Truth

[atypican]

Truth = that which improves awareness

Who disagrees and why?


And Brock I already understand that objective reality is not dependent
our awareness of it, so save it.

[14SM.jcil]

Awareness of what??

To me, the definition you provide seems more appropriate for the term 'understanding'.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:21 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Truth = that which improves awareness
>
> Who disagrees and why?

Me.

> And Brock I already understand that objective reality is not dependent
> our awareness of it, so save it.

Ok, saving my explanation, just noting my objection. :)

Regards,

Brock

[atypican]

> Awareness of what??

reality

> To me, the definition you provide seems more appropriate for the term 'understanding'.

We have understandings (either well informed or poorly informed) of
reality. I submit that truth consists of what improves that
understanding. ie helps our understanding or awareness of reality
conform more closely to, or display more clearly what really is

On Mar 24, 8:42 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[atypican]

I interpret it as a dodge.

On Mar 24, 9:17 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[14SM.jcil]

On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:18, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Awareness of what??
>
> reality

Ok, but isn't reality == truth?

> To me, the definition you provide seems more appropriate for the term 'understanding'.
>
>
> We have understandings (either well informed or poorly informed) of
> reality. I submit that truth consists of what improves that
> understanding. ie helps our understanding or awareness of reality
> conform more closely to, or display more clearly what really is

Seems to me that you're conflating the meaning of these terms...

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:20 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 9:17 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:21 AM, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Truth = that which improves awareness
>>
>> > Who disagrees and why?
>>
>> Me.
>>
>> > And Brock I already understand that objective reality is not dependent
>> > our awareness of it, so save it.
>>
>> Ok, saving my explanation, just noting my objection. :)
>
> I interpret it as a dodge.

You ask me to "save it", instead of responding as I might, I agree to
your request to "save it", and you get to interpret that as a dodge?
:)

Ok, e_space. :)

Regards,

Brock

[14SM.jcil]

On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:20, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

I interpret it as a dodge.

Perhaps it appears that way, but goodwill presumes otherwise...doesn't it?

I mean "...so save it." doesn't seem all that inviting, but I imagine you still expect us to presume upon your goodwill...right?

[Brock Organ]

Good point, SM. I don't consider this unintentional either, for those
who espouse human-centered epistemological positions (like
"self-canonization" ...?). A great example of this is Berkeley's
famous subjective idealism[1] "to be is to be perceived".

But again, note the presupposition: "ideas depend on perceiving minds
for their very existence", and note the tie in with atypican's:

"Truth = that which improves awareness"

But I note contrastingly that the objective nature of reality is not
limited by humankind's perception/awareness of it. For example, while
it is true that humankind is aware of the velocity of light[2], its
specific quantity and its objective truth exist independently. What
was the speed of light before humankind first measured it? A
human-centered epistemology cannot address the question, since it
presupposes the humanistic "awareness" as a precondition. The rest of
us, non-humanists, consider that the velocity of light didn't change
simply because humankind became aware of it.

Humanism FAIL. Existentialism FAIL. And to the degree that
"self-canonization depends upon similar precepts ... (wait for it,
atypican) FAIL:

http://cheezburger.com/brockorgan/lolz/View/1361986304

Regards,

Brock

[1] This theory contends that individuals can only know sensations and
ideas of objects, not abstractions such as "matter", and that ideas
depend on perceiving minds for their very existence. This belief later
became immortalized in the dictum, "esse est percipi" ("to be is to be
perceived").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_light

[14SM.jcil]

On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:33, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

But I note contrastingly that the objective nature of reality is not
limited by humankind's perception/awareness of it.  For example, while
it is true that humankind is aware of the velocity of light[2], its
specific quantity and its objective truth exist independently.  What
was the speed of light before humankind first measured it?  A
human-centered epistemology cannot address the question, since it
presupposes the humanistic "awareness" as a precondition.  The rest of
us, non-humanists, consider that the velocity of light didn't change
simply because humankind became aware of it.

Coincidentally Brock, I was just thinking about this recently.  While the point you're making is undeniably solid, I've seen compelling work that puts another spin on your illustration.

Check out Barry Setterfield's work at http://www.setterfield.org/.  Cool stuff with Genesis 1 implications.

[atypican]

> Ok, but isn't reality == truth?

reality is what is, truth refers to an accurate representation of
reality.

I am arguing against conflation of the terms "truth" and "reality"

>> We have understandings (either well informed or poorly informed) of
>> reality. I submit that truth consists of what improves that
>> understanding. ie helps our understanding or awareness of reality
>> conform more closely to, or display more clearly what really is

>Seems to me that you're conflating the meaning of these terms...

That's odd, I seem to myself to be arguing specifically to illustrate
a distinction between them as I see them being conflated by an
overwhelming majority of people...




On Mar 24, 9:48 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[atypican]

> But again, note the presupposition: "ideas depend on perceiving minds
> for their very existence", and note the tie in with atypican's:
>
> "Truth = that which improves awareness"

Just so you can know where you are on the right track in your
understanding of how I think (expressed in hope that I may in the
future read some useful criticism) I do indeed accept the premise that

""ideas depend on perceiving minds for their very existence"

> But I note contrastingly that the objective nature of reality is not
> limited by humankind's perception/awareness of it.

You note it in response to everything but it's not a contrast.
Pointing out the obvious fact that the objective nature of reality is
not limited by humankind's perception/awareness is now seeming like
nothing but a dodge. I have tried to figure out how you think it
applies to everything I bring up. My strongest suspicion about it
right now is that it's a pet rhetorical technique used to derail
attempts at deeper scrutiny of your belief/value system, which if you
are like the other sola scriptura types I've met is run like a
bureaucracy.

On Mar 24, 10:33 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:48 AM, 14SM.jcil <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[atypican]

I imagine you still expect us to presume upon your goodwill...right?

I am frustrated w/brock..............I think that's obvious.

I feel like I am being cut and pasted to instead of conversed with.

I expect ya'll to be who you are.

The save it comment meant:

Please try to approach the underlying point you'd like to make from a
DIFFERENT angle, for some reason this particular approach is one I
don't seem to be able to adequately appreciate.

On Mar 24, 10:29 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[atypican]

> Perhaps it appears that way, but goodwill presumes otherwise...doesn't it?

I can have goodwill for Brock and still think there's things he
doesn't care to think about or discuss in depth.

On Mar 24, 10:29 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[atypican]

I mean the very answer I would expect from you......The only response
I've got out of you for quite a while........The one about objective
reality.

Do you think I get your point? Should I prefix all my posts with:

Even though an objective reality exists that's independent of our
ideas about it, I'd still like to know what you think about.......?




On Mar 24, 10:19 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:35 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, but isn't reality == truth?

reality is what is, truth refers to an accurate representation of
reality.

I am arguing against conflation of the terms "truth" and "reality"

Ok, I think I now see the distinction you're making.  The forum has been using the term 'objective truth' to refer to what you call 'reality'.

Additionally, the forum has been using the term 'incontrovertible truth' to refer to understandings that are commonly agreed to be 'accurate representations of reality' (i.e., the earth is spherical); also occasionally referenced herein as 'fact'.

In the interest of common ground, I'll restate:

'reality' == 'objective truth'

'incontrovertible truth' == 'fact' == 'accurate representation(s) of reality'

The term 'truth', when used without either of the modifiers 'objective', or 'incontrovertible', has been used in this forum to represent a belief that is considered valid, but openly challengeable because it is not empirically verifiable (a criterion for 'incontrovertible truth').

Therefore, for the purpose of furthering common understanding within the forum:

'reality' != 'truth' (without either of the modifiers 'objective', or 'incontrovertible')

Now...having clarified the terms, one should note that an assertion of 'truth' isn't necessarily invalidated (falsified) just because it can't be empirically verified; such is considered to be an untenable requirement for 'objective truth' because it is recognized that some 'objective truths' are not empirically verifiable.

So the fun for 'truth seekers' then, is in trying to determine the following for any given truth claim:

Is truth x == 'objectively true'?

 

>> We have understandings (either well informed or poorly informed) of
>> reality. I submit that truth consists of what improves that
>> understanding. ie helps our understanding or awareness of reality
>> conform more closely to, or display more clearly what really is

 >Seems to me that you're conflating the meaning of these terms...

That's odd, I seem to myself to be arguing specifically to illustrate
a distinction between them as I see them being conflated by an
overwhelming majority of people...

I agree with your interest in defining terms so as to ensure a common understanding of their use.  Hopefully, the above furthers our common understanding (at least within this forum). 

[SM]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:14 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps it appears that way, but goodwill presumes otherwise...doesn't it?

I can have goodwill for Brock and still think there's things he
doesn't care to think about or discuss in depth.

Naturally, those 'things' exist for all of us, but don't you agree that goodwill precludes us from assuming anything about what another 'cares about' apart from what they explicitly state?

[SM]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:11 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

The save it comment meant:

Please try to approach the underlying point you'd like to make from a
DIFFERENT angle, for some reason this particular approach is one I
don't seem to be able to adequately appreciate.

I for one find this articulation much easier to understand.  Because I'm posting with goodwill, I had already presumed that your 'save it' comment was intending to mean something like the above, nevertheless I think it's beneficial to acknowledge that your more complete articulation is worth the effort.

[SM]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

My strongest suspicion about it right now is that it's a pet rhetorical technique used to derail

attempts at deeper scrutiny of your belief/value system, which if you are like the other sola scriptura types I've met is run like a bureaucracy.

Recognizing that you have what I view is a legitimate request of Brock, I note that goodwill precludes the presumption of the motives or point of view of another beyond what they have explicitly written.

I personally hold to the validity of 'sola scriptura' and consider inaccurate your assessment that those who do are interested in deflecting any attempts at deeper scrutiny of the Biblical worldview.  Speaking for myself personally (and many others I know personally who likewise hold to a view of 'sola scriptura'), the very opposite is true.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> But again, note the presupposition:  "ideas depend on perceiving minds
>> for their very existence", and note the tie in with atypican's:
>>
>> "Truth = that which improves awareness"
>
> Just so you can know where you are on the right track in your
> understanding of how I think (expressed in hope that I may in the
> future read some useful criticism)

Unless you ask me to "save it", and then when I do, accuse me of dodging. :)

> I do indeed accept the premise that
> ""ideas depend on perceiving minds for their very existence"
>
>> But I note contrastingly that the objective nature of reality is not
>> limited by humankind's perception/awareness of it.
>
> You note it in response to everything but it's not a contrast.

