The paradox of argument.
bigfl...@gmail.com
If so, consider this.
Why is it important to win others over to your pov? By definition, it
is 'yours' after all.
My suggestion being, the main reason is to 'reinforce' ones own pov,
because there is a sense of uncertainty.
I remember many years ago convincing a few people on a particular
issue, whereby they followed my direction, but did so without much
conviction, more to do with following my authority (important with
young children. I remember thinking that I preferred the previous
situation.
That was before I understood the separation of the individuality from
the universal (one) mind, which is always looking for answers in the
wrong place.
If you can convince others, that is just a way of trying to convince
yourself. An exercise in power, not wisdom.
BOfL
Immortalist
wrote:
Difference amplification is the process whereby baseline differences
between two competing members of the same group are magnified by the
outcome of the competition through its effect on relative status,
mood, self-confidence and attractiveness. Success tends to increase
the winner’s self-confidence, elevate mood and breed success, while
repeated failure can undermine the loser’s self-confidence and
initiative, lower mood and reduce attractiveness, rendering the
individual prone to further failure. This leads to a cycle of success
for the winner and a possible maladaptive cycle for the loser. To the
extent that one of two individuals engaged in conflict has a genetic
advantage over the other during their encounters, the initial
advantage might be compounded by difference amplification.
http://human-nature.com/ep/articles/ep0292104.html
Social status is the "standing", the honour or prestige attached to
one's position in society. Note that social status is influenced by
social position.
In modern societies, occupation is usually thought of as the main
dimension of status, but even in modern societies other memberships or
affiliations (such as ethnic group, religion, gender, voluntary
associations, fandom, hobby) can have an influence. A doctor will have
higher status than a factory worker, for instance, but in some
societies a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant doctor will have higher
status than an immigrant doctor of minority religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_status
Social position means a position of an individual in a given society
and culture. A given position (for example, the occupation of priest)
may belong to many individuals. Social position influences social
status. One can have several social positions, but only one social
status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_position
Prestige is a word commonly used to describe reputation or esteem,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestige_%28sociology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_role
Human subjectivity has evolved around concerns of status and position.
Generally this has revolved around family and tribal divisions of
labor and the shared production of their shared reality. To see these
primitive capacities, trained and genetically amplified at critical
stages of learning, in modern society reveals the dynamic of nature
and nurture in the extreme. When an peculiar Human Ape is programmed
with the software of modern culture upon the hardware of genetic
influences, pride can easily be lost in the details which drown it's
meaning for our species. Some think pride and status are a way for
females to select the fittest males but at this point in cultural
history this seem a little stereotypical. Pride and status are wrapped
up in the experience of both genders and not muted in one gender, like
useless chest nipples in males, but a shadow or outline that steers us
towarards a skeloton of human nature. At once essential but easily
amplified out of proportion, just another continuum Aristotle might
say he would "erre [error] towards that side of the mean from which I
lack."
Though pride seems meaningless in the abstract universe of bouncing
and bumping atoms, to human experience it is a volatile trait on the
edge of a chaotic human nature.
John Stafford
<0208bee4-9048-47d1...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
"bigfl...@gmail.com" <bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you can convince others, that is just a way of trying to convince
> yourself. An exercise in power, not wisdom.
Do you feel better now?
Mark Earnest
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0208bee4-9048-47d1...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I seek to win people over to reality, not any pov.
Either you are reincarnated or you are not.
The one of these which is correct I seek to cause to be known.
Giga
='He who agrees against his will is of the same opinion still'. In other
words you can't really win someone over by argument or any kind of force.
Ultimately they must persuade themselves, perhaps because of the information
they gain from any discussion with you. Maybe the hollow feeling comes from
knowing, deep down, how futile argument, as compared to discussion, is.
>
> If so, consider this.
>
> Why is it important to win others over to your pov? By definition, it
> is 'yours' after all.
>
> My suggestion being, the main reason is to 'reinforce' ones own pov,
> because there is a sense of uncertainty.
=Yes but I think there are other reasons for this behaviour, such as to
covince oneself more, to try out arguments on someone else or to get at
one's own opinions in some cases, maybe others.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Do you ever feel 'hollow' after 'winning' an argument?
>
> If so, consider this.
>
> Why is it important to win others over to your pov?
What's the fucken point in having any POV that is not in any way
linked to reality, sensory reality?
MG
Richo
wrote:
> Do you ever feel 'hollow' after 'winning' an argument?
>
> If so, consider this.
>
> Why is it important to win others over to your pov? By definition, it
> is 'yours' after all.
>
Sometimes its not important - sometimes it is.
