What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[creativesoul]

creative:

Prior to one satisfactorily offering an "equal measure" of what another offers, the other's offering must be mentally grasped.

Only if it can be offered with sagacity.

One can know what the term sagacity means, either temporarily as happens when one uses a thesaurus, or as a bit of permanent knowledge/recognition and yet still not be able to recognize(mentally grasp) it in "the wild" as it occurs. For this and this alone, we can know that even if a speaker offers sagacious thought, it does not necessarily follow that the listener will mentally grasp(understand) the offering. So, it only follows that prior to being able to knowingly and satifactorily offering an "equal measure" of what another offers, the listener must first comprehend(mentally grasp, understand,etc.) what the speaker means. We can know that by virtue of knowing what it would take for a statement to be true.

creative:

This is false.

Satyr:

Dear boy, your laconic denouncements are not sufficient, but they are useful to you.

Give me a break, the increasingly excessive babbling is telling. Don't you have anything relevant to say? You've gratuitously asserted, more times than I care to count, so much different unfounded nonsense - including, but not limited to, the notion that I "promised" a hanging, or some other words to that affect - and then you have the audacity to chastize me for simply stating the case as it is? The onus is on you to show/justify that claim about my alleged "promise". You cannot justify the claim, because I did not promise such a thing. That constitutes a breach between your thought/belief and reality.

Admit it to yourself, and move on.

Regarding the overtly expressed false mental imaginings of Satyr, creative wrote:

Prima facie evidence that the effects/affects of apperception are real, even if the internalization results from a breach between thought/belief and reality.

Who said they were not real, boy?
A painter paints a mouse.
Both the mouse painted and the painting of the mouse representing it are real, boy.

Sigh...

Yet again, you've missed the point entirely. Yes, mistakes in thought/belief are real, and they have real effects/affects upon those who make them. It does not follow from the fact that we are/have been mistaken about some things that we are/have been mistaken about everything. Of course that particular line of thinking(what constitutes making a mistake) necessarily presupposes that which you've overtly denied the existence of, so I suspect that it may not 'sit well' with your own personal conviction(s).

Are you shadow-boxing.

Partially.

I came here to be lynched by a man defending the masses.
Are you not he?
Are you not their hero?

See what happens when expectations are grounded upon false presupposition(s)?

creative:

I mean what I say and say what I mean.

No, you say what you think you mean

As if there is a distinction to be made and adhered to? More meaningless drivel.

I will read between the stringy lines...

Given the fact that we can literally look between the lines of the written English language and clearly see for ourselves that there is nothing to be found that is relevant to the meaning of the words in question, we can confidently conclude that 'reading between the lines' is not meant to be taken literally. Figuratively speaking, if by "read between" the lines we are talking about deliberately attempting to divulge, or expose some sort of covert, perhaps even necessarily implied intention and/or meaning, then once again we have nothing to work with, except the sum total of our thought/belief according to how we have internalized own past experience(the belief system) and it's role in current apperception.

Now, here we are at an interesting place, so to speak. A listener(hence forth - a linguist) comes to an experience such as the one that we are currently engaged in, with untold amounts of preconceived notions. That is a universal truth. It is the case across humanity, as far as we can know, without exception.

creative:

I've judged the quality of your writing(in between the increasingly excessive ad homs) according to coherency and known correspondence(fact). Thus far it is hit and miss and bordering on completely incoherent as a whole.

Satyr:

Then you should pass by and turn away. But here you are, boy. I'm sorry I did not meet your high standards, but if I were interested in selling the the rabble, I would write to satisfy their needs: something uplifting and positive and happy. Like a fairy-tale.

There you go again, wrongfully presupposing that you are somehow privy to another's mental activity. I hold few if any expectations of another who refuses to give their word. I am also more than aware that none of us have any say in our innate capacity for understanding. Therefore, although I suspect that there is no actual issue of innate comprehensive ability - philosophically speaking - I'm finding it less and less 'challenging' to converse with another who cannot believe what they say. However, it may please you to know that I am almost to the point of taking the moral advice within the first statement directly above. As 'seasoned' as you seem to be at setting out the necessary preconditions of self-fufilling prophecy, I expect one of two things will happen...

