No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

JL,

The short exchange with you by PM made me decide to do so, and I was actually trying to do so in my post today above.....

Perhaps try harder?

truth
By all means, Craven. With appreciation,

I have a question (totally unrelated).

Why do you title your posts "truth"?

I've been noticing that.

falsehood
Actually, it was almost an arbitrary choice, a formal compliance. I assume we must give a subject title for each post. Of course I do not believe I am always deliverying "truth," but perhaps we are collectively attempting to achieve its approximation. I just chose a word that I could type quickly. After a few times it became an automatic gesture. I just did not want to think of a different term for each post.

Well, I guess you'll be happy to know that you don't need to fill that out unless it's a post to create a new thread.

I'll try to make that lil' notice more intuitive.

Good news, indeed.

Well sorted JLN.

I am sure my own impatience with posters who are unfamiliar with, or superficially dismissive of some of the literature contributes to the "heat". I think you and I share an academic background where such was not tolerated. Although this is not a "campus" one would hope that it continues to be more than a "barbers shop", and I think you have done well in redressing the balance.

fresco,

It's disheartening to see you persist in insisting that we are do not understand and persist in implying that you are on a different level.

But I will not return your implied insult. I've promised myself that much.

Craven,

There is a "me" who has spent a lifetime of research and reading into the questions it selects. There is also a "concillatory me" who knows that opponents of the first "me" have similar "vested interest me's" and will clash. You are talking to the second !

If you can specifically identify why you think the biological substrate argument is untenable please do so but remember that under the rules of engagement for such a position "logic" needs to be "explained" not "assumed". IMO your only chance is to attack the coherence of "structural dynamics" on which the model rests.

Craven



Well you hurt a lot of feelings here Craven. Usually when a thread goes as aggressive as this one has I back off as JLNobody and fresco did. This time I did not.



I think Craven that you do not see how hurtful your manner is. You seem to have this idea about "ad hominem', and that if you stick to attacking the argument it doesn't hurt peoples feelings, but you are wrong.



Your aggressive manner was way out of line as far as I am concerned. Even when JLNobody said he cannot address you because your last post to him was too abusive, you came back at him with another attack, as if no matter what, Craven has to be right, and point that >being right< out. Saying that someone is lying over and over again is equivalent to calling them a liar. And it is especially hurtful when the accusation is not true.

And frankly, I do not think you would have stopped, I think you would be still attacking in the manner you did, if someone had not responded as I did.




The truth is CravenCraven. I have seen you on other threads consistently telling people that they are lying and other such remarks. I really think you should reflect on what constitutes a lie. You have a very direct and a >I don't give a **** if this hurts your feelings< attitude. I do not. I will usually choose to be indirect and choose words such as, "That's not true", or You're wrong"…. Rather then tell someone to their face I think they are lying. Often times a "softer" word works better. Believe it or not this type of offensive interaction is very rare for me. For you it would appear to be a regular occurrence. (but enough with comparisons already)



Yes, you have commented derogatorily on my character and others indirectly.

Craven wrote:





There is a distinction between a lie and a falsehood. I can unintentionally state a falsehood but I cannot unintentionally lie. I cannot accidentally lie, a lie is not an error. A lie is an intentional act. And in order to carry out the act I have to know that I am lying.

As such it could be a falsehood but not be a lie. Why do you choose to think and claim that JLNobodyfresco

"Pull the beam out of your eye. Your only stock and store herein has been intellectual dishonesty and patronage."

That, as I see it, is a character attack.

And to play your 'guilt laying' game I could say, I have never said something as offensive as that to anyone here. It is especially insulting containing the word "only". And is an out-and-out false statement. I place fresco's stock and store and contribution to this intellectual community a way up there.

_____________



Further, ad hominem is interpreted subjectively; you may not think/perceive your words as a personal attack but others may.

Craven

Yeah, Craven, I agree with twyvel. Think about it, please. c.i.

I can understand and respect that. But at the same time I hope you can appreciate that it can't become an appeal to authority because said study does not endow one with ownership of the truth.



