Self Dialog

[atypican]

For as long as I can remember I've been practicing what for lack of a
better term I will call "self dialog"

I can't help but think that theists are doing the same thing (during
what they think of as prayer) and regarding the responses they conjure
themselves as coming from an infallible entity.

As always, I would love to read arguments that challenge the way I
think.

[ornamentalmind]

OK, as a beginning salvo to “challenge the way” you think, what do you
base your belief upon that theists are ‘self dialog’ing?

Continuing: Do you recognize any ‘infallible’ knowledge, whether from/
contained by an entity or not?

Of what value is your personal self dialog to you?...how do you use
it? How do you imagine any ‘new’ notions arise during such a
practice?...not only how, but from whence?

[atypican]

> OK, as a beginning salvo to “challenge the way” you think, what do you
> base your belief upon that theists are ‘self dialog’ing?

The presupposition that all people have fundamentally the same make up
as I do. And that the things people do, are done for basically the
same reasons.

> Continuing: Do you recognize any ‘infallible’ knowledge, whether from/
> contained by an entity or not?

If I understand your question, the answer is no. Additionally I think
that for knowledge to exist at all there must be a knowing entity. As
yet, I make no distinction between "knowledge" and "strong belief"

> Of what value is your personal self dialog to you?

Immeasurable

>...how do you use it?

Not sure I can explain how. I use it for many things, but chiefly to
decide for myself what my priorities are.

> How do you imagine any ‘new’ notions arise during such a
> practice?...not only how, but from whence?

I am influenced by my interaction with the rest of the world.

here a haiku:).....

"I am aware of
myriad influences
of which I am not" ~atypican



On Apr 16, 5:10 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

Thanks for the responses!

We could go many different ways next; however, what interests me
personally includes:

First, would you expand a bit on what you consider a ‘knowing entity’
to be? And, IF it starts out something like being a human being with a
brain, please go as much deeper as you possibly can.

Secondly, (nice haiku) I greatly appreciate the notion(s) there. You
seem to assume the following: an “I”, awareness, ‘myriad influences’
which I’ll guess mostly imply that which seems to be outside of ‘self’…
including but not limited to other humans, perhaps books, movies etc.
And lastly, you differentiate between these ‘influences’ and ‘self’.
Somehow you see one as not being the other. Not disagreeing here, but
how does that work in your epistemology?

Thanks!

[atypican]

> First, would you expand a bit on what you consider a ‘knowing entity’
> to be? And, IF it starts out something like being a human being with a
> brain, please go as much deeper as you possibly can.

A challenging question that can expose the inadequacies of language.
nice

What we (being human beings with brains) call knowledge is formed as
we witness and interact with reality.
Our actions and experiences result in the forming of patterned
impressions on, in and about us that can help us, hinder us, or both.

Do you think it's truthful to say that books contain knowledge? Or is
it that knowledge only exists *within* living beings?

If you are up to it, I'd like to read an explanation of any
relationship and/or distinction you make between memory and knowledge.

> You seem to assume the following: an “I”, awareness, ‘myriad influences’
> which I’ll guess mostly imply that which seems to be outside of ‘self’…
> including but not limited to other humans, perhaps books, movies etc.
> And lastly, you differentiate between these ‘influences’ and ‘self’.
> Somehow you see one as not being the other. Not disagreeing here, but
> how does that work in your epistemology?

Are my roots part of me? I suppose to say Yes and No would violate the
logical rule of non-contradiction :)


On Apr 16, 9:08 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

> First, would you expand a bit on what you consider a ‘knowing entity’
> to be? And, IF it starts out something like being a human being with a

> brain, please go as much deeper as you possibly can. - OM

“…What we (being human beings with brains) call knowledge is formed
as
we witness and interact with reality…” – David

Quick question: Does knowledge exist outside of the realm of humans?
In other words, *if* there were no humans, would knowledge exist?

“…Our actions and experiences result in the forming of patterned
impressions on, in and about us that can help us, hinder us, or both…”
– David

It is interesting that you look towards a practical aspect of this.
And, yes, we do form abstract structure patterns based upon our past
experiences to explain reality. Yet, to me, since such patterns are
not reality itself, we are not seeing reality…merely the past. So, one
would only expect said ‘result’ to have random and unpredictable
manifestations.

“…Do you think it's truthful to say that books contain knowledge? Or
is
it that knowledge only exists *within* living beings?...” – David

I do not see this as an either/or issue.

“…If you are up to it, I'd like to read an explanation of any

relationship and/or distinction you make between memory and

knowledge…” – David

Great question!

As already stated, memories are not reality. They are just memories.
The same is true of what we project upon the future…not reality. All
that is ‘real’ is the present. In this sense, knowledge is being
eternally in the now.