It is a contrasting position in that the premises compete. By the law
of contradiction, it is not true that BOTH:

a) the objective nature of reality is limited by humankind's
perception/awareness of it
b) the objective nature of reality is not limited by humankind's
perception/awareness of it

Human centered premises (like existentialism, humanism, dialecticism,
etc.) bring a presumption of a) to conversations ... Noting b) and
relating the consequences of not-A are one appropriate response to
such a dialogue. :)

> Pointing out the obvious fact that the objective nature of reality is
> not limited by humankind's perception/awareness is now seeming like
> nothing but a dodge.

Or a realization of the terrible peril of human-centered focus
("self-canonization"?!).

> I have tried to figure out how you think it
> applies to everything I bring up.

Everything? Perhaps you are allowing a bit of hyperbole into your
analysis. It sounds a little more informal than I believe I've been
with you. I think you can step your critical game up from a "But you
NEVER take out the garbage" kinds of talk. :)

> My strongest suspicion about it
> right now is that it's a pet rhetorical technique used to derail
> attempts at deeper scrutiny of your belief/value system

Or more simply, a penetrating analysis of the terrible inadequacy of
human-centered epistemologies. It simply isn't objectively tenable to
use humanistic first principles. So to the degree that your
"self-canonization" is dependent upon such pre-suppositions, it isn't
tenable.

> which if you
> are like the other sola scriptura types I've met is run like a
> bureaucracy.

Accusation can be a cheap currency. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:11 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  I imagine you still expect us to presume upon your goodwill...right?
>
> I am frustrated w/brock..............I think that's obvious.

Or distinguish between frustration with me personally and rejecting
the position:

* humankind is not the measure of all things

> I feel like I am being cut and pasted to instead of conversed with.

An arbitrary distinction, perhaps.

> I expect ya'll to be who you are.

Then you have no basis for objection to my responses. :)

> Please try to approach the underlying point you'd like to make from a
> DIFFERENT angle, for some reason this particular approach is one I
> don't seem to be able to adequately appreciate.

Ok, that seems a much better clarification than "save it", which I
didn't take to mean "restate your position from a different angle" but
rather "I already know your position so don't state it".

Regards,

Brock

[atypican]

>goodwill precludes the presumption of the motives or point of view
> of another beyond what they have explicitly written.

So where did I state that the objective nature of reality was subject
to human considerations. I have in fact explicitly conceded that the
objective nature of reality is not dependent on human perception of
it. Yet we still can't get past this irrelevant yet obvious point
being brought up ad-nauseum.

On Mar 24, 1:39 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:39 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mean the very answer I would expect from you......The only response
> I've got out of you for quite a while........The one about objective
> reality.

One would think the point relevant to my position. Perhaps all that
stands between a "self-canonization" and a solipsistic self-absorption
is the objective nature of reality! :)

> Do you think I get your point? Should I prefix all my posts with:
>
> Even though an objective reality exists that's independent of our
> ideas about it, I'd still like to know what you think about.......?

Well, epistemologically speaking, what I think about "1 + 1 = 2", for
example, has no relevance with regard to its objective truth. So you
asked the question:

> Truth = that which improves awareness; Who disagrees and why?

The "why" behind the rejection of the principle "truth = that which
improves awareness" is not dependent upon "what I think" or "how I
feel". It is in fact, completely not reliant upon any human dialectic
I may have to offer. Instead, by the law of contradiction, I note it

is not true that BOTH:

a) the objective nature of reality is limited by humankind's
perception/awareness of it

b) the objective nature of reality is not limited by humankind's
perception/awareness of it

So noting b) and relating the consequences of not-A are not exercises
in my personal subjective dialectic ... making an assertion that I
consider depends upon a) as a precondition:

"truth = that which improves awareness"

and then asking for the discussion to continue under such a
pre-supposition is not an approach I commend, but instead challenge.
One doesn't get to start, unchallenged, from a human-centric starting
point. Why? Because it is not objectively tenable, and conclusions
based upon it will be similarly limited and fallacious.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:10 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>goodwill precludes the presumption of the motives or point of view
>> of another beyond what they have explicitly written.
>
> So where did I state that the objective nature of reality was subject
> to human considerations. I have in fact explicitly conceded that the
> objective nature of reality is not dependent on human perception of
> it. Yet we still can't get past this irrelevant yet obvious point
> being brought up ad-nauseum.

Or the consideration that it is more relevant than such a critique
gives credit. You said:

> Truth = that which improves awareness; Who disagrees and why?

The "why" behind the rejection of the principle "truth = that which
improves awareness" is not dependent upon "what I think" or "how I
feel". It is in fact, completely not reliant upon any human dialectic

one may have to offer. Instead, by the law of contradiction, I note

it is not true that BOTH:

a) the objective nature of reality is limited by humankind's
perception/awareness of it

b) the objective nature of reality is not limited by humankind's
perception/awareness of it

So noting b) and relating the consequences of not-A are not exercises
in my personal subjective dialectic ...

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:48 PM, 14SM.jcil <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Coincidentally Brock, I was just thinking about this recently.  While the
> point you're making is undeniably solid, I've seen compelling work that puts
> another spin on your illustration.

Cool! :)

> Check out Barry Setterfield's work at http://www.setterfield.org/.  Cool
> stuff with Genesis 1 implications.

Ok, I'm looking through the site now ... any "start here" suggestions?

Regards,

Brock

[SM]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:10 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

>goodwill precludes the presumption of the motives or point of view
> of another beyond what they have explicitly written.

So where did I state that the objective nature of reality was subject
to human considerations. I have in fact explicitly conceded that the
objective nature of reality is not dependent on human perception of
it. Yet we still can't get past this irrelevant yet obvious point
being brought up ad-nauseum.

As I said, I acknowledge that you have a fair request to make of Brock...my point related to assumptions about his motives and/or point of view.

[SM]

Indeed, there is a lot there...and quite a bit requires some high level understanding of physics (which I don't pretend that I have)...so perhaps this link is a good place to start: Setterfield Simplified

[Brock Organ]

Thanks!

Regards,

Brock

[atypican]

> > Just so you can know where you are on the right track in your
> > understanding of how I think (expressed in hope that I may in the
> > future read some useful criticism)
>
> Unless you ask me to "save it", and then when I do, accuse me of dodging. :)

If all you are going to do is continually point out that the objective
nature of reality is unaffected by human perception, then claim that
my statements *imply* somehow that I don't understand that, even
though I tell you explicitly that I do, you can save it.

If you really think there is a point I've missed, please help.

> It is a contrasting position in that the premises compete

how does the premise of: "ideas depend on perceiving minds for their
very existence"
compete with the premise of: "the objective nature of reality is not

limited by humankind's perception/awareness of it."

enlighten me.

>>>> I do indeed accept the premise that
>>>> ""ideas depend on perceiving minds for their very existence"

>>> But I note contrastingly that the objective nature of reality is not
>>> limited by humankind's perception/awareness of it.

>> You note it in response to everything but it's not a contrast.

> It is a contrasting position in that the premises compete. By the law
> of contradiction, it is not true that BOTH:

> a) the objective nature of reality is limited by humankind's
> perception/awareness of it
> b) the objective nature of reality is not limited by humankind's
> perception/awareness of it

But how does believing that "ideas depend on perceiving minds" (thanks
for that articulation BTW I am sure to recall it) somehow imply that
someone who holds that "a" above is true? It doesn't, and you should
know.. your thinking it does does not necessarily have any effect on
what's objectively true about it. :)

> Human centered premises (like existentialism, humanism, dialecticism,
> etc.) bring a presumption of a) to conversations

You are drawing that conclusion for yourself, but I'm not convinced.

> ... Noting b) and
> relating the consequences of not-A are one appropriate response to
> such a dialogue. :)

Who again is it you think doesn't really understand that A is true?

>> Pointing out the obvious fact that the objective nature of reality is
>> not limited by humankind's perception/awareness is now seeming like
>> nothing but a dodge.

> Or a realization of the terrible peril of human-centered focus
> ("self-canonization"?!).

I'm going with A

Self canonization is a method of self criticism. If like me, someone
is concerned most with how they might improve themselves, I suppose it
could fairly be regarded as a human-centered focus.

Depending on who is practicing it however self-canonization could be a
entirely theologically focused endeavor.

> Accusation can be a cheap currency. :)

Be brave then...spend some....provoke a debate

Am I doing that bad at staying civil? There's a fine line to be sure
between being provocative and being offensive but let's be as frank as
possible. It's not civil if you have to tip toe either right?



On Mar 24, 1:45 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[atypican]

UGH!

On Mar 24, 2:14 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:43 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Just so you can know where you are on the right track in your
>> > understanding of how I think (expressed in hope that I may in the
>> > future read some useful criticism)
>>
>> Unless you ask me to "save it", and then when I do, accuse me of dodging. :)
>
> If all you are going to do is continually point out that the objective
> nature of reality is unaffected by human perception, then claim that
> my statements *imply* somehow that I don't understand that, even
> though I tell you explicitly that I do, you can save it.

Sorry, but as the objection penetrates the self-absorption of
humanistic premises, it is relevant to note.

> If you really think there is a point I've missed, please help.

Yes, to the degree that your statement:

"Truth = that which improves awareness"

relies upon human-centered premises, it is objectively untenable.

>> It is a contrasting position in that the premises compete
>
> how does the premise of: "ideas depend on perceiving minds for their
> very existence"
> compete with the premise of: "the objective nature of reality is not
> limited by humankind's perception/awareness of it."
> enlighten me.

