Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mark silvers who wrote (25786)	6/11/1999 12:39:00 PM
From: I Am John Galt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39621

<<In fact, IMO, it is the most intellectually honest position. without being open to different possibilities, there is no room to grow, no room to examine things from a different perspective.>> Mark, I wholeheartedly agree. Someone once said that they consider Scripture truth, because it has an ability to change and grow. I agree that it has the ability to change and grow, but that is the case with any literature. Art is the highest form of communication. You can use it to communicate with yourself, or you can use it to communicate with someone else. I believe in the objective truth. What is the objective truth? I have my way of percieving the world. You have yours. Anything that's common ground to both of us is objective reality to both of us. We agree on certain things. We disagree on others. But we always have to keep our minds open to the possibility that the other person is right. If we both can keep our minds completely open, we can reach objective truth between both of us. Then we include more people who keep their minds open... and more... and more... You can assume that there is a God. But you have to keep open to the possibility that there is not. If you don't, perspective is automatically shut off to anything else. I personally believe that both are a possibility. But I don't think we can answer that question until we bridge the gap a little bit between what we understand and the ultimate thing that we don't. The pursuit of the objective reality defines our morals for us. If we kill someone, we cannot obtain their perspective of what they think reality is. In essence, we lose a piece of what we're trying to obtain. If we knowingly do wrong to another person, then we have to keep ourselves open to the possibility that we won't get their perspective of truth from them. There are ways to get around keeping power in check. The problem is that we have a society now that has a power hierarchy that is very human, meaning we cloud people's minds with what power is. Power is a feeling, not a state of being. The president of the United States is only more powerful than a janitor at the local high school because the American people FEEL he is, not because he actually is. When the Bible said, "you should not become like God," in my opinion it was saying to not be self-righteous about your views. You can strive to be something if you want. You just need to have the understanding that you're probably wrong. So, what do I define as the objective truth? I define the objective truth as all the beings in the entire world communicating on all levels. We know that there are higher forms of communication out there besides language. Paintings, drawings, body language, glances, even Scripture communicates and conveys different things to different people because of their perceptions of the world. What if those perceptions of the world were to come together through questioning each other? We might find an even higher form of communication. Is communication happiness? Of course it is. People go to parties to "hang out" and communicate with their peers. An artist draws to communicate with themselves and others. If you don't communicate with anything, you achieve the ultimate anger and frustration. Case in point: Hitler. He was an communicator without a medium. And his perception of the world became less real to everyone else. You'll say, "What about the Germans? He communicated with them well." He did, you're right. But they all took a self-righteous stand when they accepted Hitler's truth. Hitler wasn't truth, and it was too late before the Germans realized this. Hence, he had no second thoughts killing everyone and then himself. Who am I to say that Hitler didn't stand for truth? That's pretty self-righteous, isn't it? I say Hitler didn't stand for truth because he didn't want to talk to the Jews about his frustrations. He shut himself off because he assumed he was right. Please feel free to argue. =) Imagine a world in which communication is so easy for everyone. Isn't that what makes you truly love someone? Your ability to communicate with them on so many different levels? I have one guideline in my life, which has worked for me so far. Do not accept ANYTHING as truth. Trial and error is the way to go. If it convinces you and the rest of the world enough to be considered objective, then grow upon it and take the next step. I can safely assume that all of you exist because I perceive you. I can safely assume that all of you have minds and thoughts, because sometimes you communicate with me things I don't perceive. If I kill one of you, I lose you for good, and cannot perceive what you perceive. If I hurt one of you, I must be prepared to lose what you perceive. I can't do that. Because then I lose sight of what I'm trying to get at. The above was strictly my opinion. The Corporation