“…Are my roots part of me? I suppose to say Yes and No would violate
the
logical rule of non-contradiction :) …” – David

Actually, the axiom of noncontradiction is but one of 3 found in
Formal Logic. Formal Logic does not explain the totality of reality
nor being primarily because it does not address change…something we
are well aware of. So, I do not demand nor wish to follow those 3
axioms alone when discussing things epistemological.

As an aside, neither do I wish to embrace the 3 axioms of dialectics
alone either – this even though they do address change… but not quite
in the way it exists nor in an ultimately practical way.

As I see it, what you are calling ‘roots’ are but the past and are but
a phantom. This is what I interpreted from your haiku at least… “of
which I am not”. At the same time, one cannot say that memories and
our past experiences don’t exist because we all have memories. There
is no contradiction here.

Some Buddhist Schools address this when pointing towards consciousness
when they say: “Neither being nor non-being nor both nor neither.”

Of course, the above comes from Hinduism…and is said to be what
Gautama was contemplating upon when he attained enlightenment under
the bodhi tree.

[atypican]

> Quick question: Does knowledge exist outside of the realm of humans?
> In other words, *if* there were no humans, would knowledge exist?

Not as so termed i suppose, but yeah, I think humans are not the only
species that profit by using what we refer to as knowledge.

> It is interesting that you look towards a practical aspect of this.
> And, yes, we do form abstract structure patterns based upon our past
> experiences to explain reality.

Most use them just to cope with reality, and be comfortable.

> Yet, to me, since such patterns are
> not reality itself

They truthfully exist in reality though....these patterns. Reality is
reality, nothing else can BE reality but must be described as part of
reality. So the map is not the territory is an argument against mental
bureaucracy right? :)

, we are not seeing reality…merely the past. So, one
> would only expect said ‘result’ to have random and unpredictable
> manifestations.

Obviously not necessarily!

> “…Do you think it's truthful to say that books contain knowledge? Or
> is
> it that knowledge only exists *within* living beings?...” – David
>
> I do not see this as an either/or issue.

So do you really think knowledge could exist were there no living
beings?

> Some Buddhist Schools address this when pointing towards consciousness
> when they say: “Neither being nor non-being nor both nor neither.”

Yeah some do get a little nutty with it. let go of ALL concept of
value, make no distinctions, pay no attention to memories of the past
or dreaming of the future. Care not! I reject that rubbish

But I have taken to heart the Buddhist admonition not to believe or
accept anything which doesn't agree with my own reason and common
sense. Dualism/non-dualism contemplation I think is a non-
philosophical diversion away from thinking about things that really
matter. I find the ideology of non-attachment to be unattractive.





On Apr 18, 5:06 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>

[ornamentalmind]

What ideology are you attracted to?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:26 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For as long as I can remember I've been practicing what for lack of a
> better term I will call "self dialog"
>
> I can't help but think that theists are doing the same thing (during
> what they think of as prayer) and regarding the responses they conjure
> themselves as coming from an infallible entity.

No doubt you do. But the objective nature of reality is not limited
by your ability to "can't help but think". Or put another way:

Humankind is not the measure of all things.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:28 PM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But I have taken to heart the Buddhist admonition not to believe or
> accept anything which doesn't agree with my own reason and common
> sense.

But the objective nature of reality is not limited by your assessment
of it. That is:

[e_space]

your boring record is skipping, brock-of-all-ageless repetitions ;-^)

On Apr 22, 3:37 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[atypican]

Open Source Religion. It's one that encourages it's adherents to
consider ideologies themselves in less of a monolithic sense and more
in a modular sense.

Consider what we refer to as Buddhism. I spoke of not being attracted
to the teachings of non-attachment associated with it. I am not saying
that these teachings can't be interpreted in a healthy manner. I do
however think that that line of thinking is all to easy to pervert and
take to an unhealthy extreme, so I don't find it attractive.

On Apr 18, 7:31 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[atypican]

> No doubt you do.

What is it that you have no doubt I do?

On Apr 22, 12:36 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[atypican]

> Not this theist.

Well neat. You don't fit my idea of what it means to be theist.

> Do you imagine that prayer is a question-and-answer session?

Not necessarily,but sometimes yes. Most times I think of prayer as just not remaining silent about things that matter.

Do you think that Q and A sessions never occur during prayer?

On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not this theist.  Do you imagine that prayer is a question-and-answer
session?  That seems to be what you're getting at.

[atypican]

I grant A and B (patiently over and over)

A: The objective nature of reality is not limited by by my assessment
of it.
B: Humankind is not the measure of all things

Are you arguing that people *should* do things like make oaths that
they don't even understand?

here, a haiku....