Enlightenment is God's prerogative, I'll just answer you. :)

The citation "ideas depend on perceiving minds for their very
existence" is from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism

So relevant is an excerpt from that entry:

"Subjective idealism is a metaphysical theory which reduces physical
objects to perceiving minds. The simplest and most common version of
subjective idealism combines subjunctive phenomenalism, the view that
statements about physical objects can be translated into subjunctive
conditionals about perceptions, with belief in immaterial minds."

and further related by:

"This theory contends that individuals can only know sensations and

ideas of objects, not abstractions such as "matter", and that ideas

depend on perceiving minds for their very existence. This belief later
became immortalized in the dictum, "esse est percipi" ("to be is to be
perceived")."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley

So the relationship is in light of your statement

> Truth = that which improves awareness

To the degree that your statement reflects such a subjective idealism,
existentialism, humanism or phenomenalism[1], the principle appears to
presume:

a) the objective nature of reality is limited by humankind's
perception/awareness of it

However, I note the contrasting position:

b) the objective nature of reality is not limited by humankind's
perception/awareness of it

and further indicate that by the law of contradiction[2], the
conjunction "a) AND b)" cannot be true.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenalism
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_contradiction

>>>>> I do indeed accept the premise that
>>>>> ""ideas depend on perceiving minds for their very existence"
>
>>>> But I note contrastingly that the objective nature of reality is not
>>>> limited by humankind's perception/awareness of it.
>
>>> You note it in response to everything but it's not a contrast.
>
>> It is a contrasting position in that the premises compete.  By the law
>> of contradiction, it is not true that BOTH:
>
>> a) the objective nature of reality is limited by humankind's
>> perception/awareness of it
>> b) the objective nature of reality is not limited by humankind's
>> perception/awareness of it
>
> But how does believing that "ideas depend on perceiving minds" (thanks
> for that articulation BTW I am sure to recall it) somehow imply that
> someone who holds that "a" above is true? It doesn't

*shrug* you just posted a thread about how you follow a process of
"self-canonization". So, taking you at your word, I simply noted that
to the degree such a self-absorption relies upon humanistic,
existential, subjective idealistic, phenomenalistic premises, your
statement:

> Truth = that which improves awareness

is objectively untenable.

>> Human centered premises (like existentialism, humanism, dialecticism,
>> etc.) bring a presumption of a) to conversations
>
> You are drawing that conclusion for yourself

Actually, I consider a) to be a stronger statement than personal dialectic.

>> ... Noting b) and
>> relating the consequences of not-A are one appropriate response to
>> such a dialogue. :)
>
> Who again is it you think doesn't really understand that A is true?
>
>>> Pointing out the obvious fact that the objective nature of reality is
>>> not limited by humankind's perception/awareness is now seeming like
>>> nothing but a dodge.
>
>> Or a realization of the terrible peril of human-centered focus
>> ("self-canonization"?!).
>
> I'm going with A

Well, if by A you are referring to:

a) the objective nature of reality is limited by humankind'

perception/awareness of it

Then you do so untenably. My concern for such flights of
epistemologically inward fancy is illustrated when considering, for
example, a human standing on the ledge of a skyscraper looks deep deep
down into their personal and self-critical focus and examines their
inner landscape and realizes through a process of thesis, synthesis
and analysis and concludes that THEY CAN FLY, it is still the
uncaring, rude and abrupt objective nature of reality that intrudes
upon such an "inner self-criticism".

Which it does, to tragic effect.

> Self canonization is a method of self criticism. If like me, someone
> is concerned most with how they might improve themselves, I suppose it
> could fairly be regarded as a human-centered focus.

Well, the danger is a tendency towards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

> Depending on who is practicing it however self-canonization could be a
> entirely theologically focused endeavor.

Buoyantly optimistic statement of faith noted. But I consider a
God-centered objective reality isn't going to follow from any
generative humanistic dialectic any more than one gets apples from a
peach tree[3].

[3] (or alternatively, any more than one could derive transcendental
numbers from a finite application of solely arithmetic operations
involving just rational numbers)

>> Accusation can be a cheap currency. :)
>
> Be brave then...spend some

No need to spend a cheap currency (accusation) when one has the good
currency (positional debate). :)

> ....provoke a debate

Well, perhaps some of the ~300 posts I've made on forums in the past
month have been edifyingly thought provoking. I consider I don't need
to spend the cheap coin of accusation, though.

> Am I doing that bad at staying civil?

I'll sick the ferocious group moderators on you when I think you've
crossed the line ... ;p

> There's a fine line to be sure
> between being provocative and being offensive but let's be as frank as
> possible. It's not civil if you have to tip toe either right?

Well, you are a much higher quality debater than most, so to see a
shot like "hey, you're probably a bureaucrat like those other unnamed
sola scriptura people" saddens me. :(

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

> UGH!

"Look at me, standing on the ledge of the skyscraper,
self-canonical-izing and looking deep deep inward at my inner
landscape and concluding I CAN FLY!!! Why, I shouldn't have to
contend with objective reality, I can just limit my inquiry to my own
self-absorption!"

Perhaps even your "inner landscape" can see the peril with such an approach ...

Regards,

Brock

[ornamentalmind]

Formal Logic and Theology:

a is a
god is god

a is not not-a
god is not anything else

a is not both a and not-a
god cannot be itself and something else


From the above, one has produced an unchanging view. It is inherent
within the ‘logic’ involved… at least if no other logics are included
within one’s epistemology.

Examples:
A seed is a seed. A seed is not a tree. A seed cannot be both a seed
and a tree.
A tree is a tree. A tree is not a table. A tree cannot be both a tree
and a table.

Etc.

Change is not addressed.


On Mar 24, 3:32 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[14SM.jcil]

On Mar 25, 2011, at 5:01, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

Formal Logic and Theology:

a is a
god is god

a is not not-a
god is not anything else

a is not both a and not-a
god cannot be itself and something else


From the above, one has produced an unchanging view. It is inherent
within the ‘logic’ involved… at least if no other logics are included
within one’s epistemology.

Examples:
A seed is a seed. A seed is not a tree. A seed cannot be both a seed
and a tree.
A tree is a tree. A tree is not a table. A tree cannot be both a tree
and a table.

Etc.

Change is not addressed.

Like the 'change' between "I CAN FLY!!!" and <SPLAT>, for instance?

[e_space]

fo sissy boy

On Mar 24, 11:19 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:20 AM, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 9:17 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:21 AM, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > Truth = that which improves awareness
>
> >> > Who disagrees and why?
>

[e_space]

re: "Accusation can be a cheap currency" ... like accusing atypican of
acting like me as if its an insult? seems to me that you have more
problems with people than i do brockie boy ... you cant even hold down
a moderators job in a cesspool where almost anything flies ... most of
the atheists there seem to despise you, and you even have probs with
your fellow xtians ...

i notice you an SM back out of a lot of conversations when your
beliefs are being put to the test ... when you dont have relevant
answers you go into silent mode ... if avoidance is cheap currency,
you and SM must have one hell of a piggy bank ;-^)

On Mar 24, 2:45 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:54 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

UGH!

atyp, your frustration is clearly expressed, and when Brock's responses were limited to a succinct version of "...objective reality is not dependent our awareness of it...", I shared in your appeal for more...but now that he has offered more, do you acknowledge his legitimate critique of your thesis?  IMO, 'Ugh!' seems inadequate in response to his substantive and more comprehensively articulated argument.

[e_space]

thats because you guys are bosom buddies ... i share atypicans
sentiment ...

btw, im not expecting a response ... as mentioned, i realize your
inability to address the issues i have raised, so your disappearing
act is highly anticipated

On Mar 25, 8:34 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:54 PM, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > UGH!
>
> atyp, your frustration is clearly expressed, and when Brock's responses were
> limited to a succinct version of "...objective reality is not dependent our

> awareness of it...", I shared in your appeal for more...but now that he *has
> * offered more, do you acknowledge his legitimate critique of your thesis?

[SM]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:08 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

btw, im not expecting a response ... as mentioned, i realize your
inability to address the issues i have raised, so your disappearing
act is highly anticipated

e_space, as I've pointed out in a previous post, the only 'inability' that limits our continued dialogue is either a) your lack of goodwill, or b) lack of skill in debating (or both).  In either case, I haven't found our interactions to be fruitful, so I've elected not to continue them.  If it makes you feel better to ignore what I've written and believe instead that I'm trying to avoid your questions, than so be it, but since my posts clearly indicate otherwise I regard your assertion as further evidence of my point.

Best wishes.

[e_space]

what may be clear to you is quite foggy to me ... you have supported
very few of your claims, and continuously avoid specific issues i have
raised, and therefore it is i who have lost interest in any continued
meaningful dialogue ... the bland rhetoric you employ to whitewash
over the issues is pure brockism as work, someone you are increasingly
sounding a lot like ...

from my viewpoint, you do not resemble being open minded at all, as
you claim ... in fact, you have little tolerance for the beliefs of
others (even claiming that they are worshiping a false god), while
being totally incapable of supporting your own beliefs in any relevant
fashion ...

as far as goodwill is concerned, do you consider it such on your part
to refer to my commentary as absurd, boastful, etc, and implying
(although not honestly to my face) that i dont have the "admirable
openness to the ideas of others" and are "limited by what you have
personally experienced" (a statement that is totally inaccurate), and
then not responding when i explained that this wasnt the case?

contrary to your claims that i lack either goodwill or the ability to
comprehend and debate, i consider it your attitude, and the avoidance
of supporting commentary to back up your claims, that is driving your
perceived dissension here ... you are actually quite typical of many
xtians who, when backed into a corner, reverts to use of adjectives
and/or a disappearing acts ... remember your brother in god, good old
joe?

On Mar 25, 3:23 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

"...from my viewpoint, SM is one of the most gentle and reasonable people
i have ever met online ..."

e, as I recall this quote from you in an earlier post you made to Joe, I consider that such an assessment is as accurate now as it was when you originally posted it.  I noted then and now that you made this assessment of me even while I was rather sternly critiquing Joe for his poor treatment of others - a critique I considered was warranted because his actions were not consistent with his claim to represent Christ.  You rightly assessed that even while critiquing Joe I was gentle and reasonable with him, and I believe I have been every bit (and more) as gentle and reasonable with you.

I have a basis for my confidence in this: a third party assessment.  You're not aware of this, but about a month ago I made a request of more than one of the moderators of this forum, asking them to freely critique my manner of communication with you and others.  I requested that they hold me to a higher standard than that which is 'minimally required' because my goal is to communicate well, not just meet the minimum standard.  Based on the third party analysis of my posts (not my own opinion alone), I am satisfied that I have treated you and all others in this forum with excellence.

I acknowledge that you see things differently, and I appreciate that you have recapitulated your view yet again in your recent post, but on every point you make I believe that I have already given consideration to your accusation and in numerous responses demonstrated how and why I believe each accusation is baseless.

I don't expect that the robust support of my views necessitates that I am able to convince or persuade others to agree with what I say.  I recognize that I may not always express my arguments in the best possible manner, or always as clearly and concisely as retrospect reveals to be best, but I've always expressed a willingness to clarify my statements when requests are made with honest inquiry and goodwill...and often (but admittedly, not always) I do so when neither of those are clearly evident in the request.

I have already acknowledged and apologized for my use of a term that you consider offensive, and made clear that I originally used it unaware that you would find it offensive since you have used its synonym on several occasions.  I didn't hold you accountable for misjudging my intentions when I first spoke (even though an assumption of goodwill overlooks such things as I consider I have repeatedly done for you) since I don't expect anyone to know my motives beyond what I explicitly type...but I do hold you accountable to show goodwill after I clarified my intentions.  The fact that even now you refuse to acknowledge my statements of clarification and my effort to make amends is evidence of your lack of goodwill.