You'll continue in the manner displayed thus far, or not.

[Arising_uk]

I can bench-press 300 lbs...

Oh! Please! please!! please!!! Let this be true. As it'll put me to sleep laughing for weeks.

[Arising_uk]

The mention of his stature reminded me about my schooldays when penis size and muscles were still the only thing we knew about masculinity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RhUyWjB ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02-CbuRs ... re=related

[Arising_uk]

Whoa! Hold on a bit here!

Let's not start driving fellow philosophers away from this site. ...

Nice thought Bill but in a world where unemployment can always be an issue its a mistake to give prospective employers any more information than necessary.

Nothing will drive the goatboy away if it doesn't want to go.

[Arising_uk]

...
Nothing more dangerous than a stampeding herd of buffalo.
Alone they are harmless...but in numbers and when in a state of frenzy, they can be dangerous.

What about the rogue elephant? The lone hippo out of water?

[Satyr]

creative:

Prior to one satisfactorily offering an "equal measure" of what another offers, the other's offering must be mentally grasped.

Only if it can be offered with sagacity.

One can know what the term sagacity means, either temporarily as happens when one uses a thesaurus, or as a bit of permanent knowledge/recognition and yet still not be able to recognize(mentally grasp) it in "the wild" as it occurs. For this and this alone, we can know that even if a speaker offers sagacious thought, it does not necessarily follow that the listener will mentally grasp(understand) the offering. So, it only follows that prior to being able to knowingly and satifactorily offering an "equal measure" of what another offers, the listener must first comprehend(mentally grasp, understand,etc.) what the speaker means. We can know that by virtue of knowing what it would take for a statement to be true.

Dancing around.
All you have is allusion.

creative:

This is false.

Satyr:

Dear boy, your laconic denouncements are not sufficient, but they are useful to you.

Give me a break, the increasingly excessive babbling is telling. Don't you have anything relevant to say? You've gratuitously asserted, more times than I care to count, so much different unfounded nonsense -

One more pronouncement.
You can dismiss entire libraries with a few sentences.

including, but not limited to, the notion that I "promised" a hanging, or some other words to that affect - and then you have the audacity to chastize me for simply stating the case as it is? The onus is on you to show/justify that claim about my alleged "promise". You cannot justify the claim, because I did not promise such a thing. That constitutes a breach between your thought/belief and reality.

I was hoping you can punish me for being such a bad boy.

Admit it to yourself, and move on.

Your grasp of reality is impeccable.
I looked that up in a thesaurus. Of course you never actually say anything.

Sigh...

Yet again, you've missed the point entirely. Yes, mistakes in thought/belief are real, and they have real effects/affects upon those who make them. It does not follow from the fact that we are/have been mistaken about some things that we are/have been mistaken about everything.

You mean like you just mistakenly assumed that this is what I said?

Of course that particular line of thinking(what constitutes making a mistake) necessarily presupposes that which you've overtly denied the existence of, so I suspect that it may not 'sit well' with your own personal conviction(s).

Really?
You mean degrees of awareness excludes a mistake?

I think your God, this truth, must have been mistaken to create one such as you.

You've managed to ignore or misunderstand everything that was being said.
Excellent.

A secular form of the absolute, once this ideal of god was killed, has been that it emerges in many other forms, like: particle, thing...and your "truth".
Minds need certainty.

Are you shadow-boxing.

Partially.

Not absolutely?

I came here to be lynched by a man defending the masses.
Are you not he?
Are you not their hero?

See what happens when expectations are grounded upon false presupposition(s)?

A mistake?

As if there is a distinction to be made and adhered to? More meaningless drivel.

Like all simple minds you have a problem in thinking in degrees. For you everything is either/or, black/white...both being human interpretation of a fluid reality.

I will read between the stringy lines...