"if you make an oath
that you do not understand
you won't be alone." ~ atypican



On Apr 22, 12:37 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ornamentalmind]

David, not having been familiar with ‘open source religion’, a quick
Google led me to much information. From just the first
‘hit’ (Wikipedia), I find that this term has numerous and often non-
similar meanings.

So, even though you gave a reference to one tenet of some sects of
Buddhism, I remain unclear as to what you actually are attracted to
( or even what you are actually not-attracted to). More info might
help. Thanks

As to your apparent concern about a tenet (“line of thinking”)
becoming “perverted” (“taken to an unhealthy extreme”) …without
actually meaning to go all relativistic on you here, does it not seem
possible for each and every ‘line of thinking’ to become ‘perverted’
in a similar manor?

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[14SM.jcil]

On Apr 25, 2011, at 16:44, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As to your apparent concern about a tenet (“line of thinking”)
> becoming “perverted” (“taken to an unhealthy extreme”) …without
> actually meaning to go all relativistic on you here, does it not seem
> possible for each and every ‘line of thinking’ to become ‘perverted’
> in a similar manor?

I'm in agreement with OM yet again (actually it happens more often then I make known)...the question he asks relates directly to my earlier contention that we need to validate our 'line if thinking' with an external standard that we consider to be reliable and trustworthy.

Note: I don't mean to imply they OM reaches the same conclusion as I have for how one avoids 'perversion' in our lines of thought...only that I think he's asking the right question.

[ornamentalmind]

SM, thank you for your clarifying your agreement here. And, of course,
I do think I ask many of the ‘right’ question(s).

I will say to be clear that in no way did I mean to imply that one
‘needs to validate our line of thinking with an external standard…’ –
whether it be considered reliable and trustworthy or not.

Yet, I’m not sure of the wisdom of asking you the epistemological
question of what you consider to be ‘external’… for I believe we have
already danced around that one before and seemed to be speaking
different languages, no?


On Apr 25, 4:51 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[atypican]

> I remain unclear as to what you actually are attracted to
> ( or even what you are actually not-attracted to). More info might
> help. Thanks

> > > > So do you really think knowledge could exist were there no living
> > > > beings?
>
> > > > > Some Buddhist Schools address this when pointing towards consciousness

> > > > > when they say: “Neither being nor non-being nor both nor neither.”.

I am attracted to those willing to make distinctions. Despite the
recognition that we constantly make inadequate and/or inappropriate
distinctions, giving up is not a path. The pursuit of truth and virtue
cannot be undertaken if happiness and comfort is the primary concern.

Shall I applaud those adept at ignoring dilemmas and problems?

> does it not seem
> possible for each and every ‘line of thinking’ to become ‘perverted’
> in a similar manor?

Sure it does. but some (I am referring to articulate expressions)
stand out to me as being especially susceptible and ripe.



On Apr 25, 1:44 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »

[atypican]

> we need to validate our 'line if thinking' with an external standard that we consider to be reliable and trustworthy.

I don't see how you can get around that any trust someone has in the
reliability of an external standard, is necessarily rooted in self
trust. No one addresses this when I bring it up.

We cannot help but trust ourselves first.......refute that if you can

On Apr 25, 4:51 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

what if one does not have "an external standard that we (they)
consider to be reliable and trustworthy"? that sounds like voting for
someone who you dont really like or trust, but they seem better than
the others ... i have found no such reliable and trustworthy source,
and therefore looked elsewhere, thankfully ... btw, im not expecting a
response, as i realize you shy away from issues you cant address
within the limited scope of your belief system ...

On Apr 25, 7:51 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

i'll buy shares in that supposition ...

[14SM.jcil]

On Apr 26, 2011, at 1:46, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The pursuit of truth and virtue
> cannot be undertaken if happiness and comfort is the primary concern.

Excellent.

[14SM.jcil]

On Apr 26, 2011, at 2:01, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> we need to validate our 'line if thinking' with an external standard that we consider to be reliable and trustworthy.
>
> I don't see how you can get around that any trust someone has in the
> reliability of an external standard, is necessarily rooted in self
> trust. No one addresses this when I bring it up.

atyp, I think I've offered [limited] agreement in other recent posts.

[14SM.jcil]

On Apr 26, 2011, at 7:56, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> what if one does not have "an external standard that we (they)
> consider to be reliable and trustworthy"? that sounds like voting for
> someone who you dont really like or trust, but they seem better than
> the others ... i have found no such reliable and trustworthy source,
> and therefore looked elsewhere, thankfully ... btw, im not expecting a
> response, as i realize you shy away from issues you cant address
> within the limited scope of your belief system ...