If its a guy threatening to knife his Sister in front of me then I
consider it somewhat important to convert him to my POV - that calming
down and putting the knife away is a good idea.
But yeah its just my "point of view"
If your point of view is that disease is caused by evil spirits and my
point of view is that washing your hands after going to the toilet is
a good idea - then that point of view might just save lives.
Ideas and beliefs have consequences.
> My suggestion being, the main reason is to 'reinforce' ones own pov,
> because there is a sense of uncertainty.
>
The main reason is to find the truth - if my argument is defeated then
I have learned something - If my argument wins then it re-confirms
that what I think is reasonable and defensible and I take some pride
in that.
> I remember many years ago convincing a few people on a particular
> issue, whereby they followed my direction, but did so without much
> conviction, more to do with following my authority (important with
> young children. I remember thinking that I preferred the previous
> situation.
>
> That was before I understood the separation of the individuality from
> the universal (one) mind, which is always looking for answers in the
> wrong place.
>
> If you can convince others, that is just a way of trying to convince
> yourself. An exercise in power, not wisdom.
>
Sometimes arguments are just pissing contests - but they don't have to
be.
Sometimes the argument is just a way of exploring ideas and chalenging
yourself and others to actually think about things.
You are making some over-reaching generalizations here I think.
Mark.
ZerkonXXXX
> Do you ever feel 'hollow' after 'winning' an argument?
Possibly due to the fact you do not 'win' an argument unless in formal
debate or a trial were a third non-arguing element then judge which
position was best.
Otherwise if a person or people see your point of view, your view is no
longer just yours.
Arguments might be divided into two groups here. Those that have new
facts introduced common to the argument, and those that are closed.
So in the case of the argument: "The earth is flat", a photo of the
planet earth would win the argument if the other side accepted it as
being fact. This would also be, or should be, a 'hallow' win unless, of
course, the goal of winning is only defeating the other side which,
shockingly, is not the same as winning a argument.
An argument is won when everyone now is willingly on a common side.
Everyone actually "wins".
bigfl...@gmail.com
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
One of the two is correct regardless of the pov, which in most cases,
is a matter of belief either for or against. A good example of my
point.
If you know, it is only through unambiguaous clear conscous
experience, so what is the point of trying to convince others? One
that does, doesnt know, by my definition.
BOfL
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0208bee4-9048-47d1...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Do you ever feel 'hollow' after 'winning' an argument?
>
> ='He who agrees against his will is of the same opinion still'. In other
> words you can't really win someone over by argument or any kind of force.
> Ultimately they must persuade themselves, perhaps because of the information
> they gain from any discussion with you. Maybe the hollow feeling comes from
> knowing, deep down, how futile argument, as compared to discussion, is.
>
Shussssssssh, you will lose 7/8 of the contributers :-)
>
>
> > If so, consider this.
>
> > Why is it important to win others over to your pov? By definition, it
> > is 'yours' after all.
>
> > My suggestion being, the main reason is to 'reinforce' ones own pov,
> > because there is a sense of uncertainty.
>
> =Yes but I think there are other reasons for this behaviour, such as to
> covince oneself more, to try out arguments on someone else or to get at
> one's own opinions in some cases, maybe others.
Which is why believers tend to congregate.
Brain storming is a legitimate process of creating a common image, but
on more of a superficial level.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
Who's reality? Yours as associated with Rand?
Im not talking about the need for a hierarchical system, say, of
running a sheep farm. Pecking orders are universal.Im talking of
subjects relevent to these particular n.groups.(when they dont include
politics).
BOfL
M Purcell
I suspect it is mostly an instinctive need to find your place in a
social hierarchy but I try to keep it rational.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Nov 30, 1:49 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:> Do you ever feel 'hollow' after 'winning' an argument?
>
> Occasionally.
>
> > If so, consider this.
>
> > Why is it important to win others over to your pov? By definition, it
> > is 'yours' after all.
>
> Sometimes its not important - sometimes it is.
> If its a guy threatening to knife his Sister in front of me then I
> consider it somewhat important to convert him to my POV - that calming
> down and putting the knife away is a good idea.
Of course, but Im talking more on a philosophical and even religious
levels.
I often try to persuade the police to not give me a speeding
ticket :-).
>
> If your point of view is that disease is caused by evil spirits and my
> point of view is that washing your hands after going to the toilet is
> a good idea - then that point of view might just save lives.
Again, practical, but even that is subject to further investigation.
There is accumulating evidence that 'too much cleanliness' can weaken
our immune system
>
> Ideas and beliefs have consequences.
