- Posts: 14624
So easy, a caveman could do it....
Khaos wrote:
Jestor wrote:
Khaos wrote: It cannot be simplified? Hmm, well, Einstein said that if you cannot explain something simply, you dont understand it well enough.
Then there is also Bruce Lees quote on stripping away the inessential, so the process should not become more complex, but more refined.
I have always thought that ones understanding of there path is represented in how simply they can explain it, and live it. It should not get more convoluted, but less so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0hJveJ8Hp0
You know, the problem, I find, with that whole "if you can't simplify" line of thinking is that I can think I've dumbed an idea/concept down to one freaking word, and still the person being explained to might not understand...
So, when the explainer says "I can't get any more basic", the one trying to understand says, "well, if you can't, then maybe you don't understand either"...
Its why we (people) butt heads...
I could say "Being" to me, would be the Golden Rule, or possibly "Acceptance", and one who doesn't use the words as I do, would not understand...
Like the word "Faith", in previous discussions....
I can complicate the issue, by telling you (metaphorical you) how I define things, but then I'm told "I'm not using the words right" or at least not as how the other person understands....
Its so.... Interesting, lol....
Maybe a derail, but im the OP... :lol:...
Nope, I think this illustrates my point perfectly.
Most people arent trying to communicate here to begin with, not really.
Misunderstanding here, I have found is more intentional.
That is, people need to feel unique and special, hence, any understanding cannot be simple, because the individual feels reduced as such.
So then, one is so complex, so unique, so singular, that they cannot be understood.
At least thats my theory.
Still, people are hardly as complicated as they like to present themselves, philosophy and spirituality simply plays to that kind of ego centric thinking is all.
Khaos, I've split this off, as I seriously am trying to talk...
I do talk different, but, I ask if it appears I am being difficult, please realize I'm not doing so intentionally...
Why do you say "most people here aren't trying to communicate"?
We tried in the "faith" discussion, but it went south...
I tried with Gisteron, and he accused me of some logical fallacy...
Did I use it? Sure, OK, but not to be a jerk,but because of how I talk... My username was/is chosen for a reason... lol...
Ren has accused me many times, lol...
I tried to be exact, and boil the word to definition (faith, I mean) and that was not welcomed either...
So, I laugh, lots of "lol"s and Smiley faces, but I find it all so funny...
Not because I'm not serious, or I'm poking fun, but because i find all of this fun...
Anyway...
I disagree we "feel the need to be special"...
Shoot, we are happy to find others like us...
I'd say we are more simple than some, because we can "feel" the answers whereas others need plenty of words to understand, and still may not....
Not so long ago, one of us said something, and most here were content with the person's understanding, their explanation as it was provided... Knowing that they understood, so if we didn't, it was OK... Sometimes, we do get heated amongst ourselves too, but usually easily rectified with so definitions....
But others didn't like that, and kept questioning this person, asking questions, and requesting more words and further explanation.... And it failed to satisfy the questioner....
When at some point, it was left at "I don't know how else to say it" the questioner said things about vagueness and other things, because although lots of words were used, they failed to "get it"....
Same thing here in my quote from the other thread....
The answer you are supplied doesn't compute so instantly there is an error...
Lets say 20 active people on this site at most hours, and only a couple can't understand?
But the majority seem to be able to communicate back and forth?
I'd say the problem is comprehension, not communication...
Honestly....
Going back to the word "faith"...
For some, it always implies a belief in something religious...
Whereas, I use it as a trust... A (as I see it) forgone conclusion that I am certain of... Although there is the possibility I'm wrong, I (have faith) (don't think I am)...
Cause that too is one of the definitions...
I'd say you have "faith" in science... (i do too indecently)
You (I'm guessing) would disagree....
On walk-about...
Sith ain't Evil...
Jedi ain't Saints....
"Bake or bake not. There is no fry" - Sean Ching
Rite: PureLand
Former Memeber of the TOTJO Council
Master: Jasper_Ward
Current Apprentices: Viskhard, DanWerts, Llama Su, Trisskar
Former Apprentices: Knight Learn_To_Know, Knight Edan, Knight Brenna, Knight Madhatter
Please Log in to join the conversation.
There is nothing I could add to this, at least without causing further misunderstandings.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
That, and also I accused you of being dishonest, childish and astonishingly hypocritical. But if all you take away is that you commited a logical fallacy, that's already something, I suppose. So I shall not complain...Jestor wrote: I tried with Gisteron, and he accused me of some logical fallacy...
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Please Log in to join the conversation.
One problem with positing the epistemological opposition between faith, as a spiritual attitude, and reason, as knowledge founded upon physical evidence, is in its dualist assumptions regarding kinds of knowing and its unscientific application of value that one kind of knowing is truer than another. I reject this epistemological dualism and the questionable validity of value attribution to different kinds of knowing. This question of the intellectual validity of faith assumes that there is but one valid criterion for determining truth, and that there is only one truth to be determined. Perhaps there is no one thing that is truth but that there are many true ideas – some of which might be contradictory. And that there are different kinds of knowing: one kind of knowledge is founded upon a kind of certainty that is derived from reproducible and predictable experimental results that can be described in mathematical language. There are other kinds of knowledge, for example, mythic. And this mythic knowledge is, for us here on this online community of professed Jedi, a religious faith that asserts that the true nature of reality, and so also that of human beings, can be found in other forms of knowing and is derived from other sources. Science cannot speak to many human experiences, like love or grief, nor can it assist in answering questions that arise from living, for example, “What is the best ethical action to take in this situation?”