Actually e, since I've found that you make a habit of unsubstantiated accusations of others, my typical reason for not responding to your posts is because I don't often read many of them.

I did take note when atyp nailed you on exactly this point...and left *you* unable to respond...

[ornamentalmind]

“…I am attracted to those willing to make distinctions. Despite the

recognition that we constantly make inadequate and/or inappropriate
distinctions, giving up is not a path. The pursuit of truth and
virtue
cannot be undertaken if happiness and comfort is the primary concern.

Shall I applaud those adept at ignoring dilemmas and problems? …” –
Atyp

David, thanks for responding.

This medium, being what it is…leaves room for miscommunication so,
rather than comment much on your words w/o knowing what you were
addressing, I’ll merely ask a few more Qs, OK?

First, I too have no problem with those willing to make
distinctions. . . at least not as a generic class. Yet even here, in
the long run I’d delve much deeper into what is being addressed.

In short, I take most of your words above to be addressing some sort
of Buddhism…is this what you mean to be doing? And, sadly, I have even
less of an idea of what you personally are meaning to say with the
term ‘Open Source Religion’. Perhaps it isn’t that important in our
interaction…I’ll leave this particular valuation up to you.

Earlier I was asking questions with the intention of getting you to
question some of your own views too…in case you didn’t notice! ;-)
This was what I was doing when I pointed to the possibility for *all*
‘lines of thinking’ (ideologies do fit in here too) to become
‘perverted’…whatever this means to you. In this sense, rather than
moving into some sort of school of thought that is ‘modular’, I
suggest more of an integral approach…one that doesn’t exclude. In this
sense, things that appear to be monolithic in fact are but parts of a
much larger whole…as are your OSR ‘modules’, see?

In one sense I agree with you about paths towards comfort and
happiness…this even though those two goals are near or at the
forefront of just about every human psyche on the planet! To me, they
are more of the result…rather than a goal.

Somehow you interpret there as being some ‘sect’ or group of people
who advocate ‘giving up’ and/or ‘ignoring dilemmas and problems’. No
such group comes to mind for me…perhaps you would unpack some more
here too?

Thanks!

OM

> ...
>
> read more »

[e_space]

sorry S&M, i have no idea what you are talking about ... furthermore,
i dont believe that you dont read many of my posts, especially since
you used to respond to every one of them until you found an inadequacy
to answer some of the questions i was asking you ... seems rather odd
that you are now making "unsubstantiated accusations" yourself while
demanding clarity from others ... a little introspection required
perhaps?

could you possibly take the time to point out one unsubstantiated
accusation that i have made, or maybe cite the post when atyp "nailed"
me? one doesnt get crucified every day, so i think i would have
noticed it if it had happened ... you avoid responding to my pointed
questions, and then finally make a post to me that contains nothing
but fluff ... youre disappointing me S&M ... i had you pegged for a
bit more substance ...

speaking of unsubstantiated commentary, every time you make a silly
comment like "he is risen!!", you meet the criteria of such
accusations aimed at me ... you constantly make factual sounding
comments about god, that you in fact, have no idea about .... why not
try to address your own trait to do what you have vaguely accused me
of doing ... i will then consider your words to carry more weight ...
until then, they will continue to waft away into the airways of
insignificance ...

On Apr 26, 9:52 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:44 PM, ornamentalmind <ornament...@gmail.com> wrote:

This medium, being what it is…leaves room for miscommunication so,
rather than comment much on your words w/o knowing what you were
addressing, I’ll merely ask a few more Qs, OK?

An admirable approach.  Kudos. 

[Joe]

Interesting to see this post replied to, I had deleted the original.
My reason for deleting is was that I re-thought whether or not I was
ready to jump back in yet. But, you saw it in just the right timing,
it would seem, and I don't mind continuing.

On Apr 25, 1:03 am, atypican <atypi...@freepressbible.org> wrote:
> > Not this theist.
>
> Well neat. You don't fit my idea of what it means to be theist.
>

Specifically, I meant that I do not think of myself as "regarding the
responses [I] conjure [myself] as coming from an infallible entity."
I don't think that such a thing, either, is a necessary part of what
it means to be a theist.