It is just not possible to engage others in lasting, fruitful dialogue in a online forum unless both sides make a mutual effort to act in good faith toward one another.  For the reasons stated above, and others I've mentioned in several previous posts, I don't perceive that you treat me (or others either) with the minimum requisite goodwill.  There is no test of goodwill when you're in agreement with someone; the test comes in the midst of disagreement and/or misunderstanding.  I don't perceive that you are passing that test, and have decided (as I did with Joe) that I have striven with you for long enough.

As with Joe, I leave open the possibility of trying again in the future.  For now, I offer you...TLW.

Best wishes.

[atypican]

No. I don't. Him accusing me of thinking that the objective nature of
reality is shaped by what we think about it is a false accusation. Him
making the claim that self canonization is somehow premised on the
assumption that the objective nature of reality is subject to human
thoughts and opinions is also not truthful. Where in the world he gets
the idea that I think that way, I don't know, but I've told him quite
specifically on more than one occasion that I don't think that way and
he ignores that. What should I do? He ignores what I say too much.
Here I'll go back and answer his post more thoroughly, with admittedly
failing faith,

On Mar 25, 7:34 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:54 PM, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > UGH!
>
> atyp, your frustration is clearly expressed, and when Brock's responses were
> limited to a succinct version of "...objective reality is not dependent our

> awareness of it...", I shared in your appeal for more...but now that he *has
> * offered more, do you acknowledge his legitimate critique of your thesis?

[atypican]

Thank you OM.

I notice the absolutist either or mentality, obscures the truth often
enough.

On Mar 25, 3:01 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[atypican]

> > Truth = that which improves awareness; Who disagrees and why?
>
> The "why" behind the rejection of the principle "truth = that which
> improves awareness" is not dependent upon "what I think" or "how I
> feel".

So you are saying that your actions are not dependant on what you
think and feel. I think you are wrong about that.

> It is in fact, completely not reliant upon any human dialectic
> one may have to offer.

I am assuming that "it" in the above sentence refers to the cause (the
"why")of your rejection of my proposed maxim. Your rejection of it IS
based on what you think, and what you think IS based at least in part
on human dialectic. Do you expect me to believe that you somehow stand
outside the influences of the humans you've interacted with?

> Instead, by the law of contradiction, I note
> it is not true that BOTH:
>
> a) the objective nature of reality is limited by humankind's
> perception/awareness of it
> b) the objective nature of reality is not limited by humankind's
> perception/awareness of it

BOTH of those statements do not need to be true in order for my
statement to be valid.

> So noting b) and relating the consequences of not-A are not exercises
> in my personal subjective dialectic .

comes across as gibberish.....really ..not trying to be rude.

On Mar 24, 2:14 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[David Janca]

Did you miss OM's point?

I think the best example is the one of seed - tree

I don't think formal logic is necessarily inadequate, but I think the commentary addresses a prevalent inadequate understanding of logic.

Is a seed a tree? YES and NO.....

Now to clarify more about what I think.

I believe that reality (what really is) *is* in some senses subject to human understanding. Our thoughts and actions are part of reality, that's why.

I do believe there is an objective nature to reality that will not change at all based on what is thought understood or supposed by anyone.

[atypican]

> Sorry, but as the objection penetrates the self-absorption of
> humanistic premises, it is relevant to note.

Somehow the statement "Truth=that which improves awareness" causes you
to think about the self-absorption of humanistic premises. I still
don't know why.

> The citation "ideas depend on perceiving minds for their very
> existence" is from:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism
>
> So relevant is an excerpt from that entry:

I never claimed to subscribe to every other articulation located where
you found the one I do accept.

> "Subjective idealism is a metaphysical theory which reduces physical
> objects to perceiving minds. The simplest and most common version of
> subjective idealism combines subjunctive phenomenalism, the view that
> statements about physical objects can be translated into subjunctive
> conditionals about perceptions, with belief in immaterial minds."

See I think of the above block of text as hardly worth reading....on
the other hand, the simple statement "ideas depend on perceiving minds
for their very existence" is about to get canonised :)

> "This theory contends that individuals can only know sensations and
> ideas of objects, not abstractions such as "matter", and that ideas
> depend on perceiving minds for their very existence. This belief later
> became immortalized in the dictum, "esse est percipi" ("to be is to be
> perceived")."

The statement "to be is to be perceived" is nowhere near as truthful
as "ideas

depend on perceiving minds for their very existence"

> So the relationship is in light of your statement

I see you wanted to lump me in with them, As if I must either wholly
accept or wholly reject "subjective idealism"



On Mar 24, 4:27 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

why not address your own minimum requisite of goodwill? ... after all,
it is you who has resorted to using less than rosy adjectives to
describe my commentary, throwing in sly, pointed and misleading
descriptions of my analysis of god, and calling other peoples god a
fake idol ... now, if i were to do this to you, i would accept that my
goodwill was lacking ...

if you do not feel that i meet your lofty standard of goodwill, why
not post an example of my crime instead of just making vague and non-
specific claims about it? you know, supply some evidence? also,
apologizing for something does not remove the event ... and again, if
you are going to claim that i said something that supports your case,
post it ... you sound a lot like trance gemini who has a nasty habit
of throwing out accusations that she is remiss to backup with
facts ...

On Mar 25, 9:58 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> always) I do so when *neither* of those are clearly evident in the request.

>
> I have already acknowledged and apologized for my use of a term that you

> consider offensive, and made clear that I originally used it *unaware* that

> you would find it offensive since you have used its synonym on several
> occasions.  I didn't hold you accountable for misjudging my intentions when
> I first spoke (even though an assumption of goodwill overlooks such things
> as I consider I have repeatedly done for you) since I don't expect anyone to

> know my motives beyond what I explicitly type...but I *do* hold you
> accountable to show goodwill *after* I clarified my intentions.  The fact

> that even now you refuse to acknowledge my statements of clarification and
> my effort to make amends is evidence of your lack of goodwill.
>

> It is just not *possible* to engage others in lasting, fruitful dialogue in
> a online forum unless *both* sides make a mutual effort to act in good faith

[14SM.jcil]

On Mar 26, 2011, at 0:42, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No. I don't. Him accusing me of thinking that the objective nature of
> reality is shaped by what we think about it is a false accusation. Him
> making the claim that self canonization is somehow premised on the
> assumption that the objective nature of reality is subject to human
> thoughts and opinions is also not truthful. Where in the world he gets
> the idea that I think that way, I don't know, but I've told him quite
> specifically on more than one occasion that I don't think that way and
> he ignores that. What should I do? He ignores what I say too much.
> Here I'll go back and answer his post more thoroughly, with admittedly
> failing faith,

He's not ignoring what you've written, he's pointing out the apparent inconsistency. He's supporting his point by manifesting the clear parallels between specific statements you've made and other philosophies which use the same statements to denounce what you say you believe in (objective truth).

I think if you address the inconsistency (i.e., show how your approach differs from those other philosophies), you'll make progress with him. I'm interested in your response to this too...one of my earlier posts in this thread was an inquiry into your premise and definition of 'self-canonization'.

[SM]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:52 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you OM.

I notice the absolutist either or mentality, obscures the truth often
enough.

atyp, as I thought might be illustrated in the rhetorical question I posted earlier (i.e., "I can fly" leads to <splat>), I don't think OM actually helped you at all.  Seeds lead to trees.  Ok, but if one is looking for an orange tree (presumably because they want oranges) they don't get it by starting from an apple seed.

No truths are being obscured by recognizing that one's starting premise is crucial to the end result.  Surely, you can acknowledge that correlation?

[SM]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:59 AM, David Janca <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

Did you miss OM's point?

I think the best example is the one of seed - tree

I don't think formal logic is necessarily inadequate, but I think the commentary addresses a prevalent inadequate understanding of logic.

Is a seed a tree? YES and NO.....

I read and responded to your other post before seeing this one, but I'll repeat my point here to try to facilitate thread cohesion.

Yes, I see OM's point that seeds become trees...but, I think more germane to the discussion is the point that the tree one seeks is dependent upon the seed one starts with.  Orange trees do not come from apple seeds.

 

I believe that reality (what really is) *is* in some senses subject to human understanding. Our thoughts and actions are part of reality, that's why.

I do believe there is an objective nature to reality that will not change at all based on what is thought understood or supposed by anyone.

Noting that you've qualified your first statement with "in some senses" (but no indication is given as to what sense you mean), without further elucidation I still regard the first statement and second statement as contradictory.

Here's why: Your second statement recognizes that objective reality exists beyond our understanding of it, but your first statement says the opposite ("reality...is...subject to human understanding").

I imagine that the reconciliation of that contradiction is contained in your inherent meaning of "in some senses".  Perhaps your elucidation of that phrase will help.

[ornamentalmind]

TY atyp/David…for sharing the appreciation/apprehension of absolutist
thinking. Those who can’t actually step back and observe their
thinking/ beliefs / axioms etc. and thus note that *all* such
conceptualization and use of words is subjective can quite easily miss
much of reality… even though their belief systems attempt to impose a
specific dogmatic set of axioms upon it.

And, yes, apparently contradictory statements can both be ‘true’ even
though this is missed by those who are enmeshed within some dogma or
another … and here I would include things like the ‘rules of debate’,
attachment to thoughts as being reality etc.

And, as you point out there is an objective nature to reality… one not
changing and, adding my words, eternal.

So, yes, Formal Logic has its place…just not in a geocentric way as
being the only method available to us for addressing
conceptualization… let alone for the actual apprehension of reality.

As already mentioned, change is not addressed with that particular
logic. Change is addressed in dialectical thinking… and, actually,
using this logic one ends up with the unending process of change…
sometimes perceived as a ‘war’… between apparent opposites. This too
has its place; however, as before, must be seen (and known) as having
limitations too. This perpetual ‘war’ is seen in debates and online a
lot…here too.

SM, as ‘clear’ as your thoughts are and well presented, attaching to a
position of “No truths are being obscured by recognizing that one's
starting premise is crucial to the end result.” and then stopping …
apparently assuming that one has captured truth by not only
recognizing the use of axioms but then adding to that recognition an
assumption that one can use the very ‘logic’ of using axioms in a
formal logic way…by codifying reality with some undeniable premise…one
is trapped within a closed system. Being able to find the way out of
such a labyrinth can be daunting…if even known to be possible!

