Self-Correction and amendment

[Gary Childress]

I'm agnostic. I try to approach things socratically such that I know what I don't know and don't pretend to know what I do not. BUT, I've made a kind of imperative out of it, thinking that it's the only reasonable stance a person should take on such things.

Thinking about it more. Insisting that others adopt agnosticism toward what I think is unknowable to all of us, is not going to play out very well, and is ultimately a stance I don't have the wherewithal to prescribe. It also acts as a form of discrimination that I am admittedly not qualified nor have legitimacy to enforce.

So, from here forward I am amending my position on agnosticism to include only myself and not prescribe it to others. I suspect that agnosticism is the most honest position to take with regard to what I deem unknowable, however, I can't speak for anyone else. I am comfortable with agnosticism in so far as I see no other valid stance to take with regard to such things. It doesn't mean I don't make assumptions or take leaps of faith that might be pragmatically necessary in order to live a fulfilling and moral life, however, I don't deny that they are leaps of faith and not founded on concrete knowledge or understanding.

[Walker]

I'm agnostic. I try to approach things socratically such that I know what I don't know and don't pretend to know what I do not. BUT, I've made a kind of imperative out of it, thinking that it's the only reasonable stance a person should take on such things.

Thinking about it more. Insisting that others adopt agnosticism toward what I think is unknowable to all of us, is not going to play out very well, and is ultimately a stance I don't have the wherewithal to prescribe. It also acts as a form of discrimination that I am admittedly not qualified nor have legitimacy to enforce.

So, from here forward I am amending my position on agnosticism to include only myself and not prescribe it to others. I suspect that agnosticism is the most honest position to take with regard to what I deem unknowable, however, I can't speak for anyone else. I am comfortable with agnosticism in so far as I see no other valid stance to take with regard to such things. It doesn't mean I don't make assumptions or take leaps of faith that might be pragmatically necessary in order to live a fulfilling and moral life, however, I don't deny that they are leaps of faith and not founded on concrete knowledge or understanding.

A contemplation prompted by, affected by, but not limited to Gary’s sincere transmission.

- Insistence varies.
- Parents insist. Military officers insist. Cops insist. Insistence solely intends action.
- Persuasion intends to change the direction of another’s view.
- Under these currently shared conditions, persuasion that requires insistence is not convincing enough to change the direction of another’s view.
- Under these conditions, methods of persuasion vary.
- For example, explaining the effects of a religious practice upon one’s own personal, subjective situation is a method of persuasion. The effectiveness of this written or linked transmission varies according to the frequency of the receiving awareness.

- To be persuaded, the open-minded must initially suspend disbelief and assume the truth of the other’s conclusion … then follow along with the rationality that led to that conclusion, before ultimately accepting or rejecting the conclusion.
- Simply insisting that you are not convinced is not effective enough to change the transmitter’s view.
- Simply transmitting the view, without the intent to persuade or without intending action, can be persuasive in and of itself, when the other person has the capacity to supply logical, rational, down-to-earth, nitty-gritty rationale for himself, or herself, or theirself … themself, itself, alphabet self, noself, delusionsion self, real self, infinity self, word-game self, humorous self.
- This rationale that does not intend to persuade, but rather is simply a testimony, must be stand-alone from personality and fame to be persuasive enough for greatness, and that relies on the receiving instrument finding the same frequency as the transmission to eliminate, rather than filter out, the static of cluelessness.

*

The Uncertainty of Knowledge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhBcLk_8f0
(As with the perpetual background music in the movie Oppenheimer, I find the use of background music in this video to be gauche and ineffective, however I am not distracted from the content).

*

Now Gary, you see I have entered into the spirit of your OP. You are sincere, I answered with contemplation and the time from my life, the limited time that we all have.

Anything in your mind that disagrees with the truth of this, is untrue and thus a delusion, according to the rationale presented heretofore. (That last word was the question to a recent Jeopardy answer.)

[Gary Childress]

Now Gary, you see I have entered into the spirit of your OP. You are sincere, I answered with contemplation and the time from my life, the limited time that we all have.

Anything in your mind that disagrees with the truth of this, is untrue and thus a delusion, according to the rationale presented heretofore. (That last word was the question to a recent Jeopardy answer.)

I'm having a difficult time reconciling these two statements. Should I?

[Walker]

Now Gary, you see I have entered into the spirit of your OP. You are sincere, I answered with contemplation and the time from my life, the limited time that we all have.

Anything in your mind that disagrees with the truth of this, is untrue and thus a delusion, according to the rationale presented heretofore. (That last word was the question to a recent Jeopardy answer.)

I'm having a difficult time reconciling these two statements. Should I?

Nope. I presented a conclusion for you to deal with as advised.

[Gary Childress]

Now Gary, you see I have entered into the spirit of your OP. You are sincere, I answered with contemplation and the time from my life, the limited time that we all have.

Anything in your mind that disagrees with the truth of this, is untrue and thus a delusion, according to the rationale presented heretofore. (That last word was the question to a recent Jeopardy answer.)

I'm having a difficult time reconciling these two statements. Should I?

Nope. I presented a conclusion for you to deal with as advised.

Is there a reason why I shouldn't try to ignore your posts? They have been incredibly irritating from day one and there doesn't seem to be anything I can do to make them non-irritating. Isn't there someone else out there you can annoy or do you have the same effect on just about everyone?

[Walker]

The evidence suggests you find everyone irritating, Gary. That's a nice, simple, easy-to-remember point of self-correction for you.

[Gary Childress]

The evidence suggests you find everyone irritating, Gary. That's a nice, simple, easy-to-remember point of self-correction for you.

Some people are irritating to me some of the time. No one is irritating to me all the time. Everyone is not irritating. Some people are irritating and some are not. Among those who are irritating, some are more irritating than others.

[Walker]

Feeling Irritable? Why You’re Irritated and What To Do About It
What causes irritability and 7 strategies to cope

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/irritability/