To be a theist means to hold that God speaks to humanity in some way.
That does not necessarily entail that He speaks to me directly. And
in fact, I have been through interior experiences where I beheld
thoughts, that seemed to me like they were coming from God, or at
least, that it seemed to me I was leaning towards viewing as coming
from God, but I resisted placing my faith in those thoughts. I don't
know whether I am effectively conveying what I mean here. In the
interior state that I was in, it was very attractive to me and would
have been very comforting for me to just place my faith in those
thoughts. I was seeking God interiorly, and wanted to find Him. But,
at the same time, the desire to place my faith in those thoughts or in
the content of those thoughts seemed like a temptation to vainglory.
In other words, it would have been all too easy to just accept those
thoughts as a direct communication from God, and thus, to believe
about myself that I had a special line of communication to Him, not
only one-way, but both ways. But I resisted, and chose instead what
Saint John of the Cross calls the Dark Night of the Soul, i.e.
spiritual desolation, dryness, the feeling that God was nowhere to be
found. Because, if you're praying, you are seeking God, but if you
say to yourself while you are praying that the thoughts you are
experiencing do not necessarily come from God, then what are you left
with? Nothing, that's what. The Dark Night.

Now I am no novice when it comes to prayer, and what I did here is
consistent with Catholic Doctrine. What I did insured me against
deception, against taking my own thoughts for the voice of God. I
know God revealed Himself in His Church, and following the teachings
of the Church is all that anyone needs, to know God's Will. There is
no guarantee to anyone that God will speak to them directly. But
there is a guarantee, which if you think about it is only logical,
that IF God really does have a message for an individual, then He will
get it through. He is not limited in the ways that are at His
disposal. So the proper thing to do, if you think you are receiving a
special revelation, is to resist it, since we are warned that Satan
disguises himself as an angel of light, to deceive even the elect,
were that possible. Consistently, whenever a Saint has received a
special revelation, it was the case that God got it through in spite
of their resistance, because God is omnipotent.

A lot of words, to try to clearly convey this thought of mine to you.
But these things are difficult to express properly.

> > Do you imagine that prayer is a question-and-answer session?
>
> Not necessarily,but sometimes yes. Most times I think of prayer as just not
> remaining silent about things that matter.
>

O.K.

Here is another idea that may delight you: Saint Teresa said, prayer
is nothing more or less than a loving conversation with He whom, we
know, loves us.

Now to seemingly contradict all that I said above, Saint Teresa is of
course right. She is *Saint* Teresa after all! And prayer is a
conversation, and a conversation is generally thought of as a two-way
affair. This is true, but what I said above is also true. So it's
sort of like a Zen koan; they seem to contradict, how can they both be
true?

The resolution is simple: you just have to be careful. It is not that
God cannot or even does not communicate with any of us directly, but,
we can't presume that He will or that He must or that any thought that
occurs to us in prayer came from Him. We have to check it against the
Church, and against what God has revealed publicly to all. He will
never contradict Himself.

> Do you think that Q and A sessions never occur during prayer?

Hopefully, I've answered this above. But my point, in answer to your
original post, is that I view prayer as substantially distinct from an
interior dialogue. I also talk to myself; I reason within myself, I
ask myself questions, and I get answers from myself. All of that, I
recognize as me reasoning within myself. It is useful to divide
myself into querent and oracle. But that isn't the same thing I'm
doing when I pray. When I pray, I am seeking God, and not in the
sense of seeking answers from God, but rather, seeking God for His own
sake, because I want to be with Him. Since I already am irrevocably
with myself, it cannot be the same thing. Unless I were to hold that
God is none other than myself; but that is not what I hold. I am a
devotee, not an advaitist.

[e_space]

having a hard time addressing my questions are you S&M? ... or are you
just relying on that old "your attitude doesnt meet my standard of
civility" ploy to avoid discussing the issues that you have no answer
for? you wouldnt last long in a formal debate my friend ...

On Apr 27, 8:44 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:44 PM, ornamentalmind <
>

[SM]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:35 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

having a hard time addressing my questions are you S&M? ... or are you
just relying on that old "your attitude doesnt meet my standard of
civility" ploy to avoid discussing the issues that you have no answer
for? you wouldnt last long in a formal debate my friend ...

OM writes:

"This medium, being what it is…leaves room for miscommunication so rather than comment much on your words w/o knowing what you were addressing, I’ll merely ask a few more Qs, OK?"

To which I observe:

"An admirable approach.  Kudos."

And somehow you feel slighted by that exchange, spacey?  Your narcissism is astounding.  Sad really.

If you have a question that you've directed my way and don't feel as though I have sufficiently paid it homage, I invite you to post it again.  I am now resolved that my expectation for mutual goodwill among forum participants has been misplaced.  I'll do my best to engage with you on your terms until I tire of the exchange.

I admit (as I have before) that there may be things you ask that I cannot answer.  When that occurs, I'll let you know.  Until then, your accusations are baseless.

[e_space]

i dont feel slighted in the least S&M ... certainly not by your
avoidance of my issues ... it really makes little difference to me
whether you address the points i am raising or not [just pointing it
out], as in reality, i am not expecting a response of any significance
anyway ... proselytizing doesn't cut it, and that is about all i
anticipate when you are in a corner ...

