. In other words, an alogical system cannot be explained, you use alogic as an explanation for an unexplainable system and are thus no closer in explaining the system.
I explain alogic stuff all the time. Explaining it logically falls short of full comprehension, but I wouldn't be on this board talking logically about this stuff all the time if it fell short of comprehension.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Anytime religious beliefs and spirituality are involved, there is no way to be objective. It's not a physical thing which can be proven to be true or false.
It is always individual choice to believe one thing or another.
The only thing which can be proven objectively true or not is whether the men who originally presented their ideas were ever alive or not.
And that objectively, base tenets of religions are either true or false, for sure.
However the only true understanding comes between objectivity/subjectivity melding into plain encompassing awareness. Anything less tries to attribute human flaw onto the objective world. And therefore flawed attempts to objectively understand religion will garner flawed outcomes.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
We always seem to fall into an abyss at this point.
We can look back on history and say "In all honesty, it doesn't appear that Jesus Christ every existed." but proponents of Christianity will just choose to believe that history does prove Christ's existence. I mean, it all becomes nihilism in the abyss.
What do we base public policy on? The belief of the majority? I don't know. I think we are stuck.