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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (81992)	12/23/2009 5:54:52 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I can only deal with the first portion of your post for now. I'll try to get to the rest of it in subsequent posts. One of the problems I have in discussing this topic with you greg has to do with 'term contagion.' You use the term world view most frequently to represent A World View (Note the caps). 'A World View' meaning a major ideology of some sort that can be identified and labeled as such, and that meaning can be hung from. This is your 'proper' use of the term. Less formally someone can say they have a view of the world that is such and such without associating that view with one of the 'proper' applications known as 'A World View' ideology. Why is that a problem? It is a problem because you then attempt to infect or force the meaning of some statement to fit within an inapplicable context, and if that goes, every other concept must follow down that rabbit hole. For example: -------------- "That description of reality is generally referred to as Pantheistic Monism." No it's not, at least not exclusively. This is probably as close as you have come to stating your worldview. Why are you so afraid of just saying that is your position? I am not afraid of stating my position, as I have done so repeatedly, elaborated upon request, expressed willingness to explore any or all of my views further etc etc etc (Imagine the etc's going on for several pages to make that point). The problem is not fear greg, it is what I referred to above. Your tendency to use your idea of A World View to infect concepts where it doesn't fit. In this case, it does not apply to the 'informal' meaning of my worldview and does not lead to greater understanding on either of our parts. This is why I've encouraged you to move on from that, at least for now. I have told you, you are stuck but its more than that, this conversation, which started out pretty dynamically is completely stagnant because you are so stuck on that problem. I know you are seeking clarity. However, your insistance on an application of A World View onto my worldview simply will not bring you the kind of closure you are looking for. Closure is what you had before you entered this discussion, and a closed mind simply wont be of benefit to you here. The peanut analogy is very applicable. It would take a jack hammer (metaphorically) for me to free the peanut from it's shell but it would only take your intention to do it on your own. ----------------- "As I read that you are saying that you do see corruption and you do it through your own worldview. So why do you continue to deny that you have a worldview? If you do not understand what I just explained about 'A World View' ideology vs my view of the world, then I see no point in further discussion. I've pointed that out now several times recently and it is obvious to me that genuine discussion is stuck right there in your stubborn refusal to accept simple assurances from me. ------------------------- So do you think everything is true, nothing is true, a mixture of both, What? I am not sure what you are asking here. I think you are asking me which ideology I would claim to be the truth and which I would reject as falsehood. I suspect someone significant in your life who you trusted deeply, like a parent, handed you an ideology and told you, 'this is the truth.' Then as you matured you found truth in following the precepts of that ideology. Am I right? If so, you want it to be validated. Ok greg, Jesus loves you. I mean that with all my heart, now can we move on and speak adult to adult, rather than from behind the mask of dogma? "So do you think everything is true, nothing is true, a mixture of both, What? The truth is simple, it is immovable, it is what we have when there is no concealment, it is revealed. Even an attempt to deceive, inlcuding the utterance of falsehood, reveals truth about the purveyors, even unto themselves. To some people it is just a word that gives authority to whatever they may associate with it. It is with words, however, that we have the ability to give meaning to anything in existence. Someone once said, I forget who, 'Language is to the mind as sight is to the eye'... My advice is to be careful with that word. Persons of title and rank use it sometimes as jargan or while engaging in code speak, to lie openly, exploit the innocent, or to commit fraudulent acts. Truth resides on a separate plane than material experience. That is why the truth is as likely to be revealed as observed. It does not fall under the ownership of any of us, yet it is by nature self evident for those open to it.

To: Greg or e who wrote (81992)	12/23/2009 6:21:53 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Respond to of 82486

"For my part, I believe that God is the transcendent Creator of the universe and that He has communicated truth to us through the natural world,(general revelation) His word (the Bible) and through the incarnation of Jesus. Not, that all roads lead to Rome. Not, that there is ultimately no distinction between good and evil, but that we are all fallen sinners in need of redemption and that He has provided THE way for us to be reconciled through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus for our sins." Yes I know greg. I don't consider myself in competition with that statement. Do you? I knew that about you before we began this discussion. You knew that when you were what, seven years old, ten, twelve, or in young adulthood? You knew two plus two was four when you were seven years old also but you didn't stop seeking academic knowledge. You seem to have satisfied your compulsion to label me with this pantheistic monism thingy so, well good for you. I don't want to burst your bubble before you celebrate Christmas. Let's take a break. Merry Christmas to you too, less_

To: Greg or e who wrote (81992)	12/23/2009 7:19:03 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Respond to of 82486

"If everything is illusory then all observations are also illusory. You can't tell when you are stuck in the illusion. This is almost a separate topic. Your statement could lead someone to believe that nothing is real and it is impossible to make any sense of our existence in a practical and reality based manner. Philosophically people fall into all kinds of traps like that, Zeno's paradoxes for example. We are able, however, to filter and synthesise experience to combine the ideas formed in our imagination with our perception of experience. Usually we use the word 'deluded' when we think someone is stuck in an illusion of their own making. Otherwise we consider illusions to be tricks played on the senses. It might be a natural illusion like the optical illusion of water on the desert or it could be man made. We filter them that way and are even entertained by them. When we are deceived by a trick that is meant to harm us or benefit someone else at our expense we consider that a crime against humanity. We know the magician is using slight of hand, magnetism, smoke and mirrors or some other form of illusion. But we know it is an illusion. We willingly open ourselves to other types of illusions, like literature, story telling, or movies where we temporarily suspend reality to imagine an experience. But we know we aren't actually having the experience. When being creative we deliberately alter our perception of reality in order to find inspiration for some productive thought or work. Some people even go to extremes like using hallucinogenic drugs. We engage in ceremony to form mental images, understand concepts, and attribute particular meanings to the fabric of society. But we know it is ceremonial. So in these cases and others the mind invents some ideas that aren't necessarily represented by objective experience. Philosophy, religion, tradition, culture, and individual experience all play a part in clarifying what is illusory and what is not. My application of the term was a little more abstract but also self explanatory. So it shouldn't be too confusing. If it is, I would be happy to clarify. "They are illusory divisions of people into ideological groupings which inevitably betray their own ideological foundations in corruption of core principle to cleanse ‘evil’ from their midst, paradoxically committing the most heinously brutal crimes in recorded history, over and over again. This predictable outcome never fails."

To: Greg or e who wrote (81992)	12/25/2009 7:03:29 PM
From: LLCF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 82486

<You can deny it all you want> As a follower of the conversation I can certainly say to the board it is YOU who are in denial. Pope Greg proclaiming the (well his) truth again. Completely ignoring the actual discourse. This is particularily interesting: Less: <<"Whatever influences have been brought to bear on the person behind the keyboard known as less_ … I speak only for myself, as always.">> Pope Greg: <<That's a non answer.>>> The statement by Less is simply an admission that all Less can know is "Less' version" of the truth... Pope Greg's continued COMPLETE ignorance (as has been established several times in previous discourse with me) of the concept that people are limited to their own version of the truth is at the root of (his) pathology. Pope Greg actually thinks HE KNOWS ABSOLUTE TRUTH... and that he can categorize people with (linear) words as description of concepts. This is also the pathology behind the thinking that the bible can be known by someone as the absolute truth. In reality, every word written in the bible has different meaning to every person. Therefore, one thinking one can obtain the absolute truth from (reading) a book (here bible) is actually a dangerous pathological state... sadly this pathology plays out on the world stage on a daily basis. DAK DAK