QUOTE

Joe, I would like to add that there seems to be a misunderstanding about the primal cause of the opposition you seem to experience. I understand that you are a process of intense self discovery and spiritual exploration and I am sure that you could find an interested audience for what you have to say. Provided you develop the social skills and the communication skills to deliver your message. It is up to the thinker to deliver his thoughts in an interesting and intelligible fashion. It is also up to the thinker to understand that feedback is not judgement but an ongoing process of communication. Preachers are soooo passe. Â

This makes sense from your point of view that people need the attention. To attune ones delivery to the peoples choices and feelings so that they may have something that is pleasing to the senses.
My Teacher called this the pleasant truth.
Where most will not face the truths that make them feel uncomfortable most will not be ready to hear what is needed to push themselves beyond their own limitations.
He described the difference of the two approaches as the path of the Sages and the path of the Gods.

The Path of the Gods being the enjoyable path, the new age approach to exalted perspectives and non threatening ideas.

The Path of the Sages being the ruthless approach to cut away all the limitations that surround the self in beliefs that are shrouded by fear and judgment.

I have been observing the effect and it is quite true that most are unwilling to be treated directly with ideas that may challenge the thoughts and habits that have been the foundations of their lives without having the willingness or desire to change their lives in the first place.

I don't much like preachers either, it is simple enough to walk away from them. To try and change them or their perspectives is to engage in the idea that they are wrong and you are right, either in the ideas or social behavior.
It is much more difficult to accept all ideas and leave them at rest, without the foundation to support them all at the same time.

Although Not much of a preacher myself I do like to challenge the ideas when asked to play. Seems when the limited fear based co-dependant social standards of protecting feelings comes into play it then becomes fair game to project outside of ones self when one becomes protective of their beliefs and feelings, or those of others. I've been called names before and it seems to be a tossup in who you meet.
The more objective, introspective ones recognise when their feelings flare and how reactive behavior has driven clarity from their sight. These type engage in exuberance and with praise and gratitude towards the conversation as they see the benefits that are derived from debating realities and limitations that bring about deeper reflections of the self.
The others... well you know the story

I don't necessarily go looking for people to play with but was invited to this board with the idea that the ones here were more objective and evolved than some of the other websites in consciousness.

I have witnessed a great change in humanity and the way we are evolving has increased dramatically. The language and ideas of Union have been increasingly present in all aspects of life. It may be more talk at this stage than action and living, but still it is amazing the progress that has taken place in just a decade.

Joe, you seem to be assuming a fundamental distinction between the motives of yourself and the motives of others, whereby you feel innocent of instigating or driving any debates you engage in.  You seem to say that you simply 'speak for God' and are therefore incapable of error, while others 'speak for themselves' and are rife with illusory needs.  I think you are just mentally zonked by a powerful dogmatism through which you see altruism in what is really your self-serving action, and through which you see 'fear' in any who deny your 'wisdom'

QUOTE

I have been observing the effect and it is quite true that most are unwilling to be treated directly with ideas that may challenge the thoughts and habits that have been the foundations of their lives without having the willingness or desire to change their lives in the first place.

it's unfortunate that self-deception runs more rampant than many would like to admit.   The skeptical/critical attitude is good to a certain degree, but of course taking it to the extreme results in ignorant narrow-mindedness.   The solution, I think, is to be open to all perspectives and worldviews, though I acknowledge it may be difficult for some people to temporarily suspend their cherished beliefs in favor of novel or questionable ones.  But new, exciting worlds they can open up for us.  

Sometimes, we just need to let go of ourselves (including our particular sense of self) and our belief structures in order to experience the remarkable and be taken to new heights.

QUOTE

I don't necessarily go looking for people to play with but was invited to this board with the idea that the ones here were more objective and evolved than some of the other websites in consciousness.

I speak for myself, and no doubt for others, when I say that I do appreciate your posts, Joe, and am glad you came to this forum.    The Self recognizes Itself in others, even when others are not necessarily aware of this.   We are the Universe conscious of Itself, and even more, We are the Universe acting thru each and every one of us, not as puppets (since this implies separation), but as a Totality.

I should note that a little resistance from others is not a bad thing, but can more often than not be motivating.  Without resistance, where would we be?

