The Sunset Clause
Renli
that it will come true, it might not. For example, sometimes people
think they can predict winning lottery numbers. Or jen might say
"renli will keep talking about me behind my back [in public..]" or
Tang might say "Renli is going to crash" or whatever. But what if it
doesn't happen? What if you were wrong?
Would this wrong-ness be limited to what you said, or would this
wrongness extend also to every conclusion you based on the premise
that what you assumed was originally correct?
Are you, a reader of alt.zen, intelligent enough to realize the sunset
clause on your predictions when you make them? I do not urge you not
to insult me; I urge you to insult me intelligently, and to realize
that what you say may, in fact be true - based on certain conditions.
One of those is the sunset clause, described below with examples.
On Aug 16, 8:50 pm, Tang Huyen
>
> Begin again, in truth, honesty and humility,
> otherwise you will crash hugely and spectacularly,
> like Fu.
Renli (in response):
"Problem with that is that if it never happens, it still might
happen."
Such a statement can always be true, even if it never happens; I
"will" crash - but when? After we're both dead? It might happen and it
might never happen in a meaningful sense. But what if the reasoning
which this prediction was based on changes? What if some event were to
occurr that would negate the assumption, would the prediction still be
valid?
Enter the sunset clause. The idea that at some point, the condition(s)
which inform your conclusion no longer do so; for example, like the
timer on your toaster. If you set it properly, your toast doesn't get
burnt. If you didn't have a timer, your toast would get burnt.
Renli (con't):
> Let's hear a sunset clause on that prediction, Tang. Let's say I don't
> crash by 2009. Do you think that I still might crash? What if it
> doesn't happen by 2010? I'm just curious when it would seem to you
> more likely that you were wrong about me crashing - and, implied,
> about taoism and what not, given a future where I don't crash.
A lot of the people here have made predictions about me on one level
or another - Jen, Robert, Evelyn, etc. None of you seem to want to
deal with this angle of questioning however. I was ignored by Tang (no
response to the original question), although tang did speak to this
question indirectly (while talking to norbu, IIRC):
On Aug 20, 9:33 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
wrote:
> ...the persons who are farthest from it are
> Fu and Renli. (Give Renli about five years and
> he'll catch up with Fu).
Now, let's say that you are right, Tang - for argument's sake. I can
easily admit, okay, maybe everything I have said, everything I believe
in is wrong. Let's say that my insistance that I am right, for
whatever reason (that which informs me is wrong or false, for example)
will lead me to a spectacular crash.
Well, what if it doesn't? What if it never does? Would this constitute
evidence that I was "right" and you were "wrong" (a situation created
by your challenge of what I said)? This seems to be evidence that at
the least I am, in fact, not going to "crash" - and possibly, as an
extension, that what I am saying does in fact have some value and that
you should probably listen to me, sort of like a second opinion. So,
if I am five years behind Fu and (according to you in *1 and *2) Fu
crashed in February 2004...
let's say that all of you are right and I am headed for a spectacular
crash. It would seem to be, that if I didn't crash by around February
2009 (five years after fu) that you would have been, in a word, wrong
about me. Would this, then, constitute the proof robert, jen, and
evelyn requested earlier? I wonder.
So, allow me to give you what you want. Is this resistance or non-
resistance? Let's see if I crash in or around February 2009- let's
say, give it until March 2009. What do you think? I won't post here
until early 2009. Would that be the sort of proof you're looking for
Tang? Robert? I'll post here around february or march in 2009 and let
you know how it's been. What do you think? :)
-
Renli
^@%>---*=#
"Renli" <oliver....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dbae048-cc6c-4ce6...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> When you make a statement about the future, even if you are certain
> that it will come true, it might not. For example, sometimes people
> think they can predict winning lottery numbers. Or jen might say
> "renli will keep talking about me behind my back [in public..]"
did anyone else's irony meter
just spontaneously dissolve with
a loud crash ?
Renli
> "Renli" <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
How can you respond to it if I said it behind your back? Come on Jen,
let's hear it - do you think I can stop posting her for any length of
time? Or did I alreay disprove that one a few months ago? ;-)
Come on - tell us - wouldn't you prefer one way or another if I just
stopped posting here, say, until March 2009? If I did that, it
certainly would show all those predictions you made about me weren't
true, hmm? What say you - I'll stop posting here until 2009. Do you
think I can do that?
-
^@%>---*=#
burma shave
Lucifer
> Are you, a reader of alt.zen, intelligent enough to realize the sunset
> clause on your predictions when you make them? I do not urge you not
> to insult me; I urge you to insult me intelligently, and to realize
> that what you say may, in fact be true - based on certain conditions.
> One of those is the sunset clause, described below with examples.
When I read this it made me think of Kermit the Frog riding a bike in
the Muppet Movie.
Oh Look Dorothy!
It is a Frog Prince riding a bike!
Hahahaha... and... and... and.. he is peddling backwards!
Sunset clause... hm. That reminds me of something.
It reminds me of that Zen symbol.
Where the point is set at the zenith of the sun, let us call it noon.
And it is exactly at noon that the sun is no longer rising but
setting... then at midnight, the sun is no longer setting but rising.
The sun, always in motion where then are these points but an image in
the mind?
Cheers!
Lucifer