On Apr 29, 7:49 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:12 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

i dont feel slighted in the least

Ok, so how do you consider that my lauding of something that OM wrote is somehow avoiding a question you've asked?

[e_space]

i dont, just noting that you had not responded to my previous post ...
that doesnt make me feel bad or slighted, just noting your avoidance
of issues, presumably that you have no substantial response to ...

On Apr 29, 12:24 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:49 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

i dont, just noting that you had not responded to my previous post ...
that doesnt make me feel bad or slighted, just noting your avoidance
of issues, presumably that you have no substantial response to ...

You continue to claim "avoidance" but I have yet to see one example substantiate your claim.  Since I continue to ask you to provide me with a question to answer couldn't it be that I am not 'avoiding'?  Why are you 'avoiding' my request for a question? (see, we can both take that childish approach but it doesn't get us very far, does it?)

If you have a question that I missed, please repost it.  Meanwhile I'll search back through this thread to see if I can find what you're possibly referring to...

[SM]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:52 PM, 14SM.jcil <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:

I did take note when atyp nailed you on exactly this point...and left *you* unable to respond...

By the way, for someone who is quick to accuse others of 'avoiding'...when are you gonna get around to responding to atyp's spot-on critique of you...?  Methinks YOU are the one who finds it convenient to 'avoid'.

[SM]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

sorry S&M, i have no idea what you are talking about ... furthermore,
i dont believe that you dont read many of my posts, especially since
you used to respond to every one of them until you found an inadequacy
to answer some of the questions i was asking you ... seems rather odd
that you are now making "unsubstantiated accusations" yourself while
demanding clarity from others ... a little introspection required
perhaps?

could you possibly take the time to point out one unsubstantiated
accusation that i have made, or maybe cite the post when atyp "nailed"
me? one doesnt get crucified every day, so i think i would have
noticed it if it had happened ... you avoid responding to my pointed
questions, and then finally make a post to me that contains nothing
but fluff ... youre disappointing me S&M ... i had you pegged for a
bit more substance ...

speaking of unsubstantiated commentary, every time you make a silly
comment like "he is risen!!", you meet the criteria of such
accusations aimed at me ... you constantly make factual sounding
comments about god, that you in fact, have no idea about .... why not
try to address your own trait to do what you have vaguely accused me
of doing ... i will then consider your words to carry more weight ...
until then, they will continue to waft away into the airways of
insignificance ...

Is the post you mean?  I hadn't even looked at this until now.  Is there a legitimate question here that you're looking for an answer to...? 

[SM]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:56 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

what if one does not have "an external standard that we (they)
consider to be reliable and trustworthy"? that sounds like voting for
someone who you dont really like or trust, but they seem better than
the others ... i have found no such reliable and trustworthy source,
and therefore looked elsewhere, thankfully ... btw, im not expecting a
response, as i realize you shy away from issues you cant address
within the limited scope of your belief system ...

Perhaps this is the post.  I do remember reading this, and was interested in responding...until I read your last statement.   You were actually still expecting me to respond (such that you would later accuse me of 'avoiding') even after writing this last statement?  Would you if someone treated you that way?

(BTW - I'll respond to your first question in another post)

[S M]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:56 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

what if one does not have "an external standard that we (they)
consider to be reliable and trustworthy"? 

Based on the previous discussion about how we need an external standard to validate our opinions and beliefs against, my answer to your question seems self-evident: "Then get one."

Since the answer seems so self-evident, I speculate that perhaps you're really trying to ask something more than is merely contained in the words you've typed.  Perhaps you're trying to ask "What if one can't find an external standard that they consider reliable and trustworthy?"

Assuming that's your question (if it's not, then please restate), I would first say: "They're not looking hard enough."  I would say that because external standards abound.  For example, if one is looking for truth about history, there are an abundance of reliable sources of truth about history.  What gets fun is comparing and contrasting one with another and discovering which standard is most reliable based upon its comportment with observable reality.

I'd suggest following the same approach with any area of interest.  Evaluate all standards against the evidence at hand and honestly assess their comportment with observable reality.   Those which are valid will withstand repeated tests of honest scrutiny.