Given the fact that we can literally look between the lines of the written English language and clearly see for ourselves that there is nothing to be found that is relevant to the meaning of the words in question, we can confidently conclude that 'reading between the lines' is not meant to be taken literally. Figuratively speaking, if by "read between" the lines we are talking about deliberately attempting to divulge, or expose some sort of covert, perhaps even necessarily implied intention and/or meaning, then once again we have nothing to work with, except the sum total of our thought/belief according to how we have internalized own past experience(the belief system) and it's role in current apperception.

Nice synopsis, boy...it is based on your obsession with the absolute truth which forces you into an all or nothing position.
In this case ALL are equally guilty of what you just said...Like everything boy, it must be applied or it must be observed and judged as to how the prediction you make using your conclusions are supported by the behavior.

Now, here we are at an interesting place, so to speak. A listener(hence forth - a linguist) comes to an experience such as the one that we are currently engaged in, with untold amounts of preconceived notions. That is a universal truth. It is the case across humanity, as far as we can know, without exception.

You are projecting your errors, boy.

Every opinion, boy, is an assertion of a superior probability, not an absolute fact. Only an idiot would claim to know truth, in the absolute, or that this truth is accessible to a human mind or that it even exists as anything but human concept.
Universal is an interesting concept...I would get into it but you've failed to meet my demands: SEX?....AGE?...LOCATION?

You function from a top down, delusion, dear boy, where I function from a bottom up.
You assume the end, the Truth, and then try to find reasons to defend it....I take the given and try to extrapolate what is more or less probable, within the parameters of my perceptual event horizon...in other words within the limits of my senses, my existence and genetic inheritance.

You are so obsessed with this certainty and the comfort it offers you that you cannot think outside of its premises.
You don't even see that when you set up a question using a presupposed absolute as in "Is there a God?" you are forcing an either/or situation which must accept the premise as a given, when in fact the very question is absurd based on semantics which reflect a binary way of thinking.

But here, as well, you show that arrogant "humility" of yours, that either says YES or NO, finalizing any other possibility by leveling all probabilities down to a 1 or a 0.
You do not say "No, until other evidence arises" offering it the humble benefit of the doubt any creature such as man should, but you dismiss it altogether.
You do not say "Perhaps, but it is highly unlikely or improbable" you offer a statement of absolute truth...then you accuse others of it to hide it from yourself.

And I am the bully, boy?
Your "truth" is the quintessential expression of totalitarianism, as is the notion of God or that indivisible particle that has yet to be discovered which will end all exploration or that philosophical truth that will end all thinking.
Your mindset presupposes an end....boy. Nihilism on the horizon.

To avoid the repercussions of self-awareness, you then project these characteristics upon the other, trying to accuse him of what you are most guilty of...trying to lower him down to your level; no longer inferior in a world of gradations but all equally ignorant.
If one is not omniscient then he is equally ignorant with everyone else....and you escape being exposed as what you are...you lose yourself in the uniformity. This is the comfort of absolutist thinking, manifesting in religion or in philosophical bullshit. One either knows thew absolute truth or he must be accused of doing so, or else he must be pulled down on equal footing to everyone else, and merely accused of arrogance or slandered because he dared.

Boy, in ideas, as in the "wild" survival of the fittest...superior/inferior...no omnipotence...more or less awareness...no omnipotence.
You've enclosed your desperate mind within human artifices, hoping to be safe there.
One must offer the appropriate disclaimers when he utters a word, like "I believe this, but I may be wrong" to satisfy your inferiority complex.

There you go again, wrongfully presupposing that you are somehow privy to another's mental activity.

Boy, when you see a dog growling, are you privy to its thoughts or are you deducing them from its behavior?
Boy, when a scientist studies a cow, is he claiming to be reading the creature's mind or is he coming to conclusions from observing behavior?
I know being seen makes you uncomfortable, and that attitude shows a mind entrenched in a cocoon, but deal with it boy.
Words are easy...actions are more telling.