Like you have noted and done with a few posters here, it is this sort
of inflexibility that actually precludes any possible interaction
except, perhaps, in a debate format… where one synthetically presents
one position as true and then twists all thought to the support of
such a one pointed view…and is actually why I disengaged with you in
discussion earlier.

Attempting to put it in more cogent terms, attempting to move the
discussion from examples of formal logic to an even more entrenched
formal logic view and using misdirection into fruit orchards as a tool
to maintain such a crystallized view can be seen by many for what it
is.

There is no contradiction in reality. There is apparent contradiction
found within thinking (words & concepts), which is *all* subjective.


On Mar 26, 4:28 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

This is the only forum I participate in, so I'm willing to acknowledge that those of you who actively participate in other forums have reason to consider that there are better ways to express dissent than I observe is done here (or that I personally do myself).  For my part however, I do not interpret dissenting opinions from others as an effort to express anything other than what is explicitly evident in what they've typed.  If their meaning is unclear, I ask for clarification rather than make an assumption as to their meaning or intent.

I acknowledge that I may not always choose phrases that clearly express my intended meaning as well as I'd like.  The same is undoubtedly true of every one of us.  Since I assume the goodwill of others I interact with in the forum (until clear evidence manifests otherwise), I expect that each of us recognizes this reality and willingly accepts that what they perceive is being expressed is perhaps different than what was intended.

OM, you've communicated previously that you're an active participant (even a moderator) in other forums, and on that basis I defer to your experience.  If you consider that there is a better way for me to express my view that both clearly articulates my thoughts and negates a reader's perceived need to assume something about my intentions than I welcome your suggestion(s).  Please be specific.

In the meantime, I find it difficult to reconcile your observation that my posts are "clear and well presented" and yet you attribute an intention to my posts that does not exist.  By this I refer to your following statements:

"...using misdirection..."

"...a tool to maintain..."

"...this sort of inflexibility..."

"...apparently assuming..."

Isn't is also possible that my intentions are as honorable as I assume yours to be?  As I said above, perhaps I could state things better to make not only my thoughts clear but gives the reader no reason to question my motives (something I consider is beyond the purview of those assuming goodwill).  How would you suggest that I express the point that 'ensuring a valid starting premise is crucial to achieving the desired outcome' such that you (or others) don't find reason to question my motives?

[SM]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:33 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Truth = that which improves awareness; Who disagrees and why?
>
> The "why" behind the rejection of the principle "truth = that which
> improves awareness" is not dependent upon "what I think" or "how I
> feel".

So you are saying that your actions are not dependant on what you
think and feel. I think you are wrong about that.

atyp, I didn't perceive that this is what Brock was saying, but I can see from what he's typed how you do.  

I perceived him to be reiterating the larger point that the reason 'why' he disagrees isn't merely a function of what he 'thinks' or 'feels'...but rather the logical conclusion of what you both assert to be true: that 'objective reality' exists beyond what we 'think' or 'feel'.  As I said in an earlier post, I perceived his statement to be suggesting that your original assertion is inconsistent with the truth to which you both manifestly assent.

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:01 AM, ornamentalmind
<ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Formal Logic and Theology:
>
> a is a
> god is god
>
> a is not not-a
> god is not anything else

Actually your position "god is not anything else" does not follow from
the premise: "a is not not-a" ...

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:33 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > Truth = that which improves awareness; Who disagrees and why?
>>
>> The "why" behind the rejection of the principle "truth = that which
>> improves awareness" is not dependent upon "what I think" or "how I
>> feel".
>
> So you are saying that your actions are not dependant on what you
> think and feel. I think you are wrong about that.

No, instead I note that, for example, the objective truth that "1 + 1
= 2" is not affected by human dialectic. A consensus of humans,
synthesizing and analyzing and ruminating and examining their inner
landscape do not change the objective reality of the position.

If no one agreed that "1 + 1 = 2", it would still be objectively true.
If everyone agreed that "1 + 1 = 2", it would not be any *more* true
than if no one did.

So you stated:

> Truth = that which improves awareness

And I note that the objective nature of reality is independent of
humankind's awareness of it.

>>  It is in fact, completely not reliant upon any human dialectic
>> one may have to offer.
>
> I am assuming that "it" in the above sentence refers to the cause (the
> "why")of your rejection of my proposed maxim.

No, it refers to the "truth" portion in your statement:

> Truth = that which improves awareness

Humankind's awareness does not modify, augment, change or improve
truth. Truth does not depend upon humankind's perception, observation
or understanding of it.

> Your rejection of it IS
> based on what you think

Or is simply independent of whether I so think or not. While I do
believe "1 + 1 = 2", it is not the case that my belief adds to,
modifies, augments or otherwise improves the positions truth. It is
simply true regardless of whether or not I so believe. :)

> Do you expect me to believe that you somehow stand
> outside the influences of the humans you've interacted with?

I note that the objective nature of reality is independent of my
observation/understanding of it. :)

You stated:

> Truth = that which improves awareness

To the degree that your equating presupposes a humanistic
pre-condition, it is objectively untenable.

>> a) the objective nature of reality is limited by humankind's
>> perception/awareness of it
>> b) the objective nature of reality is not limited by humankind's
>> perception/awareness of it
>
> BOTH of those statements do not need to be true in order for my
> statement to be valid.

However, by the law of contradiction, it is not true that BOTH a) and b)

>> So noting b) and relating the consequences of not-A are not exercises
>> in my personal subjective dialectic .
>
> comes across as gibberish.....really ..not trying to be rude.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:41 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, but as the objection penetrates the self-absorption of
>> humanistic premises, it is relevant to note.
>
> Somehow the statement "Truth=that which improves awareness" causes you
> to think about the self-absorption of humanistic premises. I still
> don't know why.

I just consider truth to be independent of awareness, and of course,
if you are referring to something non-human when you use the term
awareness, by all means, please clarify. :)

>> "Subjective idealism is a metaphysical theory which reduces physical
>> objects to perceiving minds. The simplest and most common version of
>> subjective idealism combines subjunctive phenomenalism, the view that
>> statements about physical objects can be translated into subjunctive
>> conditionals about perceptions, with belief in immaterial minds."
>
> See I think of the above block of text as hardly worth reading....

Subjective color commentary noted, thanks e_space.

> on

> the other hand, the simple statement "ideas depend on perceiving minds
> for their very existence" is about to get canonised :)

Epistemologically speaking, its putting lipstick on a sow ... :)

>> "This theory contends that individuals can only know sensations and
>> ideas of objects, not abstractions such as "matter", and that ideas
>> depend on perceiving minds for their very existence. This belief later
>> became immortalized in the dictum, "esse est percipi" ("to be is to be
>> perceived")."
>
> The statement "to be is to be perceived" is nowhere near as truthful
> as "ideas
> depend on perceiving minds for their very existence"

Berkeley was influential, if incorrect, glad you appreciate the theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley#Contributions_to_philosophy

>> So the relationship is in light of your statement
>
> I see you wanted to lump me in with them, As if I must either wholly
> accept or wholly reject "subjective idealism"

Well, the law of contradiction does make it plain:

a) the objective nature of reality is limited by humankind's
perception/awareness of it
b) the objective nature of reality is not limited by humankind's
perception/awareness of it

It is not the case that both a) and b) are true.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:41 AM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the meantime, I find it difficult to reconcile your observation that my
> posts are "clear and well presented" and yet you attribute an intention to
> my posts that does not exist.  By this I refer to your following statements:
>
> "...using misdirection..."
> "...a tool to maintain..."
> "...this sort of inflexibility..."
> "...apparently assuming..."
>
> Isn't is also possible that my intentions are as honorable as I assume yours
> to be?

SM, you have identified and addressed the non-commendable double
standard nicely. It is a currency of accusation that is not uncommon
from those absorbed by a philosophy of "self". :(

Regards,

Brock

[ornamentalmind]

"Actually your position "god is not anything else" does not follow
from

the premise: "a is not not-a" ... " - BO

Actually, it does. However, 'follow' is perhaps a misleading term
here. I listed the 3 axioms of formal logic that you earlier
addressed. I then gave an analogy. An analogy does not 'follow'. An
analogy is an analogy.

Regardless, I will assume that you agree with the first two analogies
associated with the 3 axioms for now.

On Mar 26, 9:12 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:01 AM, ornamentalmind
>

[ornamentalmind]

SM, I consider that you are expressing your view(s) and intentions
quite well. I suggest nothing ‘better’ for you in this regard.

And, I have no difficulty at all accepting and understanding that you
find it difficult to reconcile my apparently differing observations.

Your intentions (nor mine for that matter) in this regard have little
to nothing to do with being ‘honorable’ as far as I’m concerned.

And, I would make no suggestions at all for changes in how you express
your beliefs.

And…as is clearly evidenced here and all over the web, questions of
motivation are a common theme and something impossible to reconcile
and/or remove when it comes to interacting using words and concepts.
People have motives. Period. One such example is found directly above.






On Mar 26, 9:42 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

yeah ... developing ones own philosophy is such a horrible crime! ...
one should just accept and abide by the philosophies of others ... how
silly of me! according to your appreciation of philosophy, and of god,
you would be an atheist if the bible didnt exist, and void of
philosophy if freud didnt write a book ... your absorption of the
words of others is very commendable, for one who wishes to be part of
a mass gullible flock, such as yourself ... so congratulations on
ummm ... oh yeah, your reading skills ... ;-^)

lets see ... you call others by my name to insult them for saying
something you deem less than civil? ... what should we use your name
for? ummm ... oh yeah, the repetitive mindless rhetoric of others ...
you rock at that! ;-^)

On Mar 26, 11:42 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[atypican]

> > I believe that reality (what really is) *is* in some senses subject to
> > human understanding. Our thoughts and actions are part of reality, that's
> > why.
>
> > I do believe there is an objective nature to reality that will not change
> > at all based on what is thought understood or supposed by anyone.
>
> Noting that you've qualified your first statement with "in some senses" (but
> no indication is given as to what sense you mean), without further
> elucidation I still regard the first statement and second statement as
> contradictory.
>
> Here's why: Your second statement recognizes that objective reality exists
> beyond our understanding of it, but your first statement says the opposite
> ("reality...is...subject to human understanding").
>
> I imagine that the reconciliation of that contradiction is contained in your
> inherent meaning of "in some senses". Perhaps your elucidation of that
> phrase will help.

There are things (Need I give an example?) about reality (not the
objective nature of reality) that will change should an individuals
beliefs change. Now this being true does not change the objective
nature of reality. reality is not completely objective. The objective
nature of reality is by definition always objective.