 

 

QUOTE

Joe, you seem to be assuming a fundamental distinction between the motives of yourself and the motives of others, whereby you feel innocent of instigating or driving any debates you engage in.  You seem to say that you simply 'speak for God' and are therefore incapable of error, while others 'speak for themselves' and are rife with illusory needs.  I think you are just mentally zonked by a powerful dogmatism through which you see altruism in what is really your self-serving action, and through which you see 'fear' in any who deny your 'wisdom'

I assume nothing. I am innocent rather than guilty of anything. I do speak for God as does everyone here and therefore there can be no error in anything only perceptions of error and separation.
What I see is pure perfection.
You may be mistaking what I say and interpreting it as a signpost of my inner being and thoughts. This is not uncommon, Humanity often makes conclusions based on outward appearances.

QUOTE

it's unfortunate that self-deception runs more rampant than many would like to admit.   The skeptical/critical attitude is good to a certain degree, but of course taking it to the extreme results in ignorant narrow-mindedness.   The solution, I think, is to be open to all perspectives and worldviews, though I acknowledge it may be difficult for some people to temporarily suspend their cherished beliefs in favor of novel or questionable ones.  But new, exciting worlds they can open up for us.     Sometimes, we just need to let go of ourselves (including our particular sense of self) and our belief structures in order to experience the remarkable and be taken to new heights.

I wholeheartedly agree.

QUOTE

I speak for myself, and no doubt for others, when I say that I do appreciate your posts, Joe, and am glad you came to this forum.    The Self recognizes Itself in others, even when others are not necessarily aware of this.   We are the Universe conscious of Itself, and even more, We are the Universe acting thru each and every one of us, not as puppets (since this implies separation), but as a Totality. I should note that a little resistance from others is not a bad thing, but can more often than not be motivating.  Without resistance, where would we be?

Thank you for the acknowledgement of my participation, I too am grateful for the opportunity to play here, and always acknowledge the Self in all things, that is my constant awareness.
I look at any resistance as an opportunity to see something greater than any type of judgment or negativity. Any time there is still the perception of resistance it has been my signpost that I can get bigger than the reaction.

QUOTE

I assume nothing. I am innocent rather than guilty of anything. I do speak for God as does everyone here and therefore there can be no error in anything

that sounds really great.  error is impossible in principle.  It sounds like the concept 'error' has become an erronious concept.  But, of course, this is impossible because errors do not exist.  But if errors do not exist, then the concept 'error' is not erronious.  But if the concept of 'error' is not erronious, then errors exist.  But if error do not exist etc etc etc.............)

QUOTE

there are only perceptions of error

wshew, so there really are 'errors'!.  But they exist only in perception.  Does this mean perception is erronious for perceiving the impossible 'error' since there can be no errors? or does this mean that perception does not exist? (as the state of non-existence would allow the impossibility of perceiving that which can not exist)

QUOTE

You may be mistaking what I say and interpreting it as a signpost of my inner being and thoughts.

Or I may be describing logical inconsistencies in your stated positions

QUOTE

This is not uncommon, Humanity often makes conclusions based on outward appearances.

yeah, I have that habit.  like avoiding speeding cars on the road and stuff.......

QUOTE

wshew, so there really are 'errors'!.  But they exist only in perception.  Does this mean perception is erronious for perceiving the impossible 'error' since there can be no errors? or does this mean that perception does not exist? (as the state of non-existence would allow the impossibility of perceiving that which can not exist)

Free will is great isn't it?
You can choose to believe what you want.
In principle the idea seems fine but in application if you're tied to the ground of your belief, and the proverbial speeding car comes along then step out of the way of what you believe will harm you.
Like getting a cold whem it starts to get cold outside. The mind creates what it believes.

QUOTE

Or I may be describing logical inconsistencies in your stated positions

A position would seem to be of logical form, wouldn't it. I don't have a position, Ergo I am illogical.

[glow=yellow,glow width, #characters wide] The Paradox of[/glow] [shadow=purple,glow width, #characters wide]God[/shadow][glow=yellow,glow width, #characters wide]that allows many things to exist at the same time that don't seem to make sense in certain terms or points of reference.[/glow]

QUOTE

yeah, I have that habit.  like avoiding speeding cars on the road and stuff.......

Habits can be broken.

[shadow=brown,glow width,#characters wide]There is no Spoon[/shadow]

QUOTE

A position would seem to be of logical form, wouldn't it. I don't have a position, Ergo I am illogical.

yes, I can see that you are not particularly keen on logic as is evidenced by your position that you have no position

QUOTE

yes, I can see that you are not particularly keen on logic as is evidenced by your position that you have no position

Yes but in my position of no position it does not prevent me from using logic. Therefore I am not opposed to logic as a form of communication in order to come to an illogical conclusion or to use no logic to come to a logical conclusion.
Simple. Yes?