I hold few if any expectations of another who refuses to give their word. I am also more than aware that none of us have any say in our innate capacity for understanding. Therefore, although I suspect that there is no actual issue of innate comprehensive ability - philosophically speaking - I'm finding it less and less 'challenging' to converse with another who cannot believe what they say.

Your defensive mechanism is remarkable.
The idea of a man holding onto opinions as being more probable than the alternative, is alien to you. Meanwhile you tell yourself you are open-minded and interested in reality.

I think you already know, dear boy. There IS truth, for you...and all you are here to do is justify this conclusion. You begin with a given, like a Christian begins with a God.
And just like the idea of God the idea of a truth, the absolute kind, remains ambiguous enough to mean just about anything.
Truth for you is not a human word denoting a perspective on reality, but the symbol itself IS the real.

I gave you an analysis about how language works and what the inherit prejudices in it are, and how these prejudices, these presuppositions, lead to the so-called paradoxes, but you've passed it over...because I have not offered a statement of faith to your God....but you do want to force it down my throat.

Dear boy, the statement "The truth is there is no truth" is ludicrous because it bases itself on the presupposition of a truth.
The only thing you can say about the word, boy, is that it represents a testament of faith in one's perspective.
That you think that there is some final answer out there, speaks to your mental capacities, despite your little acts.

I most certainly believe what I say: and I hold my beliefs to be superior to an other's.

However, it may please you to know that I am almost to the point of taking the moral advice within the first statement directly above. As 'seasoned' as you seem to be at setting out the necessary preconditions of self-fufilling prophecy, I expect one of two things will happen...

You'll continue in the manner displayed thus far, or not.

Given that you've failed to reciprocate, thinking that your mindless drivel and defensive tactics are supposed to interest me for any period of time, your expectations might be dashed.
I think you are hoping so.
Once more your power of deduction are astounding....either.....or....of course within all of it the ambiguities of "manner" which makes it all logical. It covers any contingency.

If you are such a secret nobody can fathom, then your reluctance to offer me the basic information of....SEX?.....AGE?....LOCATION?...is interesting in itself...particularly when some of it is obvious.
It's like you do not believe in your own beliefs.

As always semantics.
Confusing the words for existence itself is what simple minds do. They are humble, but arrogant enough to think that they can enclose the universe in their skulls or that they can exit existence to perceive its totality, offering contradictions to the sensual experience by claiming a static while the world flows by all around them.
Perhaps it is all an illusion.

Until the conditions are met....You will either answer or not...

Ta, Ta,[/size]

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


I think I understand.

You allowed fear to override your desire to be truthful.

All you words mean nothing. They are but a smoke screen.


A miasma to be seen through.


I am your alpha. You to me are beta.



.

[spike]

All you words mean nothing.

Now Bill sees us as a bunch of words.

[Arising_uk]

.

I think I understand.

You allowed fear to override your desire to be truthful.

...

Not quite about being truthful Bill but pretty spot on in my case Bill, mainly fear of unemployment.

You do understand that its standard practice today for employers to trawl the web for information about you when considering employing you. Its also becoming a practice to just plain trawl to see what your employees are getting up to. Now its lovely to stand tall but in the old days it was easier as they'd not have a clue about your personal thoughts and life but with this way of expressing oneself? Not such an easy choice I think. So for myself I'll be staying reasonably anonymous(but as John showed not very) until or if I decide to return to being politically active. And that won't be happening until its clear theres an opportunity for a chance of change.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



I think I understand.

You allow fear to override your desire to be truthful.


Arising, the whole point of using your real name is to integrate , what for you, is apparently two estranged worlds.


I am providing you an opportunity to use your legal, birthright name.

THE WHOLE POINT of doing that is so that your philosophical thoughts and feelings can be verbalized in a way that integrates the two worlds.

You should not be articulating anything with your real name that you would not want to be seen by your fellow work mates, boss, or family.


Don't use your phoney moniker to hide behind.


I think you do a good job now.

You are normally very mature and bright.

I really do look up to you.