Would you concede that a persons beliefs (even false ones) are a part
of reality?

On Mar 26, 5:28 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 3:22 PM, ornamentalmind
<ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Actually your position "god is not anything else" does not follow
> from
> the premise: "a is not not-a" ... " - BO
>
> Actually, it does. However, 'follow' is perhaps a misleading term
> here. I listed the 3 axioms of formal logic that you earlier
> addressed. I then gave an analogy. An analogy does not 'follow'. An
> analogy is an analogy.

And in this particular circumstance flawed. The formal laws of logic
cited do not follow the chain you presented.

Regards,

Brock

[atypican]

> No truths are being obscured by recognising that one's starting premise is

> crucial to the end result. Surely, you can acknowledge that correlation?

uh huh but I don't acknowledge the relevance of that point to an
objection to the statement : Truth=that which improves awareness.

I don't see how repeatedly pointing out that certain fundamental
things about reality cannot be changed by the conscious endeavour of
humankind has anything to do with my opening statement. Regarding
Brock's misguided guesses about what premises I am operating from, his
only effort is to try figuring out how to label the way I think so he
can wholly discount whatever I say based on a previous complete
rejection of Xism point of view that he thinks he's fully considered.

Stereotyping is quite the problem. Once a group gets labelled and
condemned by the prevailing orthodoxy, it's like anyone who so
identifies, gets completely dismissed with not enough regard for their
individuality.

On Mar 26, 5:09 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

"And in this particular circumstance flawed. The formal laws of
logic

cited do not follow the chain you presented." - BO

Perhaps "the formal laws of logic" don't; however, the laws of Formal
Logic do...which is all that I claimed.

Burn that straw man! ;-)

On Mar 26, 1:45 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 3:22 PM, ornamentalmind
>

[e_space]

thought it was getting a tad hot in here ;-^)

On Mar 28, 1:13 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[atypican]

That was cool, Brock can acknowledge an illogical statement made by
you (as an example of ill logic) that fails in the same way that his
logic does.

The comments aren't coming as quick now....I hope it's due to careful
consideration :)

On Mar 26, 1:22 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[SM]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 3:39 PM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

And…as is clearly evidenced here and all over the web, questions of
motivation are a common theme and something impossible to reconcile
and/or remove when it comes to interacting using words and concepts.
People have motives. Period. One such example is found directly above.

Noted.  I just consider that there is a difference between questioning and assuming and that the latter is beyond the purview of those communicating with goodwill, particularly when applied to the motives and intentions of others.

[SM]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:38 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

There are things (Need I give an example?) about reality (not the

objective nature of reality) that will change should an individuals
beliefs change. Now this being true does not change the objective
nature of reality. reality is not completely objective. The objective
nature of reality is by definition always objective.

Would you concede that a persons beliefs (even false ones) are a part
of reality?

Perhaps, but can you suggest in what way you mean (I can only think that you mean their personal sense of reality, but perhaps you mean something different)?

In this thread we've equated the term 'reality' with what the forum has been referring to as 'objective truth'.  The beliefs that one holds may be what they consider to be their reality, but their sense of reality may in actuality be very different from what is 'objectively true' (hence the need for an external source of reliable truth to validate our beliefs against).

[e_space]

whats the matter sm, cant you have a debate with someone unless they
are smiling at you? your demand for goodwill is wearing a bit thin,
especially since you do not always treat people the way you wish them
to coddle you ... methinks ye would not last long in a debate because
of your massive sensitivities ... if you are going to make factual
sounding statements that you cannot support, expect some backlash ...
please? there, is that better?

On Mar 29, 2:01 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 3:39 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com

[e_space]

do you have "an external source of reliable truth to validate our
beliefs against"? and please dont say the bible ... btw, im not
expecting a response ... i know how horribly affected you are by my
lack of goodwill ;-^)

On Mar 29, 2:13 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:38 PM, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are things (Need I give an example?) about reality (not the
> > objective nature of reality) that will change should an individuals
> > beliefs change. Now this being true does not change the objective
> > nature of reality. reality is not completely objective. The objective
> > nature of reality is by definition always objective.
>
> > Would you concede that a persons beliefs (even false ones) are a part
> > of reality?
>
> Perhaps, but can you suggest in what way you mean (I can only think that you

> mean *their* personal sense of reality, but perhaps you mean something

> different)?
>
> In this thread we've equated the term 'reality' with what the forum has been
> referring to as 'objective truth'.  The beliefs that one holds may be what

> they consider to be *their* reality, but their sense of reality may in

[ornamentalmind]

“…I just consider that there is a difference between questioning and

assuming and that the latter is beyond the purview of those
communicating
with goodwill, particularly when applied to the motives and intentions
of

others. “ – SM

Again…an either/or proclamation!

Many realize that there are other options and we also realize the
impossibility of communicating with those who don’t… at least on this
level.




On Mar 29, 12:01 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 3:39 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com

[SM]

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 12:24 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

his only effort is to try figuring out how to label the way I think so he
can wholly discount whatever I say based on a previous complete
rejection of Xism point of view that he thinks he's fully considered.

Stereotyping is quite the problem. Once a group gets labelled and
condemned by the prevailing orthodoxy, it's like anyone who so
identifies, gets completely dismissed with not enough regard for their
individuality.

atyp, I enthusiastically agree with you (combating erroneous stereotypes about 'Christians' and 'Protestantism' keeps me rather busy in this forum), and just as I backed you up on your request of Brock for a more comprehensive response, I would do the same in this case if it appeared to me that you were being stereotyped (by him or anyone else).

However, as I tried to point out earlier, I perceive that rather than simply stereotyping you, Brock made the effort to demonstrate the parallels which exist between specific statements that you've made and those of other believe systems that utilize the very same statements to denounce their belief in 'objective truth'.  It seems to reasonable to me that one would find cause to expect consistency of belief when noting such parallels.  I'm still actually hoping that you can bring clarity to the difference in your beliefs and the other philosophies mentioned.

I revisited your earlier post where you said the following:

"I believe that reality (what really is) *is* in some senses subject to human understanding. Our thoughts and actions are part of reality, that's why."

I thought even more about the second sentence in that statement and about what your intended meaning might be.

I can see (and agree) that our actions contribute to 'reality'; what we do has real consequence in 'reality'. I likewise agree that our thoughts ultimately have consequences as well, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean since I think that this is a rather theological notion...so that leads me to the following question:

Are you suggesting that 'reality' is 'in the eye of the beholder', so to speak?  If so, that doesn't seem consistent with the idea that 'reality' exists objectively regardless of what our personal perceptions are. 

[SM]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:22 PM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

“…I just consider that there is a difference between questioning and

assuming and that the latter is beyond the purview of those
communicating
with goodwill, particularly when applied to the motives and intentions
of

others. “ – SM

Again…an either/or proclamation!

Many realize that there are other options and we also realize the
impossibility of communicating with those who don’t… at least on this
level.

Not intending to be 'impossible' to communicate with (I think I rather demonstrate otherwise), I invite you to point out the 'other options'.  When you do, please also point out which one was relevant in your recent post to me on Mar 26.  Thanks.

[atypican]

> I can see (and agree) that our actions contribute to 'reality'; what

> we *do* has

> real consequence in 'reality'. I likewise agree that our thoughts ultimately
> have consequences as well, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean since I
> think that this is a rather theological notion...

Well I won't discard notions of mine just because you think it's
theological, but I'd love to read an explanation of why you do.

> Are you suggesting that 'reality' is 'in the eye of the beholder', so to
> speak?

No. That statement is too ambiguous and I could easily see how *it*
(but not other statements I've made) could be interpreted as "How we
see things is how they really are" which is not always the case.

On Mar 29, 7:22 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 12:24 AM, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > his only effort is to try figuring out how to label the way I think so he
> > can wholly discount whatever I say based on a previous complete
> > rejection of Xism point of view that he thinks he's fully considered.
>
> > Stereotyping is quite the problem. Once a group gets labelled and
> > condemned by the prevailing orthodoxy, it's like anyone who so
> > identifies, gets completely dismissed with not enough regard for their
> > individuality.
>
> atyp, I enthusiastically agree with you (combating erroneous stereotypes
> about 'Christians' and 'Protestantism' keeps me rather busy in this forum),
> and just as I backed you up on your request of Brock for a more
> comprehensive response, I would do the same in this case if it appeared to

> me that you *were* being stereotyped (by him or anyone else).

>
> However, as I tried to point out earlier, I perceive that rather than simply
> stereotyping you, Brock made the effort to demonstrate the parallels which
> exist between specific statements that you've made and those of other
> believe systems that utilize the very same statements to denounce their
> belief in 'objective truth'.  It seems to reasonable to me that one would
> find cause to expect consistency of belief when noting such parallels.  I'm
> still actually hoping that you can bring clarity to the difference in your
> beliefs and the other philosophies mentioned.
>
> I revisited your earlier post where you said the following:
>
> "I believe that reality (what really is) *is* in some senses subject to
> human understanding. Our thoughts and actions are part of reality, that's
> why."
>
> I thought even more about the second sentence in that statement and about
> what your intended meaning might be.
>
> I can see (and agree) that our actions contribute to 'reality'; what

> we *do* has

[14SM.jcil]

On Mar 29, 2011, at 23:15, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I can see (and agree) that our actions contribute to 'reality'; what
>> we *do* has
>> real consequence in 'reality'. I likewise agree that our thoughts ultimately
>> have consequences as well, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean since I
>> think that this is a rather theological notion...
>
> Well I won't discard notions of mine just because you think it's
> theological, but I'd love to read an explanation of why you do.

I assure you no disrespect was intended...I just didn't anticipate that you would consider the notion in the same way I do, or for the same reasons. If you do, great...one more area of common ground!

>
>> Are you suggesting that 'reality' is 'in the eye of the beholder', so to
>> speak?
>
> No. That statement is too ambiguous and I could easily see how *it*
> (but not other statements I've made) could be interpreted as "How we
> see things is how they really are" which is not always the case.

Excellent, it appears that we have agreement on this too!

[atypican]

what a load of worthless drivel

[14SM.jcil]

On Mar 29, 2011, at 23:44, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

> what a load of worthless drivel
>
> On Mar 29, 5:30 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> whats the matter sm...

I concur, atyp...but the dissent means more coming from you.

[atypican]

> Perhaps, but can you suggest in what way you mean (I can only think that you

> mean *their* personal sense of reality, but perhaps you mean something
> different)?

I don't *think* you misunderstood me.