I've done both, if perhaps not to a degree you find acceptable.

But if you'd like to try it a different way:

How do you test the veracity of your position?

twyvel,

I think Craven has in fact redeemed himself somewhat via his posts to JLN.

As "nondualists" we should of course be able to transcend the squabbling of the "me's" but of course from that idealistic "higher position" we wouldn't even engage in communication. The problem remains that non-adherents see such statements as elitist or self-delusional often rendering further discussion futile.

Despite my current disagreements with Craven, I think we must all acknowledge our gratitude for his excellent management of A2K. And I do acknowledge the fact that I am usually in agreement with his thinking, although that is neither here nor there. There are individuals with whom I have been less in agreement, but they have served A2K just as much as have those with whom I have been in agreement.
I have heard on another thread that Frank Apiso has "left" A2K and gone back to Abuzz. That is very disconcerting; I certainly hope that I have not contributed to that decision.

twyvel, I think your admonitions are hypocritical. I fully understand that people can take offense at their arguments being treated roughly but your use of this fact to justify going straight to attacking the person is something I do not agree with.

I know that attacking an argument can offend the person. I'll admit to being frustrated by your repeated assertion that those who disagree with you are exhibiting naivete through your use of the codified patronizing that is the term "naive reality".

I can point out many more times where your responses to arguments (and not the person) included implied insult depending on the sensitivity of the recipient.

Thing is, just about anything can offend someone. I think you have a case in that I can and will be more mindful of tone in debate but at the same time no matter how nice the tone is some people will be offended by the mere fact that you consider their position to be wrong.



And yours justified?



With the first part I disagree, with the second part I assert that you've no more basis to call it untrue than I have to call it true.



I can see why you'd want to think that your own insults and attacks were some gallant defense that was made necessary by me, but I think that's a self-serving interpretation.

I'd already contacted JL by PM and discussed it with him briefly. I'd no intention to continue discussing it because he made that request of me.

So your defense of your own personal attacks will have to find some other ground.



You assume much about me twyvel. I do not really think it of great import whether you feel guilty or not. But I will speak out against what I see as an a hypocritical attack.

I do think there's merit to a lot of what you have said, but at the same time I can't help but point out that you seem to be minimizing the repeated insults from yourself and your peers.



twyvel, you read an awful lot of malice into my every post. While I can accept many of your criticisms about my tone I have to say that I have a hard time accepting the malice you attribute to me.

In mentioning different lines I am commenting in that I personally do not mind too much if people abuse my arguments. I prefer direct, harsh, and forceful exchanges with as little personality and feelings involved.

To this end my own style is to be less mindful of how sensitive one might be about having their arguments treated roughly but to never ascribe to their person what feelings I may have about them.

My reasons for this are that the arguments are relevant to the nature of what is being discussed, but the people and their failings are not unless they exhibit themselves in the arguments.

And if they exhibit said failings in the arguments the arguments can still continue to be discussed on their merit.

What I was pointing out to you is that we have different standards and different criteria. The nature of my retention os my criteria is such that I find them optimal but the malice you ascribe to em in my pointing out our different criteria is non-existent.



If I ever lie I hope it is pointed out to me. When others spout lies I will, in turn, point it out as well. Though I do plan to include more pleasantries and couch it in a manner that can take some of the edge off the tone.



I've done so extensively. And we have very different definitions through which we operate. I recognize that my use if different from the definitions most people operate under.



twyvel, I am getting weary of your continued remote psychoanalysis. It doesn't seem to bother you o be making such wild guesses about me even when they are so damning in nature.

I do care very much about hurting others and my failing is a matter of style and not intent or disconsideration.

That you inform me of hurt feelings is something that has distressed me to a significant degree.



twyvel, it seems to me that you allege malice on my part based upon what you see as the consequence of it that is the hurt feelings.

I would point out that by the same measure said hurt feelings would indict you for the same malice you attribute to me.