[e_space]

i have no idea what post you are referring to ... and since you just
said that without providing reference, i cannot respond ... sorry

On Apr 29, 1:08 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:52 PM, 14SM.jcil <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I did take note when atyp nailed you on exactly this point...and left *you*
> > unable to respond...
>
> By the way, for someone who is quick to accuse others of 'avoiding'...when

> are *you* gonna get around to responding to atyp's spot-on critique of

[e_space]

re: "Then get one." ... sorry, none exists, and if you had any
inclination about spirit, you would not suggest this ... spiritual
growth is attained alone, from my experience ... spiritual joy cannot
be passed from one to another with any clarity or accuracy ... yes, it
can be shared between two like-spirited individuals, but talking about
spirit to one who has no idea about it, will draw a blank every
time ...

unfortunately [or should i say, fortunately], history and god are
vastly different ... history of human events or observations
abound ... they are a dime a zillion ... the history of god is non-
existent ... very little to compare to im afraid ... especially to one
who considers religious teachings to be invented by man, for self-
serving reasons, and having absolutely no relationship to god ...

actually, i even stopped reading books about philosophy when i was
young, because i did not want what i read to bastardize my conscious
self growth ... i feel the same way about spiritual growth ... that
this draws sneers from the likes of you and brock is of absolutely no
concern to me ...

On Apr 29, 4:22 pm, S M <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 7:51 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

i have no idea what post you are referring to ... and since you just
said that without providing reference, i cannot respond ... sorry

e_space accused:

"his avoidance of your pointed questions could actually turn into a disappearing act, as it
has done in my case"

atyp queried:

"If it's not too much trouble can you point me to a conversation where
this plainly occurred?"

e_space predictably replied:

"im not really interested in doing the research for you"

atyp provided:

"it's overshadowed by the general tone you take towards them. It comes

across to me as condescending. I expect that they notice the same and

it makes it all the more easier for them to justify ignoring you

altogether. If you aren't in to treating people like they have a

perspective worth sharing, you are posting in the wrong group.

catch my drift?"

After noting your repeatedly unsubstantiated accusations, atyp asked for specific examples (as I've done) and predictably received none.  You're right in saying that you "cannot respond" because you had nothing to begin with.  When called on it (repeatedly), you couldn't substantiate your accusation(s).

Catch atyp's drift.

[Joe]

"if you had any inclination about spirit, you would not suggest this"

--- is out of line. You do not hold the monopoly on spirit.

"spiritual growth is attained alone, from my experience"

--- may be your experience, but your experience cannot lead to a
universal statement about spiritual growth, so, still out of line, but
better.

You still sound extremely closed-minded, which usually does not
indicate authentic spiritual growth. Just my 2 cents.

[e_space]

yes ... your drift is quite evident ... however, why did you not post
my response to atp's post so that a clearer picture is available ...
you claim that he somehow put me in my place with this comment, yet
you fail to provide both sides of the story ... post the thread and
i'll look at it

you know S&M, if i do condescend, at least it is not disguised as you
and brock do ... you hide your insults with niceties that are very
transparent ... why not address all the adjectives you have used to
describe me, and ask yourself if this is civil?

getting back to the avoidance issues ... did you ever respond to the 6
day creation thingy? ... eve from adams rib?

On Apr 30, 12:06 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

i see ... so do you think that the people who wrote the "inspired
words of god" got these inspirations while dancing at the local pub,
or during a debate, or maybe during the heights of love making? do you
think moses had a party up on the mountain or was alone?

so joe, if you did not have "an external standard that *you* consider
to be reliable and trustworthy", where would you go to "get one"? if
one does not accept the bible as such, is there any other reliable
source of information about spirit that you suggest? about god? would
you "go get one" at the library? a mosque? a tibetan cave? a seance?
any suggestions?

how can one gain spiritual growth from another human? they may be
warmed by that persons spiritual glow, but that does not give them
spiritual knowledge ... like i asked in another post, what would you
rather be, a light, or the reflection of a light? the sun or the
moon?

i may seem "extremely closed-minded" to you, but thankfully a person
who has read and believed, without any factual support, is not in a
position to offer a relevant evaluation ... what i find close minded
is to accept what one has been told, without any evidence ... other
words for this are gullible, naive, blind faith, etc ...

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:25 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No doubt you do.
>
> What is it that you have no doubt I do?

I don't doubt that with a buoyant optimism you "think that theists are
doing the same thing".

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:14 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I grant A and B (patiently over and over)
>
> A: The objective nature of reality is not limited by by my assessment
> of it.
> B:  Humankind is not the measure of all things
>
> Are you arguing that people *should* do things like make oaths that
> they don't even understand?

I'm making clear that a buoyant optimism:

"I can't help but think that theists are doing the same thing"

is not a well founded epistemological normative.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:01 AM, atypican <david...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> we need to validate our 'line if thinking' with an external standard that we consider to be reliable and trustworthy.
>
> I don't see how you can get around that any trust someone has in the
> reliability of an external standard, is necessarily rooted in self
> trust. No one addresses this when I bring it up.