> In this thread we've equated the term 'reality' with what the forum has been
> referring to as 'objective truth'.

The we doesn't include me. I make a distinction in meaning (obviously
not clearly enough yet) between the terms truth and reality.

I am inclined to believe (to paraphrase Plato) that serious things
cannot be understood without laughable things, or opposites at all
without opposites. The opposite of truth is falsehood. Falsehood has
the same relationship with truth as darkness has to light. There is
nothing unreal that exists, but falsehood exists. So if falsehood is
part of reality it wouldn't agree with my logic to think of reality
and truth as synonymous.

On Mar 29, 1:13 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:38 PM, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are things (Need I give an example?) about reality (not the
> > objective nature of reality) that will change should an individuals
> > beliefs change. Now this being true does not change the objective
> > nature of reality. reality is not completely objective. The objective
> > nature of reality is by definition always objective.
>
> > Would you concede that a persons beliefs (even false ones) are a part
> > of reality?
>
> Perhaps, but can you suggest in what way you mean (I can only think that you

> mean *their* personal sense of reality, but perhaps you mean something

> different)?
>
> In this thread we've equated the term 'reality' with what the forum has been
> referring to as 'objective truth'.  The beliefs that one holds may be what

> they consider to be *their* reality, but their sense of reality may in

[e_space]

another trance gemini type statement, full of loathing and empty of
explanation ... maybe you would see the relevance of my commentary if
SM was to quit communicating with you because of a perceived lack of
goodwill, especially after using less than pleasant commentary him/
herself ... i just cant describe how devastated i am by your comment,
since your approval of what i say is so desperately needed! ;-^)

[e_space]

i see ... so youve added "worthless drivel" to the other adjectives
you have used to describe my commentary have you? ... yet you claim
goodwill is important to you? lol ... you speak out of both sides of
your mouth, and then shut it when you cannot support your claims ...
you are starting to resemble brock more and more every day ... must be
hard faking a pleasant attitude, when in reality you are full of
something substantially less than what you proclaim ...

On Mar 29, 10:54 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[14SM.jcil]

On Mar 30, 2011, at 0:30, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Perhaps, but can you suggest in what way you mean (I can only think that you
>> mean *their* personal sense of reality, but perhaps you mean something
>> different)?
>
> I don't *think* you misunderstood me.

Are you suggesting then, that we each have a personal 'reality' (rather than a universal 'objective' one - which is where I thought we were)? If so, can you please say in what way you distinguish the idea of their 'reality' from the idea of their 'experience'? Thanks.

>
>> In this thread we've equated the term 'reality' with what the forum has been
>> referring to as 'objective truth'.
>
> The we doesn't include me. I make a distinction in meaning (obviously
> not clearly enough yet) between the terms truth and reality.

Ok, I've noted (and agree) with the distinction you're making between 'truth' (without any modifiers) and 'reality'. Please note that my comment specified a correlation between 'objective truth' (note the modifier) and your term 'reality'.

> I am inclined to believe (to paraphrase Plato) that serious things
> cannot be understood without laughable things, or opposites at all
> without opposites. The opposite of truth is falsehood. Falsehood has
> the same relationship with truth as darkness has to light. There is
> nothing unreal that exists, but falsehood exists. So if falsehood is
> part of reality it wouldn't agree with my logic to think of reality
> and truth as synonymous.

Ok...but now I have to ask you to define 'reality' again because you now seem o be using it differently than you did at the start of this thread.

Previously, I was under the impression that by 'reality' you were referring to everything which is 'objectively true'. I think you said that truth (unmodified) informs us about reality (which implied that 'reality' is your term for 'objective truth'). In this usage, 'reality' necessarily excludes falsehoods, so your use of the term in this recent post appears inconsistent.

[ornamentalmind]

SM, I have no doubt that your intention is to communicate.

In this sense and from my post of the 26th, one simple option
apparently overlooked is knowing.

You are welcome...

On Mar 29, 6:30 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:22 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com

[SM]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:34 AM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

SM, I have no doubt that your intention is to communicate.

In this sense and from my post of the 26th, one simple option
apparently overlooked is knowing.

OM, are you actually suggesting that your comments in your post from the 26th are based on your knowledge of my unstated intentions and motivations?!

[ornamentalmind]

Seldom do I respond to rhetorical questions...however; I'll make an
exception.

Yes.

On Mar 30, 4:56 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:34 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com

>
> > wrote:
> > SM, I have no doubt that your intention is to communicate.
>
> > In this sense and from my post of the 26th, one simple option
> > apparently overlooked is knowing.
>
> OM, are you actually suggesting that your comments in your post from the

> 26th are based on your *knowledge* of my unstated intentions and
> motivations?!

[SM]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:26 PM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

Seldom do I respond to rhetorical questions...however; I'll make an
exception.

Yes.

My question wasn't rhetorical (but you really knew that...right? :)

I was a little incredulous for a moment, OM, but then it occurred to me that Gnosis might actually give one cause for such a claim...so I looked into it a little bit.  I didn't find as much on the association between Gnosis and 'reading minds' as I had hoped, but I did find a few links (you no doubt are aware of some better links and I'd appreciate if you'd care to share).  Not sure if you'd personally identify with anything that's contained in any of the following, but I'll concede that such a notion may actually be part of your beliefs and respect it as such.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

While I respectfully acknowledge your beliefs, I observe that thus far your 'knowledge' concerning me has lacked acuity, and respectfully request that you limit your comments to my explicit statements.  I'll continue to do the same for you.

BTW, are you familiar with a man named Mark Pritchard (a.k.a. Belzebuub) and TGM?  Is my perception correct that TGM is not part of 'mainstream Gnosticism'?

[ornamentalmind]

SM:

1. No link is going to help one grok gnosis.
2. My ‘beliefs’ have nothing to do with this.
3. I will continue to comment about your explicit statements as you do
mine.
4. I don’t remember ever hearing about Mark Pritchard nor TGM.
5. I’ve read some of (not 3 times) G’s “Beelzebub's Tales to His
Grandson”
6. I’ve addressed Beelzebub in specific practices.
7. Other practices and experiences address “The Fifth” (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Letter_%28Plato%29#Long_digression_on_the_forms_.28341b.E2.80.93345c.29
)
8. Buddhists are in general forbidden to discuss personal stories
about such things ( omniscience )… with specific results if they do.
9. As stated here and elsewhere for decades now I suggest that
Negative Theology is about as well as we are able to do…although with
specific initiates I do otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology


On Mar 30, 6:45 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:26 PM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com

>
> > wrote:
> > Seldom do I respond to rhetorical questions...however; I'll make an
> > exception.
>
> > Yes.
>

> My question wasn't rhetorical (but you really *knew* that...right? :)

>
> I was a little incredulous for a moment, OM, but then it occurred to me that
> Gnosis might actually give one cause for such a claim...so I looked into it
> a little bit.  I didn't find as much on the association between Gnosis and
> 'reading minds' as I had hoped, but I did find a few links (you no doubt are
> aware of some better links and I'd appreciate if you'd care to share).  Not
> sure if you'd personally identify with anything that's contained in any of
> the following, but I'll concede that such a notion may actually be part of
> your beliefs and respect it as such.
>

> Link 1 <http://www.authentixcoaches.com/AgeofGnosis.html>
> Link 2 <http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/s-sati2.htm>
> Link 3 <http://www.metahistory.org/gnostique/archonfiles/KundaliniForce.php>

>
> While I respectfully acknowledge your beliefs, I observe that thus far your
> 'knowledge' concerning me has lacked acuity, and respectfully request that
> you limit your comments to my explicit statements.  I'll continue to do the
> same for you.
>
> BTW, are you familiar with a man named Mark Pritchard (a.k.a.

> Belzebuub<http://www.movementsofgnostics.com/2010/08/28/our-family%E2%80%99s-ex...>)

[SM]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:42 PM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

SM:

1.      No link is going to help one grok gnosis.
2.      My ‘beliefs’ have nothing to do with this.
3.      I will continue to comment about your explicit statements as you do
mine.
4.      I don’t remember ever hearing about Mark Pritchard nor TGM.
5.      I’ve read some of (not 3 times) G’s “Beelzebub's Tales to His
Grandson”
6.      I’ve addressed Beelzebub in specific practices.
7.      Other practices and experiences address “The Fifth” (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Letter_%28Plato%29#Long_digression_on_the_forms_.28341b.E2.80.93345c.29
)
8.      Buddhists are in general forbidden to discuss personal stories
about such things ( omniscience )… with specific results if they do.
9.      As stated here and elsewhere for decades now I suggest that
Negative Theology is about as well as we are able to do…although with
specific initiates I do otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

1. Fair enough.  I consider the same is true of authentic Christianity.  In both cases however, I consider that when someone is seeking there's probably a place we can direct them to begin their search.

2. We're not talking about something you believe?

3. Thanks.

4 & 5: I perceive then that the Mark Pritchard referenced in the link may be a parallel to David Koresh.

6. You've "addressed"...as in you've spoken to him...?

7. Do you consider that you've ever perceived "The Fifth"?

8. Interesting.

9. Yep; I recognize the link.  Thanks.

[ornamentalmind]

1. For Paths of the Book, yes, there is a ‘place’ one can be directed.
Of course, the very notion of ‘authentic’ is fraught with both
subjectivity and the resulting controversy. To me, your use of the
wiggle word ‘probably’ speaks volumes.
2. No
3. You are welcome…this even though you requested me to do otherwise.
4. &
5. Did you know either? What did you like, not like about them?
6. In such areas I don’t anthropomorphize these things… other than as
a method for clear recognition and in particular cases practice
Theurgy.
7. Yes
8. I found it so when discussing it with them. Of course, there are
more Schools of Buddhism than there of Christianity!...what with it
being older and all – so the paths and beliefs are both numerous and
often appear to be contradictory.
9. You are welcome. In part, as many are aware…when speaking of things
Divine, words being subjective and all, Negative Theology is about as
far as most can go.

On Mar 31, 5:56 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:42 PM, ornamentalmind <
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ornamentalmind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > SM:
>
> > 1.      No link is going to help one grok gnosis.
> > 2.      My ‘beliefs’ have nothing to do with this.
> > 3.      I will continue to comment about your explicit statements as you do
> > mine.
> > 4.      I don’t remember ever hearing about Mark Pritchard nor TGM.
> > 5.      I’ve read some of (not 3 times) G’s “Beelzebub's Tales to His
> > Grandson”
> > 6.      I’ve addressed Beelzebub in specific practices.
> > 7.      Other practices and experiences address “The Fifth” (
>

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Letter_%28Plato%29#Long_digressi...