Personally, I do not think you are malicious, even if your insults can feel that way. Because I grant you this benefit of the doubt it perturbs me that you show no similar consideration and have no problem projecting malice onto me and attacking my character based on your psychoanalysis.



I usually start with those and reserve the use of the word "lie" for specific instances. My criteria is quite different from yours in that I consider the obdurate repetition of falsehoods to be lying even if the author does not believe that it is false. But this is another mid-sized philosophical topic that I'd be happy to take up elsewhere.



I acknowledge this. And had decided to try to use this in the future.



With all the comparisons being at my expense I guess I can appreciate the moment at which you decide on their cessation.



twyvel,

While acknowledging that tone words and such are areas in which I can improve do you acknowledge that depending on the ego one has and the degree to which they allow it to become attached to their opinions this can be inevitable?

I have a prodigious ego (just another way of acknowleging that I am arrogant) but I usually manage to divest my arguments of an attachment to ego.

Thusly if someone, for example, claims that Edgar Allan Poe is the stupidest thing since Yeats I'd not get offended.

But many times people take offense through proxy. And if I were to say that I think the Democratic party represents all that is wrong about America any who share their views might take offense through proxy.

On some level it can be unavoidable if you are to express anything but I do acknowledge that the effect can be mitigated through consideration of tone.

I disagree with this definition and would be happy to discuss it elsewhere at another time.



Because I operate under a more inclusive definition of "lie" than do you.

As to the rest you seem to have decided to take up the character comparisons and assasinations again and, well, at some point I'm going to just have to let you do so absent my participation.

Craven,

No, unless I've missed something I don't think you've engaged any of my points which start from an (unsaid) assumption that you are familiar with (a)the problems of the applicability of traditional set theory with respect to the interaction of observer and observed and (b) the fact that "logical thinking" is an outcome of the maturation of cognitive processes and
hence cannot be evoked to explain that process.

So the fact that you still speak in terms of "veracity" rather than "internal coherence" implies you are

unfamiliar with/reject on some grounds/ dont understand

my starting point (delete accordingly).

I claim no special authority in these matters, only breadth of familiarity with the issues.

I'd say it tends to run the gamut from "comprehension" to "empathy" depending on who is using it and how they feel like using it at the time.

I also think that many people think their positions, if truely "understood, would be characterized a certain way and consequentially think that certain characterization of their position (e.g. a negative one) is indicative of a lacking understanding.

To use an example, conside the following statement replacing the individual for the person.

"If you really knew him you'd know he could not have molested the turtle."



Yes, each with different values.



twyvel, am I correct to say that your use of "experience it" in the context of your position is very close to saying that they must, for some period of time, operate under the 'understanding' that the position is true?



I'd say I am disagreeing based on a dofferent opinion and would probably ascribe the reasons for the disagreement to whaty I'd like to think was a more accurate take (which is inevitable given that few intentionally adopts error and inaccuracy).

I'd go on to say that I understand your concepts well, and have considered them since childhood's hour but that you seem to take on a more spiritual meaning of understanding in which I actually have to agree with the position to subsequently experience it and consequently to 'understand' it on the level at which you speak.

And I have a problem with that standard for acceptable "understanding". The doorknob to your acceptable manner of disagreement is too high by my estimation.



Upon what basis do you imply that I have not looked upon your position?

Can you describe a manner though which you would consider an acceptible level of 'understand', 'experiemce' et al but to still disagree?




Yet your vision could contain the seer. An acceptable demonstration fo this would be to go to your local electronics store and look for a place at which they are selling both camcorders and televisions in close proximity.



This sounds nice, but I think you are using "look" misleadingly. I have looked. You seem to then say I need to 'understand'. Well, I do understand. Then you seem to say that I need to 'experience'.

Well at this point I can't help but get the feeling that what you really want to say is:

"You have to agree."

So to cut to the chase, do you envision an acceptable level of "look", "understand" and "experience" that can still lead to the position that non-dualism is one of the more insipid constructs man has come up with?