Well, I've been saying for years:

* Humankind is not the measure of all things.
* The standard that measures the standard is the standard.

And, of course, noting Bahnsen. :)

Diedzoeb started a wonderful debate thread in the past:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/755abf6d7fe04803

"Why atheism is the reasonable default position."

I responded to him there:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/c2730523b702246c

To the degree that you might substitute trust in "self" as a similar
default instead of Deidzoeb's atheism, I consider the similar
arguments apply.

Now, as far as your self-serving comments:

"No one addresses this when I bring it up."

It ("essence precedes existence" vs. "existence precedes essence"[1])
is one of the most voluminous debates in all of philosophy and
epistemology, full of prior references, and I, if no one else, have
been much more direct in addressing this than a self-focused
characterization might otherwise give credit. :)

> We cannot help but trust ourselves first.......refute that if you can

God is not similarly limited. :)

That was easy.

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence

[e_space]

yes ... you have been saying the same thing over and over and over and
over for years ... anything new anticipated?

re: "God is not similarly limited" ... speaking for god are we? my my,
what a lofty position you must hold ... ;-^)

On Apr 30, 12:45 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 2:01 AM, atypican <davidmja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> we need to validate our 'line if thinking' with an external standard that we consider to be reliable and trustworthy.
>
> > I don't see how you can get around that any trust someone has in the
> > reliability of an external standard, is necessarily rooted in self
> > trust. No one addresses this when I bring it up.
>
> Well, I've been saying for years:
>
> * Humankind is not the measure of all things.
> * The standard that measures the standard is the standard.
>
> And, of course, noting Bahnsen. :)
>
> Diedzoeb started a wonderful debate thread in the past:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/755abf6d7f...

>
> "Why atheism is the reasonable default position."
>
> I responded to him there:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/c2730523b7...

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:12 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes ... you have been saying the same thing over and over and over and
> over for years ... anything new anticipated?

You make it sound bad. ;0

> re: "God is not similarly limited" ... speaking for god are we? my my,
> what a lofty position you must hold ... ;-^)

Just sharing the good news of God's wonderful grace and mercy. All
the credit and merit is His, not mine. ;0

Regards,

Brock

[SM]

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:48 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

did you ever respond to the 6 day creation thingy? ... eve from adams rib?

What is a "6 day creation thingy", "eve from adams rib"?

Are there legitimate questions you're trying to ask?

I do remember providing support for an assertion I made regarding creation vs evolution some time ago, and upon receiving my rather comprehensive response to your challenge you quickly backed away with something like "let's just call it a puzzle then" (paraphrasing).

[Joe]

On Apr 30, 6:07 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i see ... so do you think that the people who wrote the "inspired
> words of god" got these inspirations while dancing at the local pub,
> or during a debate, or maybe during the heights of love making? do you
> think moses had a party up on the mountain or was alone?
>

They were with God; i.e., not alone.

> so joe, if you did not have "an external standard that *you* consider
> to be reliable and trustworthy", where would you go to "get one"?

Ask God about that in prayer.

>if
> one does not accept the bible as such, is there any other reliable
> source of information about spirit that you suggest?

Where would one get off deciding not to accept the Bible as such? Not
that I hold the Bible to be the only reliable source, but I do hold it
to be the Word of God, and as such, definitely reliable.

>about god?

God should be the primary interest for anyone pursuing spirituality
per se.

>would
> you "go get one" at the library? a mosque? a tibetan cave? a seance?
> any suggestions?
>
> how can one gain spiritual growth from another human?

1. Through fellowship
2. Through ministry
3. Through prayer
4. Through example
5. Through love

>they may be
> warmed by that persons spiritual glow, but that does not give them
> spiritual knowledge ... like i asked in another post, what would you
> rather be, a light, or the reflection of a light? the sun or the
> moon?
>

I am not the light. At best, I can become a better reflection of the
light. It is not possible for me to become the light; God is the
light.

> i may seem "extremely closed-minded" to you, but thankfully a person
> who has read and believed, without any factual support, is not in a
> position to offer a relevant evaluation ... what i find close minded
> is to accept what one has been told, without any evidence ... other
> words for this are gullible, naive, blind faith, etc ...
>

For the five hundred millionth time, your assessment does not apply to
me. Your continued repetition of the same stale and false accusations
against me is one strong indicator of the complete closure of your
mind. After all, what epitomizes closed-mindedness more than stubborn
attachment to one's views about another after one has been informed
repeatedly by that other that his views are incorrect?

The source of my belief is not uncritical acceptance of what I've been
told, just because I've been told it. It is both insulting and
foolish for you to continue to insist that that is the source of my
belief. Kindly find a better drum to beat.