[atypican]

I disagree with the use of 'objective truth' because I think truth
necessarily has to do with an individual accurately perceiving. where
reality does not.

> Ok...but now I have to ask you to define 'reality' again because you now seem o be using it differently than you did at the start of this thread.

Reality=what actually exists

responses will slow for a bit do to life. :)

On Mar 30, 4:53 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:19 AM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

1.      For Paths of the Book, yes, there is a ‘place’ one can be directed.
Of course, the very notion of ‘authentic’ is fraught with both
subjectivity and the resulting controversy. To me, your use of the
wiggle word ‘probably’ speaks volumes.
2.      No
3.      You are welcome…this even though you requested me to do otherwise.
4.      &
5.      Did you know either? What did you like, not like about them?
6.      In such areas I don’t anthropomorphize these things… other than as
a method for clear recognition and in particular cases practice
Theurgy.
7.      Yes
8.      I found it so when discussing it with them. Of course, there are
more Schools of Buddhism than there of Christianity!...what with it
being older and all – so the paths and beliefs are both numerous and
often appear to be contradictory.
9.      You are welcome. In part, as many are aware…when speaking of things
Divine, words being subjective and all, Negative Theology is about as
far as most can go.

1. I mention it because since I think the distinction is of supreme importance, and recognize that the existence of the distinction is not universally understood, especially both those who have only a cursory understanding of Christianity (some of which consider themselves 'Christians', interestingly enough).

3. This response indicates that in your previous you were being coy.  Since I asked you to 'show me respect as I do you', and you replied that you will 'treat me as I treat you', and then subsequently revealed that you considered your response to be the opposite of what I was asking for...I perceive that perhaps you consider I haven't shown you respect at some point.  If that's the case, I assure you your perception is a misunderstanding of something I've written.  I invite you to repost whatever it is so that I can clarify my original meaning.

5. Both appear to be a perversion of the original to suit their self-serving objectives.  I consider such motivation anathema in any belief construct.

6. I had to look up 'Theurgy'; interesting concept.  'Addressing Beelzebub' (which I perceive is an entity of some kind) is part of that practice then?

7. Assuming that words are inadequate to describe the experience, what prepared you to be able to recognize and interpret the experience as a perception of "The Fifth"?

8. Do you personally find greater affinity for Buddhism or Gnosticism, or equally for both (since perhaps you don't view them as different)?

9. I recognize it's only a start (and don't anticipate that I'll ever grok it as you do), but I appreciate your effort to suggest a starting point.

[SM]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:42 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

I disagree with the use of 'objective truth' because I think truth
necessarily has to do with an individual accurately perceiving. where
reality does not.

Ok, I think I see the distinction you're making and as I tried to elucidate earlier, the forum has been using the term 'objective truth' (with the modifier) to mean the same thing as you mean by 'reality'.  In other words:

Reality == what actually exists == 'objective truth'

Regardless, I'm cool with using your preferred term.

Also as I tried to elucidate earlier, I agree that 'truth' (without the modifier) is not the same thing as 'reality', and that therefore what each of us personally regards as 'truth' should necessarily be recognized as possibly inconsistent with 'reality'.

Which leads me back to the notion I expressed earlier that those ideas which we consider to be 'true' need to be validated against something that we consider is authoritative in its ability to inform us of 'reality'.

[SM]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:27 AM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. I mention it because since I think the distinction is of supreme importance, and recognize that the existence of the distinction is not universally understood, especially both those who have only a cursory understanding of Christianity (some of which consider themselves 'Christians', interestingly enough).

Apologies...I note a couple of mistypes in my first attempt (an unfortunate result of multitasking) which may make my meaning more difficult to discern.  #1 reposted with corrections:

1. I mention it because I think the distinction is of supreme importance, and recognize that the existence of the distinction is not universally understood, especially by those who have only a cursory understanding of Christianity (some of which consider themselves 'Christians', interestingly enough).

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:13 PM, ornamentalmind
<ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "And in this particular circumstance flawed.  The formal laws of
> logic
> cited do not follow the chain you presented." - BO
>
> Perhaps "the formal laws of logic" don't; however, the laws of Formal
> Logic do

Not true, as you yourself noted:

"I then gave an analogy. An analogy does not 'follow'"

In particular you stated:

> a is a
> god is god
>
> a is not not-a
> god is not anything else

So specifically, "god is not anything else" is not entailed by "a is
not not a" applied to "god is god"

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:37 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That was cool, Brock can acknowledge an illogical statement made by
> you (as an example of ill logic) that fails in the same way that his
> logic does.
>
> The comments aren't coming as quick now....I hope it's due to careful
> consideration :)

Always. You are worthy of no less. :)

Regards,

Brock

[SM]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:19 AM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

1.      For Paths of the Book, yes, there is a ‘place’ one can be directed.
Of course, the very notion of ‘authentic’ is fraught with both
subjectivity and the resulting controversy. To me, your use of the
wiggle word ‘probably’ speaks volumes.

8.      I found it so when discussing it with them. Of course, there are
more Schools of Buddhism than there of Christianity!...what with it
being older and all – so the paths and beliefs are both numerous and
often appear to be contradictory.

A couple of supplementary thoughts regarding these two points:

1.  The notion of 'authenticity' to which I refer is not nearly as 'subjective' as you might suppose.  I rather think that it's somewhat like 'gnosis' in a manner of speaking.

8.  I understand that Buddhism was founded approximately 600 BC.  Christians worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who lived more than a millenia earlier...consequently, I don't consider that Buddhism is 'older' than Christianity.  Similarly, I don't consider it accurate to say that "there are more Schools of Buddhism that there [are] of Christianity" (how does one assess such a thing anyway?  if we consider by virtue of the number of adherents, Buddhism reportedly ranks about 6th).  Nevertheless, I acknowledge what I think was the essence of your point: specifically your characterization that there are numerous paths and beliefs (which sometimes appear contradictory) which lead to the ideas expressed within Buddhism.

[ornamentalmind]

3. No, not ‘coy’ at all. I was very direct…very. Otherwise, I’m not
interested in your rules.
5. Your belief is noted.
6. No, not an entity…as I stated earlier, I’m not ‘into’
anthropomorphism in general.
7. ‘Twasn’t ‘preparation’…however, knowing something in and of itself
is part and parcel of this, no?
On the other hand, perhaps you are asking about what practice produced
what result?
8. From one School of Buddhism…paraphrased: Neither Buddhism
(Gnosticism) nor Not-Buddhism (Gnosticism) nor Both nor neither.


On Mar 31, 8:27 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:19 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com

> it as you do), but I appreciate your effort to suggest a starting point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

"...So specifically, "god is not anything else" is not entailed by "a
is
not not a" applied to "god is god"" - BO

Yes it is.

On Mar 31, 10:57 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:13 PM, ornamentalmind
>

[ornamentalmind]

1. Your thought is ‘somewhat’ noted ‘in a manner of speaking’.
8. Your beliefs and acknowledgements are noted.


On Mar 31, 1:05 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:19 AM, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com

>
> > wrote:
> > 1.      For Paths of the Book, yes, there is a ‘place’ one can be directed.
> > Of course, the very notion of ‘authentic’ is fraught with both
> > subjectivity and the resulting controversy. To me, your use of the
> > wiggle word ‘probably’ speaks volumes.
> > 8.      I found it so when discussing it with them. Of course, there are
> > more Schools of Buddhism than there of Christianity!...what with it
> > being older and all – so the paths and beliefs are both numerous and
> > often appear to be contradictory.
>
> A couple of supplementary thoughts regarding these two points:
> 1.  The notion of 'authenticity' to which I refer is not nearly as
> 'subjective' as you might suppose.  I rather think that it's somewhat like
> 'gnosis' in a manner of speaking.
> 8.  I understand that Buddhism was founded approximately 600 BC.  Christians
> worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who lived more than a millenia
> earlier...consequently, I don't consider that Buddhism is 'older' than
> Christianity.  Similarly, I don't consider it accurate to say that "there
> are more Schools of Buddhism that there [are] of Christianity" (how does one
> assess such a thing anyway?  if we consider by virtue of the number of
> adherents, Buddhism

> reportedly<http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html>ranks

[atypican]

> Which leads me back to the notion I expressed earlier that those ideas which
> we consider to be 'true' need to be validated against something that we
> consider is authoritative in its ability to inform us of 'reality'.

Or how do we become more or less certain that we are placing or
withdrawing our trust wisely?......

The individual is the highest authority regarding what they themselves
perceive to be true. While many find a great deal of comfort in
thinking to themselves that they have found someone else (or some
group) even more reliable then themselves to trust, my thinking is
that even those think that they are placing their complete trust in
someone other than themselves, they can't avoid FIRST trusting their
own judgement. Do you disagree?



On Mar 31, 9:41 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

i realize the silence of the sheep is now playing, and therefore dont
expect a reply ... but thats ok ... i'll spew my worthless drivel
anyway ...

i wonder who taught those who are "authoritative in its ability to
inform us of 'reality'"? where did they get their "reality" from? ...
where did they get their "authority" from? did they get it from
others? did they get it from themselves? ... if its the latter, why is
it so bad for people to figure out their own reality, as those ancient
"saints" did? did all of a sudden someone say ... "ok, thats it, no
more contemplation, we have done it all for you, just sit back and
enjoy the glow of our wisdom"?

those with the "authority of reality" (almost makes me choke just
saying it) got part of it from a man who climbed a mountain and
claimed god had revealed a morality code to him ... do we really need
moses to tell us that murder is wrong? is there something inherently
wrong with the community conscience to not come to this conclusion
without some bearded man we have never met? ... nowadays, if someone
claims that god is talking to them, they are likely in an asylum, or
pleading their case in front of a judge ...

in the physical world, reality is much easier to determine ... but
humans are much more than physical bodies ... they are complex
psychological entities, whose realities are often filled with much
more than physical objects ... is a person who is seeing snakes all
over the walls not experiencing reality? imo, for the more important
things in life, reality is in the eye of the beholder ...

what does it really matter if one knows the physical composition of
gold, or if they have a bank vault full of it? ... what kind of
reality is more important than happiness? for those who consider
spiritual growth as important, why survive under the "authority" of
someone elses conclusions ... thats like being a moon instead of a
star

we all have spirit, and to me it is up to the individual to remove the
pile of crap that is hiding it, to become intimate with it, polish it,
and enjoy the labor that will result from that exercise ... a book and
its associated rhetoric can never provide that ...