Im not 'knocking them' per se. Thats how our society develops. Again,
im talking on a more subjective level. Many couples for example,
create much conflict on this basis. They would sooner be right than
happy.
>
> > My suggestion being, the main reason is to 'reinforce' ones own pov,
> > because there is a sense of uncertainty.
>
> The main reason is to find the truth - if my argument is defeated then
> I have learned something - If my argument wins then it re-confirms
> that what I think is reasonable and defensible and I take some pride
> in that.
With good reason. Perhaps an example Im referring to would be
regarding a subject Mark Ernest brought up regarding reincarnation.
When I first discovered (as opposed to having an open mind) the
reality, I was able to solve so many paradoxes. My first goal was to
inform people close to me.
Thats when I decided to writ a book "How To Lose Friends And Infuriate
People" :-) Ilearned quickly !
>
SNIP
>
> > If you can convince others, that is just a way of trying to convince
> > yourself. An exercise in power, not wisdom.
>
> Sometimes arguments are just pissing contests - but they don't have to
> be.
Deep discussion can be very informative, and great fun, but many feel
confronted.So I can piss hiogher than most, but that is just
genetic :-|)
>
> Sometimes the argument is just a way of exploring ideas and chalenging
> yourself and others to actually think about things.
>
> You are making some over-reaching generalizations here I think.
I hope Ive elaborated on my pov,but of course not to convince you.:-)
BOfL
>
> Mark.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:49:48 -0800, bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Do you ever feel 'hollow' after 'winning' an argument?
>
> Possibly due to the fact you do not 'win' an argument unless in formal
> debate or a trial were a third non-arguing element then judge which
> position was best.
Have you ever been married !. Sure, there are such debates, but how
many of the losing side ever change their views? Depends on how
convinced they are.
I dont remember who it was that said "the majority is always
wrong"..possibly Churchill, but it really resonated with me when I was
a youngster. I was able to develop my own insight, and respect the
majority (best not to tell 'them'...because 'they' reqire converts on
many issues, and see someone with that view as a challenge to be
overcome.
>
> Otherwise if a person or people see your point of view, your view is no
> longer just yours.
It is usually more subtle than that. We have billions of believers to
back that view up.
Have tou ever been listening to some music you find sublime, tell
someone of your view, and then watch them feel the bliss?
>
> Arguments might be divided into two groups here. Those that have new
> facts introduced common to the argument, and those that are closed.
I agree, but to me the word argument i more synonymous with conflict
>
> So in the case of the argument: "The earth is flat", a photo of the
> planet earth would win the argument if the other side accepted it as
> being fact.
Being pedantic, a two dimensional pic does not prove anything,
although I take your point.
> This would also be, or should be, a 'hallow' win unless, of
> course, the goal of winning is only defeating the other side which,
> shockingly, is not the same as winning a argument.
You definately have not beenn married, unless you have/had a wife who
doesnt hold grudges :-)
>
> An argument is won when everyone now is willingly on a common side.
> Everyone actually "wins".
The language of the realm of empiricism . Im talking more on subtle
levels.
BOfL
Mark Earnest
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10402812-6742-4420...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
**It is my experience that the more in reality the world is,
the better it functions.
**I may be one tiny cog in the wheel of Earth functioning,
but I must do my part.
Art
I'm reminded of Einstein's "God doesn't play dice" belief and his
position that a science such as QM based on probabilities and
statistics is fundamentally flawed. Physicists made the mistake
of arguing with Einstein about this, not realizing that they were
up against a brick wall, since Albert had very strong convictions
of the philosophical/religious kind.
So I suppose this fits into your "closed" category since to this
day I doubt there are any new facts that would change
Einstein's mind or the minds of those who argued against him.
M Purcell
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:13:29 +0000, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
But QM works and somebody else walks away with the trophy.
The BORG
"Mark Earnest" <gmea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZMidnStZwuAJqonW...@posted.internetamerica...
>
> **It is my experience that the more in reality the world
> is,
> the better it functions.
This would be in direct defiance of Christianity then, where
Jesus showed that reality could be overcome?
> **I may be one tiny cog in the wheel of Earth functioning,
> but I must do my part.
You are more than a tiny cog Mark Earnest.
You are very interesting and imaginative person.
Not boring at all.
THE BORG
The BORG
"Art" <nu...@zilch.com> wrote in message
news:vnd8h5ljcfv8jr5ne...@4ax.com...
> I'm reminded of Einstein's "God doesn't play dice" belief
> and his
Meaning that God leaves nothing to chance?
> position that a science such as QM based on probabilities
> and
> statistics is fundamentally flawed.
