Chights47
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 08:44 am
@Dasein,
The distinction 'does' happen with listening and reading. If it was just looking and hearing then possibly not, but listening and reading means comprehension which means that the idea is accepted into the mind. It adds to the collective thought which adds weight which changes us...so it's not a matter of 'if' we change but 'how much' we change. The "distinction makers" that you're talking about, is just how we choose to respond to them. Right now, whether you believe me on not, you are being changed by my words. If anything, you're learning my idea's and how to respond to them to help make a connection between our ideas to aid me in understanding and accepting your ideas...which is the same with me and your words.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 01:06 pm
@Chights47,
Good point.
0 Replies
 
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 06:47 pm
@Chights47,
Chights47 wrote:
The distinction 'does' happen with listening and reading. If it was just looking and hearing then possibly not, but listening and reading means comprehension which means that the idea is accepted into the mind.
Chights47 wrote:
The "distinction makers" that you're talking about, is just how we choose to respond to them.
Which is it? It can't be both.

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.

'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”.

Let me give you an example. Right now you are assuming to know what you're talking about and spending a lot of energy explaining/defending your position. Because you are 'right' about your position you are looking and hearing what I'm saying but you are not choosing to investigate the possibility that 'making a distinction' is a choice 'you' make. (Or, it is a distinction you've already made and you just like to argue.) The interesting thing is that you're not even paying attention to what you are writing. You're so busy trying to shove your position down my throat that you don't see that you completely agree with me.

The second quote above says it all:
Chights47 wrote:
The "distinction makers" that you're talking about, is just how we choose to respond to them.
I don't get it, on one side of the coin you will 'dig your heels in' on 'listening and reading', and on the other hand you will purposefully pass off your agreeing with me that 'making a distinction is a choice' with
Chights47 wrote:
“is just how we choose to respond to them”.
What's up with that? Are you arguing just to see your words on your computer monitor? On to another matter;
Chights47 wrote:
It adds to the collective thought which adds weight which changes us...so it's not a matter of 'if' we change but 'how much' we change.
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.
Chights47 wrote:
Right now, whether you believe me on not, you are being changed by my words. If anything, you're learning my idea's and how to respond to them to help make a connection between our ideas to aid me in understanding and accepting your ideas...which is the same with me and your words.
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.

Most people think that there is a box you have to “think outside of”.
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 08:12 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

I see truth as something personal rather than absolute . I define facts as something that cant be argued away . Jumping off a cliff will result in falling . That is a fact . Why you would do it is a truth to some and not to others. The grey area between the extremes of not jumping and jumping is defined by the truth of why . This truth is different to different people . There are no provable truths . There are provable facts .


why would the why be a truth though ?
0 Replies
 
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2011 07:30 am
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:
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.

Dasein wrote:
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?
Dasein wrote:
'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.
Dasein wrote:
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:
Quote:
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.
Dasein wrote:
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.
Dasein wrote:
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:
Cyracuz wrote:
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).
Dasein wrote:
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.
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2011 10:57 am
@Chights47,
Thank you for letting me know not to waste anymore of my time with you.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2011 11:22 am
@Dasein,
How would you guys feel if you learned that you truly humiliated your competitors? Victory and power or shame and guilt?
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2011 11:31 am
@JLNobody,
the second one.
0 Replies
 
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2011 04:19 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein wrote:
Thank you for letting me know not to waste anymore of my time with you.
Why are you giving up? Are you not proud of your theory? Do you no longer care if you're right? I'm curious as to your answer on that one little detail. It's a very small point and could be cleared in a just a single post or 2 at most.
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2011 04:28 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

How would you guys feel if you learned that you truly humiliated your competitors? Victory and power or shame and guilt?
Being humiliated is, ultimately, a good thing. Pride can be a terribly destructive thing. I hate being humiliated but become a much better person afterwards.

"Modesty is a shining light; it prepares the mind to receive knowledge, and the heart for truth." - Madam Guizot
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2011 09:26 pm
@Chights47,
I don't think people can be beaten into humility; we are beaten into a vengeful pride. My observations reveal that a person who is appreciated for his or her accomplishments is one who's ego is sufficiently strong to forget about matters of identity and prestige. That's the basis for humility.
0 Replies
 
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2011 09:12 am
@Chights47,
Chights47 wrote:
Why are you giving up?
I find it very interesting that you equate not wanting to waste my time talking to a wall with giving up? I also find it interesting that you think that people are so stupid not to see your obvious ploy as if "winning a debate" means something. I say it is you who has "given up" long before you and I started this conversation. The evidence of that is the moment you dug your heels in and dedicated all your energy to the defense of your position.
Chights47 wrote:
Are you not proud of your theory?
Pride has nothing to do with the conversation we were having and what I was saying was not theory. Your use of the word 'pride' is nothing more than a ridiculous attempt to continue the debate. What you were saying was all theory. It has nothing to do with what really happens. What I was telling you was no 'theory'.
Chights47 wrote:
Do you no longer care if you're right?
Like pride, being right has nothing to do with the conversation we were having.

Because you use emotional terms like 'pride' and 'being right', it is pretty obvious that your intent is to entangle me (and others) in an emotional rollercoaster so you can manipulate the circumstances to your own end and prove to your 'self' how right you are. What does fascinate me about you is that you have fooled your 'self' into thinking that your escalating belligerence has the ability to change anything about what I have said.

I guess that's one way to spend your time on the planet, however, I don't think that strategy for living will bring you the most value.

You're like a bully on the playground. Your purpose is to overpower someone with your bluff and bluster to prove how right you are.

I really don't care how right you are and I really don't care to attempt to convince you of anything. I only care that the data I was posting was accurate. I have absolutely no say in whether you can hear what I'm saying or what you do with it.

The interesting thing about all of this is that you will once again use my words to prove how right you are and you will never uncover the distinction I was making.

However, I do have a say in how I spend my time so, please invite someone else to knock that chip off your shoulder.
Chights47
 
  2  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2011 11:37 am
@Dasein,
[quote="Dasein]What you were saying was all theory. It has nothing to do with what really happens. What I was telling you was no 'theory'.[/quote]
...I feel very sorry for you.
Dasein
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2011 05:32 pm
@Chights47,
It's not me you feel sorry for, however, I am not going to continue this any longer.
0 Replies
 
melisawilson
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 01:57 am
@fresco,
Truth is 'The Trinity'
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 10:40 am
@melisawilson,
The "law of three" is good esoteric fun ! Wink
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jun, 2011 11:20 am
@fresco,
Are you refering to Auguste Comte's law of the three stages?
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2011 06:44 pm
Truth is a believable lie .
JLNobody
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jun, 2011 07:47 pm
@Ionus,
Truth is an error that works.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jun, 2011 07:16 am
@JLNobody,
truth is truth if i say so.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is truth ?
  3. » Page 12
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 03:21:28