QUOTE

Yes but in my position of no position it does not prevent me from using logic. Therefore I am not opposed to logic as a form of communication in order to come to an illogical conclusion or to use no logic to come to a logical conclusion. Simple. Yes?

I'll try to make your statement simpler
Yes but my desire for irrationality does not stop me from communicating logically on occasions that I feel like, it just allows me to avoid any kind of unified logical self-reflection as I desire none.  Therefore I am not opposed to bursts of rational communication that ultimately create jibberjabber, or to speak jibberjabber and act like it makes total sense.  Example:  A big pizza fights askew holy lambda for the aftertaste onto me as I shozbot pail?
wow, I didn't realize word salads were so simple!  It's almost like it didn't require any thought!  ;D

He he hi hi he he he he
ha ha ha ha!!!  ;D ;D ;D
LOVE
PJ

Dan and PJ,
Love you.

Shawn and Joe,

Haha, hehe hoohoo.  I don't fucking believe it.  God should see this act on the road.  Are you in rehersal?

QUOTE

I'll try to make your statement simpler

There is no try, only do!

QUOTE

Yes but my desire for irrationality does not stop me from communicating logically on occasions that I feel like, it just allows me to avoid any kind of unified logical self-reflection as I desire none.  Therefore I am not opposed to bursts of rational communication that ultimately create jibberjabber, or to speak jibberjabber and act like it makes total sense.  Example:  A big pizza fights askew holy lambda for the aftertaste onto me as I shozbot pail?

That is a rather creative interpretation, I will have to give you an "A" for the effort.

QUOTE

It's almost like it didn't require any thought! Â

It certainly appears that way by your interpretation. So much for the deeper thinking you made claim to.

QUOTE

Shawn and Joe, Haha, hehe hoohoo.  I don't fucking believe it.  God should see this act on the road.  Are you in rehersal?

God is the act! This play has been in production for several millenia!!

rehearsal for what, John?

Shawn,
Don't fog me.  The dance of the Masters of Perfection.
Science and God finally intertwined.
The last act I shall make is the departure from psuedo-Moderator status.

dance of the Masters of Perfection?
departure from psuedo-Moderator status?

QUOTE

There is no try, only poo!

QUOTE

That is a rather creative interpretation, I will have to give you an "A" for the effort.

while the A kicks ass, I would prefer a new car  ;D

QUOTE

So much for the deeper thinking you made claim to.

can you reference this claim?  

QUOTE

God is the act! This play has been in production for several millenia!!

I would say its closer to ten million millenia (at least for this particular universe, that is)  


8)

QUOTE

can you reference this claim?

   

QUOTE

Re: What is 'Enlightenment'? « Reply #94 on: May 30th, 2003, 11:05am »  Quote  Modify   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- no need for apologies, I am acting abrasive intentionally   I think I crave heated debate about this stuff, it seems to me that such a state best enables critical thought.   party on

I was referring to this post where you made the claim to your abrasive behavior in order to feed the craving of heated debate to enable critical thought.
I took this to mean deeper thought but I also see here that it could make reference to crticism.  

QUOTE

I would say its closer to ten million millenia (at least for this particular universe, that is)

A blink of an eye to the immortals.

QUOTE

I was referring to this post where you made the claim to your abrasive behavior in order to feed the craving of heated debate to enable critical thought. I took this to mean deeper thought but I also see here that it could make reference to crticism.

well it's good to see you thinking critically for a change!  

Piratjenny

You mentioned Steven Pinker, the historian/biologist, in an earlier post?  I am involved in a community that is planning on reading/discussing his book, The Blank Slate.  We will likely have him as a live chat guest sometime during the designated session.  If you are interested, send me a message and I will get you the info.

We are currently reading Richard Dawkins Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder.  Dawkins will be joining us for a live chat sometime during the first week of July.  If you have the time and desire to get involved with that, you are also more than welcome.

The community is 'open' to all, although we are encouraged to discriminate in our invitations.  If you would like more details, give me a message.

Tim

hey, if you get the chance (and if you remember), ask Dick what he makes of the logical implications of memetics being a meme (and then post the answer here prettyplease with cocaine on top)   ;D

Dawkins only coined the term and played around with the idea of memes, I believe.  It was Blackmore who systematize the theory.  So I'm not sure how worthwhile it would be to solicit his comments on that criticism since his work is primary restricted to biology/genetics/ontogeny.  I have read, however, that he feels Blackmore may have taken the theory "a bit too far," but if I get the chance to bring up the question I will try to get a response for you.  Somehow I think that the problem lies in the semantics of the theories definition, rather than in the mechanics of the theory itself.  If you subscribe to Rorty's Mirror of Nature conception of scientific inquiry, all theories are by nature inconsistent.  Godel's work supports this thesis, although Dawkins, being the rationalist that he is, would probably reject that assertion with all the rhetoical invective at his disposal.