Not so much flawed, but maybe effected by this "God" who
Einstein spoke of?
> Physicists made the mistake
> of arguing with Einstein about this, not realizing that
> they were
> up against a brick wall, since Albert had very strong
> convictions
> of the philosophical/religious kind.
>
But they wavered during his life.
One day very strong convictions, the next day agnostic and
unsure.
As is the case with most people.
> So I suppose this fits into your "closed" category since
> to this
> day I doubt there are any new facts that would change
> Einstein's mind or the minds of those who argued against
> him.
>
> Art
He tried to understand the world around, but gave no
leniency or questioning to the "nature" of the world around,
which would precede any understanding thereof.
When looking at the world in a religious sense, i.e. as
someone who believes in God, therefore you must be aware
that the world could not have any understanding. That the
concept or notion of God, and thus the world is beyond
understanding.
As Einstein attempted to look at the world in both ways,
thus he could not reconcile the impossible, the mystery, the
none comprehensible with what he considered ordered and
explainable facts.
THE BORG
John Stafford
"Mark Earnest" <gmea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One of the two is correct regardless of the pov, which in most cases,
> is a matter of belief either for or against. A good example of my
> point.
>
> If you know, it is only through unambiguaous clear conscous
> experience, so what is the point of trying to convince others? One
> that does, doesnt know, by my definition.
>
> **It is my experience that the more in reality the world is,
> the better it functions.
>
> **I may be one tiny cog in the wheel of Earth functioning,
> but I must do my part.
Fletch's posit demonstrates one fundamental error of human thinking -
the binary position. It does not consider that the case being argued
might be entirely misrepresented and the answer is neither his nor his
opponents because the case being presented is unrealistic.
We tend to ignore our own bias, and the longer we hold it without
accepting a paradigm shaking new-view, the more likely we are never to
recognize the bias.
A very good case of this is the investigation of the diffusion of
innovations, a discipline that proceeded for a fifty years before
someone observed, "Hold on. All the studies so far have presumed that
innovation per-se was a virtue and therefore none were self-critical
enough to ask 'is it really a virtue'?" It turns out that in many cases
it was not, and the researchers' bias led them down wrong paths for
decades.
It's more than the excluded middle. It's human nature. Learn or die.
-
"Hell, I'm in my own killfile!"
The BORG
>
> I seek to win people over to reality, not any pov.
> Either you are reincarnated or you are not.
> The one of these which is correct I seek to cause to be
> known.
Reincarnating is taught by the Hindu Gods, Krisna, Buddha,
and is taken as a truth or fact by many people.
These Gods and teachings and religions existed long, long
before the Old Testament.
But they also teach that reincarnation is only recurrent
until you can leave the cycle of Earthly reincarnation.
This is viewed in different ways.
It is generally accepted that you must live as near as
perfect or ideal life as you can in order to stand a chance
of escape.
Some say you should not have children. That if you have
children you are obligated to return.
Some say that if male, you should not fornicate with woman.
But the aim is not to reincarnate, but to LEAVE the Earthly
reincarnation cycle.
What you do in you current life, is supposed to effect your
next reincarnation.
And so on and so on until with progressive accumulated Karma
and wisdom and experience, you live as near perfect a life
as possible, no children, if male then no women, no cruelty
or unkindness to others and so on.
And THEN you achieve the Ultimate, which is to leave the
Earthly reincarnation cycle.
There is no point teaching of anything else really, no one
wants to reincarnate and do it all over, and people want to
know how to progress, higher, further and beyond the Earthly
reincarnation cycle.
THE BORG
Mark Earnest
"The BORG" <bo...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:7pXQm.1260$lV2...@newsfe18.ams2...
>
> "Mark Earnest" <gmea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ZMidnStZwuAJqonW...@posted.internetamerica...
>>
>
>> **It is my experience that the more in reality the world is,
>> the better it functions.
>
> This would be in direct defiance of Christianity then, where Jesus showed
> that reality could be overcome?
In my view one way to overcome is to bring reality to the surface.
>
>> **I may be one tiny cog in the wheel of Earth functioning,
>> but I must do my part.
> You are more than a tiny cog Mark Earnest.
> You are very interesting and imaginative person.
> Not boring at all.
> THE BORG
Thank you. You're pretty nice yourself.
Keep being imaginative.
People aren't imaginative enough themselves to be able
to respond, but give them a chance.
They'll catch up with you.
They have to.
They are getting sick of their rut.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> In article
> <0208bee4-9048-47d1-943b-8040f73fb...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If you can convince others, that is just a way of trying to convince
> > yourself. An exercise in power, not wisdom.