If you think about it, that back & forth that you participated in earlier in this thread, did you really feel better after you did that?

I think not.

You, the man behind Arising_uk would be a wonderfully more beautiful philosopher if you would start using your legal, god given name.


I'm asking you to join Chaz Wyman and myself in this extremely freeing and beneficial approach to this board.


I know you, I respect you, and I think you would like coming out.




.

[John]

I don't know what Arising's job is but I can fully understand his reasons for not using his real name.

Personally, I use my real first name but no more on here and if you read everything I'd posted I could probably be tracked down but I don't want to make it too obvious who I am in a forum where I may wish to express a political opinion that could get me sacked if someone decided to make a big deal out of it. Generally I try not to express such opinions but when you're a senior manager in the public sector it's sometimes better to be safe than sorry. There have been a few public sector employees in the UK recently who've come to regret expressing political opinions online when they're supposed to be bound to neutrality.

[Mark Question]

is so, in your model? what you can know about anything, without your model?

Can you know anything without yours?

thats right! that was my question. feel free to answer.

To know, IS to have a model, to form an abstraction.

is so, in your model? to have a model to have a model? recognizing any patterns: to have a god to have a god?

do you just believe that your model is modelling more than itself, because your model tells so?

I create my model.
I only ask that it adheres to the reality I perceive daily.

modelling is fun. i like to build every christmas a nativity scene diorama. last years was quite a gay. this year i will do it with a voodoo zombie-theme. cross-fingered promise. but is there more than an eye meets patterns: if some believers asks daily and "theres always an answers" in their model worlds? like those good old ones: "we really can/cant know it, because.." or "we are getting there, better and better every day, like our shrinks"?

does it tell that it is a model?

Does yours tell you so?
My model does not speak...it is a "supermodel"...hot, spicy and silent. The perfect woman.

is there a pattern with that and modelling believable gods who not speak to us? or, does your fire alarm tell you anything? or is it just beebing funnily? or does it tell to you that it is firealarming you? do you believe it? by the way, i am a big hairy truck driving lesbian with sexy mustaches.

like gods words tell us that these are gods words?

Funny that god's words come to most in a book, or through others, whereas I construct the abstraction I am talking about...with a bit of help, from those I admire.
Where does you model come from?

is there a pattern: through others and books, we are talking about and following those ones we admire and, more or less, our personal thoughts about it all?

are you planning to jump out that fluid fittest gay jews-model of yours?

Mmmmm, I sense an animosity bubbling up...methinks my views disturb your christian sensitivities.

sorry if my artistic nickname to your model was too artistic language for you. what is your models real name if i may ask politely? sorry if i scared or spoiled any bodies life here. big hug!

at least we have lots of different "everything explained"-models to choose if we can?

Yes, including children's models, the kind such as you would appreciate best.
Something... innocent....gay.

i appreciated that. and your model is fascinating.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Are we there already?


Is this the reality we live in now?


The thought police?




I don't want to get into a pissing match but I've been where you are.

I've lost what you fear loosing.

Hang onto your thoughts & feelings.

Articulate them here.

Use your real name. You won't regret it, no matter what the cost.

Material things come & go. They are not us and we will never possess them anyway.


Have strength.


Good luck no matter what you decide.



.

[John]

.
Is this the reality we live in now?

Unfortunately, I reckon so.

.I don't want to get into a pissing match but I've been where you are.

I've lost what you fear loosing.

I'm sorry to hear that but I'd rather not experience the pain. I believe my family would concur with that.

Hang onto your thoughts & feelings.

Articulate them here.

Use your real name. You won't regret it, no matter what the cost.

I don't see why my thoughts have any more power if my real name is attached. My identity means nothing to anyone here so my thoughts should stand or fall on their merits. Why should it be important that anyone knows who is articulating those thoughts?

Material things come & go. They are not us and we will never possess them anyway.

Have strength.

Good luck no matter what you decide.

Unfortunately I need material things to pay my mortgage.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


I've got you marked down as beta.


That should make the boss inside your head very happy!





.