Which is it? It can't be both.
It is both. There are both actions and reactions. There are things that happen to us in which we respond to, and the actions we create that resonate throughout the world.
In the first quote above you made a distinction between the actions of 'looking' and 'hearing' and the actions of 'listening' and 'reading'. The difference you suggested is what you call 'comprehension'. 'Comprehending' is an incremental series of choices you make as you are 'breaking down' (if you will) what you are reading and 'thinking through to the end' what you have read so that the new distinction you are making replaces who you think you are with a new possibility of 'Be'-ing.
It seems as if you're contradicting yourself now. Before you said that people (such as your example of Cyracuz) Have views in which are incapable of being changed...but by your own statement, you have contradicted yourself. I know enough about Cyracuz to know that he will, at the very least, attempt to read a post before commenting on it. So based on your recent statement, that would alter him in some fashion...but in your previous statement he couldn't be...so which is it?
'Making a distinction' is not something that 'just happens'. When you choose to uncover a new possibility for 'Be'-ing you already know what's at stake. You are putting who you think you are on the 'chopping block' so you can find out who you really are. “Making a distinction” is not the same as what you call “comprehension”.
Being "touched" by the possibility (whether you consider it as such or not) you are still changed from it, the more you reject the possibility, the less you change. If I started preaching about a new religion about the entire universe being created by a magical space dragon, you would probably think it was complete nonsense and completely disregard it. y reading it, however, you become changed, it becomes part of all the collective thoughts swirling around in your mind.
What's up with that? Are you arguing just to see your words on your computer monitor?
No, I'm arguing a single point now it which it seems that you are rejecting. Everything changes us whether we accept it or not. Based on your statements it seems as if you feel that we only change if we accept the change. As stated by you previously:
You can present something to someone (like Cyracuz) until you're blue in the face or dead and they still have to initiate the alteration.
It's seems now that you're more trying to either "change tactics" or your not understanding what I'm saying.
Where is this “collective thought”? What you are saying here is again, the same thing I am saying. Yes, making a distinction changes us but it doesn't do it by “adding weight” to something called the “collective thought”. There is no 'collective thought' to be added to, there is only 'you' making distinctions.
The "collective thought" is no where that can be sensed other than within ourselves and conveyed through the conceptions of language. It's basically a term of convenience. Where do your arguments come from, where does every idea, belief, tid bit of knowledge, and everything else come from? My definition of that place is the mind...which is essentially "collective thought". The "adding weight" is just a expression basically meaning "learning", whether it's something of value is irrelevant. You actually learned something when I was talking about my "fake religion" whether you accept it as true or not.
Belief has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. I have known your 'ideas' for many years, however, the 'point' you're making doesn't “open up” any new possibilities for 'Be'-ing. Don't take it personally, 99.999% of all philosophy and philosophers don't “open up” any new possibilities for 'Be'-ing.
If belief has nothing to do with it, then why does anyone argue anything? Because they believe the other person is wrong and that they are right. As far as the 99.999% of philosophers not opening up...then maybe you might be wrong? As Cyracuz stated:
Dasein doesn't work like that. If you don't agree with him you are simply wrong, and the only way you can get "right" is to read Being and Time one hundred times.
Since you will most likely not believe that you even might be wrong, then maybe you should focus on me and how I interpret things to better convey the message. You can ask any public speaker or any sales person and they're tell you that a vast majority of it is about the presentation (the argument) and not product (the idea).
Most people think that there is a box you have to “think outside of”.
aybe you should start "thinking outside of the box" on your argument.
As far as my arguing, you are correct that I like to argue, but not pointlessly. You are also correct that we do agree on a lot of things, but not all...or at least not that have been stated clearly...and I like to clarify every detail. The specific detail now it that you seem to think that a person can only change if they accept the change, while I believe that a person can be changed by anything around them whether they "accept" it or not. They are just more likely to change more if they accept it.