Gary's Corner

[Lacewing]

Most people already accept/understand the concept that no singular view reigns over all.

There are things that all views cannot deny.

What can be deduced is that there can be multiple right answers, depending on the angle one is looking from.

The one thing you can know for certain, by pure logic, is that when people disagree, it does not mean "multiple answers can be right."

You both are extraordinarily intoxicated with what you want to claim you know.

A wise man knows he knows nothing.

True wisdom begins with acknowledging one’s ignorance.

Whatever you think you know is but a tiny imagined speck of yours and others limited understanding. The fact that you keep doubling-down on it, trying to insist that what you think you know is some sort of greater truth or reality that all must acknowledge, shows how important it is to your sense of identity and meaning. That's your personal psychological trip and of no consequence to anyone else.

I'm not going to argue with what you foolishly think you know.

Good luck with having some realizations beyond all your stuff.

[Immanuel Can]

Most people already accept/understand the concept that no singular view reigns over all.

There are things that all views cannot deny.

What can be deduced is that there can be multiple right answers, depending on the angle one is looking from.

The one thing you can know for certain, by pure logic, is that when people disagree, it does not mean "multiple answers can be right."

You both are extraordinarily intoxicated with what you want to claim you know.

Yes, basic logic is such heady stuff...especially to those who may be encountering it for the first time.

[Walker]

- I know three things that apply to every view.
- If you do not, or do not think that is possible, is your reasoning to support that because many people think many things?
- What I'm hearing from that, which is the gist of what you've shared, is a non-sequitur.

*

- The truth can generate a pleasure/pain reaction for both the transmitter and receiver.
- The receiver’s reaction to the pain is often resentment against the transmission, or if small-minded, resentment towards the transmitter.
- This can nip the pleasure of truth in the bud before it can blossom into the receiver's view of the big picture.
- Iconoclasm in the comfort zone can activate that reaction, apparently even for relativists ... which is an apparent contradiction to relativism.

Question: What causes the conundrum?
Answer: Attachment to relativism, all the way up the line to the big picture.

[Walker]

A wise man knows he knows nothing.

Was he a sophist or a soothsayer?

[Lacewing]

- The truth can generate a pleasure/pain reaction for both the transmitter and receiver.
- The receiver’s reaction to the pain is often resentment against the transmission, or if small-minded, resentment towards the transmitter.
- This can nip the pleasure of truth in the bud before it can blossom into the receiver's view of the big picture.

You write about what you suspect or think you know, and yet you do not seem aware of how it manifests within yourself. Both you and I.C. have a complete aversion to any truth that does not fit within your narrow, self-serving frameworks... thereby denying obvious broader truth and balance and logic. Such dishonesty exposes the absurd extent of the farce! Yet, you both carry on like two madmen, reveling in your delusional dance while speaking in tongues to glorify yourselves and your views.

[Immanuel Can]

- The truth can generate a pleasure/pain reaction for both the transmitter and receiver.
- The receiver’s reaction to the pain is often resentment against the transmission, or if small-minded, resentment towards the transmitter.
- This can nip the pleasure of truth in the bud before it can blossom into the receiver's view of the big picture.

Both you and I.C. have a complete aversion to any truth that does not fit within your narrow, self-serving frameworks...

You do not believe in truth. You don't think truth exists. You insist it's all "subjective."

Well, subjectively, perhaps Walker and I are not in any difficulty.

You also say that wise man "knows nothing." Assuming you suppose yourself to be like one of these "wise" men -- indistinguishable though you make them from the ignorant -- you must also know nothing about truth. This seems to fit nicely with your grasp of logic.

Therefore, your jibes are blunt. Your disapproval is pointless. And your spite, though entertaining, fails to produce anything.