QUOTE

If you subscribe to Rorty's Mirror of Nature conception of scientific inquiry, all theories are by nature inconsistent. Â

it is ideas like this that, when not critically analyzed, lead to 'intellectual' voodoo.  For instance, we are talking about Rorty's Mirror of Nature theory of scientific inquiry, to call it a 'conception' is a deception that prevents us from noticing its inherent self-negation.  After all, if the theory is true then it cannot be consistent.  And if it is not consistent, then how can it be true?   ???

QUOTE

Godel's work supports this thesis. Â

no, Godel's work illustrates an intrinsic incompleteness of consistent formalisms.  'Metalanguage' is seen as the complement of a consistent formalism, although if one attempts to consistently formalize the 'metalanguage' one will undoubtedly achieve yet another incomplete formalism requiring its own 'metalanguage'.  

QUOTE

, although Dawkins, being the rationalist that he is, would probably reject that assertion with all the rhetoical invective at his disposal

hopefully he can surprise us

8)

Why do you have to be so contradictory?  It really isn't necessary.  Rorty's theory is labled self-repudiating only by those that don't understand it, at least on this point.  I am continually frustrated by poeple who don't take the time to understand it thoroughly.  Rorty points out that the universality of truth is an epistemological  presupposition that cannot be verified.  Those that counter that this position is self-contradicting do so because they just cannot believe that someone would actually question the self-evidency of the nature of truth (according to Rorty).  It is not, as is construed, that the claim to know nothing is in fact a claim to know something (that you know nothing).  It is rather a denial that truth has a knowable nature--a negative response to the positive claim that we do.

To wit:

QUOTE

However, it is not clear why "relativist" should be thought an appropriate term for the ethnocentric third view[**], the one which the pragmatist does hold. For the pragmatist, is not holding a positive theory which says that something is relative to something else. He is, instead, making the purely negative point that we should drop the traditional distinction between knowledge and opinion, construed as the distinction between truth as correspondence to reality and truth as a commendatory term for well-justified beliefs. The reason that the realist calls this negative claim "relativistic" is that he cannot believe that anyone would seriously deny that truth has an intrinsic nature. So when the pragmatist says that there is nothing to be said about truth save that each of us will commend as true those beliefs which he or she finds good to believe, the realist is inclined to interpret this as one more positive theory about the nature of truth: a theory according to which ttruth is simply the contemporary opinion of a chosen individual or gorup. Such a theory would, of course, be self-refuting. But the pragmatist does not have a theory of truth, much less a relativistic one. As a partisan of solidarity, his account of the value of cooperative human inquiry has only an ethical base, not an epistemological or metaphysical one. Not having any epistemology, a fortiori he does not have a relativistic one.

It is ridiculous that I should have to defend myself concerning what was an incidental remark about the theory of a philosopher whom I have not even promoted as correct, especially when the purpose of my post was to grant a favor.  Do you need attention that much?

QUOTE

Do you need attention that much?

who doesn't?  ;D (b.t.w, thanks for the favor.  I actually would appreciate that, although I suspect you may not be interested in my desires at this point   )

QUOTE

Rorty's theory is labled self-repudiating only by those that don't understand it, at least on this point

a theory that rightly claims validity over the scientific domain must itself be scientific.  Your explanation of the theory was that it claims that scientific theories are intrinsically inconsistent.  thus this very theory must also call itself inconsistent, which draws into question its conclusion of the intrinsic inconsistency of scientific theories.  

QUOTE

I am continually frustrated by poeple who don't take the time to understand it thoroughly. Â

I am continually frustrated by people who take rejection as misunderstanding

QUOTE

Rorty points out that the universality of truth is an epistemological  presupposition that cannot be verified

am I supposed to take this statement as a 'truth'?  If so, it seems like a double standard.  and if not, why bother reading it?

QUOTE

It is not, as is construed, that the claim to know nothing is in fact a claim to know something (that you know nothing).  It is rather a denial that truth has a knowable nature--a negative response to the positive claim that we do.

And I reject the denial on the basis that if it were true I couldn't know it