by LittleToe 260 Replies latest jw friends
Kid-A you coming to the fest??? Huh?? Are ya??? are ya???
(kk trying not to sound too keen)
Sure thing babe, like thats my name dont wear it out... (in a John Travolta style as Danny in Greece)
Well anyway... whatever... might catch you there.... if I can be bothered....
(kk rushes off the buy bottled pheremones and matching underwear)
IMO, subjective experiences are objective to the one experiencing them
You, my friend, are a destroyer of words. Really. This is mush.
They only become subjective when the person attempts to explain, relate, or demonstrate them
Bass-ackwards too.
To put it another way, it is possible to ideate that which one cannot communicate.To put it another way, it is possible to ideate that which one cannot communicate.
Careful! You'll be accused of being pedantic!
We have to slowly chip away at it by offering each other synonymous words with different connotations until she is satisfied that the finished product represents what she was actually thinking.
So, we have to be married, then, for you to play by reasonable standards?
This was one of the related points of the bee sting analogy. The one who experienced it needs no clinical proof. This person has all the evidence they need, it is incontrovertibly proven as far as they are concerned. It is actual.
I feel like I'm in Wonderland with Alice, sometimes! Do words mean what you want them to mean however you may choose? Or, should they perhaps be the same for the rest of us too? Read what you said. The famous bee sting anlogy wants to have it both ways simultaneously. It is muddled and bungled. The very fact of the sting is not an opinion and cannot be. Can't you see that? It is actual and factual from the getgo--you can't use it to demonstrate your point about subjectivity. It doesn't work. Flunk.
Science tries to remove the influence of the observer to the extent possible. Thus double-blind studies. But we don't live day-to-day in a laboratory and I, for one, refuse to yield my concept that reality exists outside the laboratory. This concept, if you agree with it, compels acceptance that the rules of the laboratory do not apply outside the laboratory. And, in my opinion, that ought to compel tolerance.Oh fiddle faddle! Is there no middle ground for you? Can't you be dragged kicking and screaming into using words as to how they actually are defined? Or, is everything whatever your whim dictates? No compromise on maybe agreeing on a definition before debate? That's how the professionals play.
Hair splitting academia. Yawns.I think you have come a long way from the original point that there is no need to have vitriolic hate for religious belief. All LT said was 'how about a bit of tolerance'.
Thanks for the concise summary!
We should have awaited your arrival before we spoke.
I'm afraid I have to bug out, at this point. If it's any consolation, having read quite a number of your posts, I can quite understand your rancor towards most things "spiritual". While I might disagree with its application to my life, I don't just tolerate your opinion, I respect it. PeaceI hope you'll join us at the Fest, too, for a nice quiet beer
Peace, Bro. No harm; no foul.
I respect your opinion as well.
If the Fest is within driving distance of Fort Worth I'll be there. Otherwise, have a spectacular time!
YEAH!!
aint that the truth!
But dont sweat it Terry, you will know for next time.
I hope Terry is going to be showing up topless as per his avatar.....LOL
I wouldn't wish it on, my friend! Why do you think the lighting is so creepy and the photo so infinitesimal?
It is the act which follows the attitude.Agreed. Ridicule and scorn are intolerant ACTS, when directed toward anything which is not demonstrably evil. Intolerance, as you have defined it, is itself evil. If the associated behaviors are directed toward something which is demonstrably evil, it is not intolerance.If you cannot demonstrate that belief in (fill in the blank) is evil, then any rage, ridicule, or scorn, or any other intolerant behavior directed toward that belief would itself be evil. Thus costing the intolerant person any ethical basis for insisting on toleration. Because, as you demonstrated, there is no need to tolerate intolerance. Intolerance is evil.
Were I to adopt a similar stance over use of "emphasis" I'd be taking you to task over your garish ;use of red and highlighter, but it's a non-issue, really.
Now we are on the same page and no argument exists!
.....except........
Not all teasing is passive-aggressive behavior . Besides, passive-aggression isn't really real, anyway.AuldSoul
You are more precisely correct here than you might have intended! It isn't the passive nor the aggressive which is real; it is the BEHAVIOR.
So..
We've concluded detante at last!
Three cheers for agreed upon definitions!
Hip Hip----------
Hip Hip
Hip Hip
IMO, subjective experiences are objective to the one experiencing themYou, my friend, are a destroyer of words. Really. This is mush.
On this point I have to agree with Terry.
Terry:I'm staying just East of DFW, at MegaDude's, and the Fest is the West end of Dallas. Hope you'll come. I'd love to meet up, even if we barely exchange a word - actually that might be preferable for everyone else - LOL.
Stop! You've got it wrong. Belief in an external fact of reality should only be based on objective evidence. Tentative beliefs may be held subject to conclusive evidence coming in.
Okay, you've confused me. I am not suggesting that you should believe the person. I am suggesting that you should allow for points 1 and 2 to logically lead you to point 3. I am not trying to convince you that you must believe everything someone says. I am trying to convince you that unless you have compelling contrary evidence you must allow them their belief while being as skeptical as you like, pursuant to acknowledging they may know something you don't know. Maybe that was misunderstood as not following a logical progression from the first two points.
Aren't all my percetions, by definition, subjective?
Not to you, Only to anyone with whom you try to share them. Subjective versus objective is only a clinical distinction. In everyday life it is almost meaningless.
No, based on how closely such a belief fits in to an objectively measurable framework of reality (or in some tediously pedantic sense, my subjective interpretation thereof).
But is it not your personal perception, from the framework of knowledge and experience that you possess, as to whether one framework is a more accurate measure than another? If so, there is no basis, as far as I can tell, for ridicule. You've already admitted that your knowledge and/or the facts may change.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Terry:I'm staying just East of DFW, at MegaDude's, and the Fest is the West end of Dallas. Hope you'll come. I'd love to meet up, even if we barely exchange a word - actually that might be preferable for everyone else - LOL.
Are you serious? That close??
I'll be there with bells on if I can have an exact date and address!