I suggest that the Jedi faith is a kind of knowledge founded upon our experience of our own consciousness. Also, that there is a natural power that determines and constitutes our being; that there is a quality of thinking that transcends the limits of our factual existence and that this understanding is resists our capability to articulate in ordinary language does not negate its value. That there is a kind of thinking that transcends the structure of logic or resists reduction to the formulae of mathematics does not make it less real or true. Finally, myths reveal truths that are grasped, discerned or understood in a different way than that of science. Myth is one way of knowing, and of living, science is another.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Posts: 14624
Gisteron wrote:
That, and also I accused you of being dishonest, childish and astonishingly hypocritical. But if all you take away is that you commited a logical fallacy, that's already something, I suppose. So I shall not complain...Jestor wrote: I tried with Gisteron, and he accused me of some logical fallacy...
I only have a minute, so I will comment on this one...
Why should I respond to an opinionated attack?
And I could use colorful words to describe you n the long one... But what is the point? lol...The only one I see as (possibly) truthful, was the comment on the fallacy...
Im cool with that...
You say you wouldnt respond to me, unless I attacked you, and yet you do me...
Nice example you are setting.... lol....
On walk-about...
Sith ain't Evil...
Jedi ain't Saints....
"Bake or bake not. There is no fry" - Sean Ching
Rite: PureLand
Former Memeber of the TOTJO Council
Master: Jasper_Ward
Current Apprentices: Viskhard, DanWerts, Llama Su, Trisskar
Former Apprentices: Knight Learn_To_Know, Knight Edan, Knight Brenna, Knight Madhatter
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Wescli Wardest
- Offline
- Knight
- Unity in all Things
- Posts: 6458
Communication is a two way street that involves explanation and understanding by at least two parties.
Jestor asked…
Why do you say "most people here aren't trying to communicate"?
I have to agree in part with what Khaos said,
Most people arent trying to communicate here to begin with, not really.
Misunderstanding here, I have found is more intentional.
That is, people need to feel unique and special, hence, any understanding cannot be simple, because the individual feels reduced as such.
So then, one is so complex, so unique, so singular, that they cannot be understood.
…
Still, people are hardly as complicated as they like to present themselves, philosophy and spirituality simply plays to that kind of ego centric thinking is all.
I don’t think you are at fault for this or that you display this pattern as I have had several conversations with you where one of us would walk away with a different understanding. But there do seem to be several that are only concerned with their voice being heard.
20 active people that talk to each other all the time will understand how the other thinks and communication will be simpler. But communication is not always easy. With the message sent and the message received and a multitude or nationalities, cultures and language barriers to overcome, I amazed we don’t miscommunicate more.
But the majority seem to be able to communicate back and forth?
I don’t know, looking at the threads the majority seem to be of like (or similar) mind. And there is limited communication and more agreement and adding to. And I am not saying it is everyone!
I don’t think that all of what Khaos said is entirely accurate, but I can see where he is coming from in regards to some people “intentionally misunderstanding”. And I am generalizing and adding in those that refuse to try to understand because ‘their opinion is right and you are not going to convince them otherwise’.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Are you equating rationalism with empiricism, or, more accurately, materialism?Alan wrote: ... reason, as knowledge founded upon physical evidence...
Are you spitting both psychology, and biology, and, particularly, neuroscience in the face, or do you just not know that they exist, deal with exactly that, and are classified as sciences? I'm not saying that you're wrong, only that the things you say are...Science cannot speak to many human experiences, like love or grief...
Are you equating morality with ethics? Morality deals with which values one should pursue and how they are defined. Ethics is concerned with what concretely you are to do to be successful in your pursuit of an already given value.nor can it assist in answering questions that arise from living, for example, “What is the best ethical action to take in this situation?”
Also, it seems that we have different understandings of what truth means. My current (subject to change) definition of "the truth about x" is "The set of all statements A(x) the boolean truth value of which is TRUE". I would also urge you to learn what logic and mathematical notation is. I have yet to see even one coherent statement about literally anything that cannot be expressed through a finite number of common mathematical notation structures and I therefore find myself wondering if there even is such a statement. If anyone here knows of one, please, let me know.
No, I don't. I was commenting on (or attacking, if you like it better that way) your behaviour, not your person. More accurately yet, in the passage you quoted, I merely referred to the accusations I made, wherein I provided, directly or indirectly reasons I had for each.Jestor wrote: and yet you do [attack] me.
No, that is not what I said. I said I wouldn't respond to you "in that thread", unless I was "faced with a direct insult", which, of course, is an attack, but necessarily a personal one as opposed to just any. You know that this is what I said. But you misrepresent it on purpose. And the purpose you have, it seems, is to make me think despite my memory and the reckord of my PMs, that I promised not to respond to you, whereby either to make me shut up on my own, or, if I were to grant you more decency, which I'm willing to do for the sake of our friendship, to at least discontinue the discussion. Now, given this misrepresentation, please, explain to the fair judgement of our readers how you are behaving like anything less than the "dishonest [censored]" I accused you of being in my post #164221.Jestor wrote: You say you wouldnt respond to me, unless I attacked you,...
Better to leave questions unanswered than answers unquestioned
Please Log in to join the conversation.