>
> Do you feel better now?
Better than what or whom?
How about you, with your contribution?
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:13:29 +0000, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which demonstrates well, that metaphysical awareness expansion, is not
linked to directly to physical awareness (or the awareness of the
physical).
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thats his pont.And mine...it is a hollow trophy.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> In article <ZMidnStZwuAJqonWnZ2dnUVZ_gCdn...@posted.internetamerica>,
Did you replace me ?:-)
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> "The BORG" <b...@gone.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7pXQm.1260$lV2...@newsfe18.ams2...
>
>
>
> > "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:ZMidnStZwuAJqonW...@posted.internetamerica...
>
> >> **It is my experience that the more in reality the world is,
> >> the better it functions.
>
> > This would be in direct defiance of Christianity then, where Jesus showed
> > that reality could be overcome?
>
> In my view one way to overcome is to bring reality to the surface.
>
>
>
> >> **I may be one tiny cog in the wheel of Earth functioning,
> >> but I must do my part.
> > You are more than a tiny cog Mark Earnest.
> > You are very interesting and imaginative person.
> > Not boring at all.
> > THE BORG
>
> Thank you. You're pretty nice yourself.
> Keep being imaginative.
> People aren't imaginative enough themselves to be able
> to respond, but give them a chance.
> They'll catch up with you.
> They have to.
> They are getting sick of their rut.
Careful. She may be laying a karmic trap for you.:)
I wonder if that what the Sinatra standard would be called these days.
The one overall misundersanding regarding religious teachings such as
'abstension and celibacy', is ALL to do with detatchment, not the
action or even the consequences.If you consider 'human catalyst', then
whoever engages with one with this awareness has a clear opportunity
to expand their consciousness.
The "catalyst" acts as an unaberrated mirror.
BOfL
Mark Earnest
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63fbcd76-5239-4f84...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
**I survive those all the time, Brian. After enough landmines
you kind of develop callouses. :)
I wonder if that what the Sinatra standard would be called these days.
The one overall misundersanding regarding religious teachings such as
'abstension and celibacy', is ALL to do with detatchment, not the
action or even the consequences.If you consider 'human catalyst', then
whoever engages with one with this awareness has a clear opportunity
to expand their consciousness.
The "catalyst" acts as an unaberrated mirror.
**To me, angels are catalysts half the time. That is, the don't do the work
for you, but they sure increase effect on the successes you have.
The BORG
"John Stafford" <nh...@droffats.net> wrote in message
news:nhoj-91402F.1...@news.supernews.com...
Very true!
Michael Gordge
wrote:
>
> Who's reality?
Reality doesn't belong to anyone and the really funny and I mean
really funny, thing is, that you are required to embrace that fact in
order to deny it.
MG
M Purcell
I've got goose bumps. I would agree that we have to accept our
ignorance before we can learn.
bigfl...@gmail.com
It all makes perfect sense when you realize what and how the mind
works. Masters over the eons have referred to its illusory nature.
Of course, that understsanding becomes a struggle the more one
identifies with such dualities. It can appear to be 'really funny', or
it can be seen for what it is, depending on the position of the seer.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
So how, if one is at such a stage, does one recognise ignorance?
There is a huge difference between lacking (being ignorant of)
information, and being at a specific stage of self awareness.An
example is that of awareness of parallel realities before qm'ers
conceived of super entanglement, dark energy, black holes, worm holes
and multiverse/multi dimensions.
I was not surprised when Prof Hawking speculated on imaginary time,
beyond the event horizon.
BOfL
John Stafford
<97a6ff32-5961-4b88...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"bigfl...@gmail.com" <bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 7:27�pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 1:07�am, "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Who's reality?
"Whose" reality, MG.
ZerkonXXXX
> On Nov 30, 10:13 pm, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:49:48 -0800, bigflet...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Do you ever feel 'hollow' after 'winning' an argument?
>>
>> Possibly due to the fact you do not 'win' an argument unless in formal
>> debate or a trial were a third non-arguing element then judge which
>> position was best.
>
> Have you ever been married !. Sure, there are such debates, but how many
> of the losing side ever change their views? Depends on how convinced
> they are.
So your issue is not winning a argument per se but when are you going to
cut the lawn?
ZerkonXXXX
> So I suppose this fits into your "closed" category since to this day I
> doubt there are any new facts that would change Einstein's mind or the
> minds of those who argued against him.
Well I actually spent some time trying to think of a better word than
'closed' inferring wrongly 'closed mined'. An example being an argument
about god, or good or even the quale question.
bigfl...@gmail.com
Or some topic that fits this ng...
Very good.
BOfL