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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (53171)	8/26/1999 12:09:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Plato's cave is a black hole. An almost perfect example of making something up that only deceives the reader. Anyone who thinks that ideal forms are truths. Even Aristotle was forced to junk this approach and apologized for doing so to a friend (actually a master). Philosophers who create ideas that are not falsifiable waste everybody's time. In contrast the "real" black hole is an excellent and useful idea that predicts measurable events that confirm rather than ignore the underlying thinking.

To: Neocon who wrote (53171)	8/26/1999 2:21:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

You had to pick Plato. Note: you chose an irrational philosopher's analogy to deal with a mystical subject, religion. Good choice because they are both wrong.

To: Neocon who wrote (53171)	8/28/1999 12:51:00 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

since you seem to be unusually good at getting the point Why Neo! That's not what you thought when we were discussing Eyes Wide Shut!! (just teasing, ok?) I wrote a post and then lost it yesterday when my computer froze. My life seems to take place in small bits, and seldom allows the kind of time I would like to think and write slowly. THe difficulty in communicating anything without a common basis in experience is obvious, so when one gets into abstract concepts it becomes nearly impossible. Everything we perceive- as we said a few days ago-- has to be filtered through our own "selfness" as well as through the events that have framed our lives. We only hope as we step into a communication that we will somehow be able to touch a shared meaning, a common nerve. When you think about it, it becomes almost miraculous that we can ever successfully share anything at all, much less such incredibly challenging ideas as the meaning of life kinds of things!! Maybe we kid ourselves when we think we understand each other most of the time, for it often depends on a great willingness to suspend one's ego and move into another's framework. It's one reason I am attracted to Jung's myths and universal consciousness. I can't remember who said it- "A myth doesn't represent the truth, it IS the truth." Somehow great myths bypass some of the surface confusions and go straight to the emotional commonality. I think great writers and artists do this, where most of us just struggle along trying hard to touch one or two, reach those closest to us, and there the great ones are reaching a multitude! What a gift. Confucius said, "THe whole end of speech is to be understood," but Quintullius wrote that "one should aim at being impossible to misunderstand." THat seems harder somehow. How can you ever tell!