I'll fuck off then. Out of a limited respect for the "intelligent" crowd. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You seem to ignore what I've repeated. It seems to me I've said it again and again. It's a "tentative belief". We must attach ourselves to it tentatively or we can't think about it. The act of 'accepting it for arguments sake" is ACCEPTING it, even if you'll reject it later or whatever. It's BELIEF, regardless of your distaste for the term - even though you may not take the belief too seriously over all, you MUST take it seriously for the purposes of any real analysis in its regard. Thus, you tenatively beleive x for the sake of whatever. I'm sure. I said it was weak going in, but it's on target, so there. Perhaps I'd modify it slightly "skill to make decisions that work toward the goal of understanding something" or something. Of course, it would have to be. We're pretty much saying the same stuff. Let me ask two questions related to that: Can you not see an equivalence? You said what I said except in more detail. Didn't you just describe a variant of decision making? Yup. Mine too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "Here is some input, what do I do with it?" if you make wise choices, you gain more from it. Bah, anyway.. I've defined it already in this thread basically as equivalent to belief/acceptance. But you just contradicted yourself. You just used a universal definition in saying "universal definitions are impossible", thus negating the claim! What about "truth is subjective"? Oh maybe you were referring specifically to wisdom. Even in that case however, you just tried to establish a universal defnition above, as did I. Are they both completely wrong and completely subjective? I think not actually. I'm still playing with idea of reason super-ceding logic in the sense that if you transform your assertion properly via subjectivity, if you account for it, it is possible to make state an objective truth like: Truth is subjective - and be accurate. I need to explore the idea more though, whereas I'm not entirely convinced this approach is worthwhile. I see it though as analagous to accounting for reference frames in the way its done in GR ala AE. So while being completely honest with yourself, you can think to yourself "I have no emotional attachment to my assertion 'I believe in nothing, period'"? You have no emotional attachment whatsoever to your family? Are they truths in your mind? Is your wife real to you? You don't "beleive" in your sons? You don't "believe" in your love/caring for your family? You don't 'believe' I'm typing this to your right now? If you were to find it untrue, that I really weren't typing this, you would have no emotional reaction whatsoever? Well I think you should. You should notice when the rug is pulled out from under you. IMO, the point is simply not to lose it if/when that happens - not to numb yourself to it to the point of non-existence/complete detachment. To completely detach is IMO, to reject your humanity - which is IMO - vanity above all else. To "be emotionally healthy enough to handle disspointment when your hypothesis (tentative belief) that there is indeed a rug under you is proven false." Of course my opinion on the matter could mean about squat to you in this regard. Pffft. There can be consensus of definition, silly man. If we agree, that's consensus and as far as I can tell we're pretty much agreed. Agreeing with someone doesn't necessarily entail allowing someone else to define you. Further, how strong the emotional attachments are don't necessarily preclude a healthy attitude toward the whole interaction. It's how one reacts over time if their emotional attachments are honestly threatened that indicates how reasonable they can be. Damnit man, you're not even keeping track of your own hypothesis! In it your "reciever" has to fit stuff into his understanding right? So.. IMO, it's wrong to denigrate "understanding" by calling it nothing. Were you to see this thread and its content for instance, as nothing - would contradict your own input. It's definately something, but only to those who've had it as part of their exerience. IMO you're just playing semantics because your "understanding" is your knowledge, however tentative. To me it looks like you've emotionally attached to some sweeping conclusion you reached regarding "the dream" and "illusions" and have tweaked your semanatics to justify its perpetuation. IMO, a failure to recognize the contradiction in the statement "I believe in nothing" gives you away in that regard (because the statement itself must be a belief). Perhaps the idea of "tentative knowledge" must forever remain unnattractive to you because of your conviction regarding lack of convictions. *sigh* Is this really the way things are for you? I guess it is, as I trust you're honest. It's very unnattractive to me in that you denigrate yourself by equating your ego to nothing more than vanity. Maybe there's more and I'm missing something, but to me your view here is repulsive because it's insulting to every good person i've ever met. Ego can kill 80,000,000 people over 20 years (like that sick fuck in china), or it can create beautiful muerals of hypothetical reality. It can appreciate, love, create, understand, blah blah blah. Ego is your only friend, and you take a giant shit on its head. Certainly I generally don't like divergent egos, but those maintained between the trap and the tao are IMO, the mana of living. Yes.
Just to re-iterat the first line of the above post: You seem ta ignore W-H-to-tha-izzat Ive repeated. It seems ta me Ive said it again n again. Its a "tentative belief". We M-to-tha-izzust attach ourselves ta it tentatively or we cant think `bout it in tha dogg pound. The act of blunt-rollin' it fo` arguments sake" is ACCEPTING it, even if youll reject it hustla or whateva . One, two three and to tha four. Its BELIEF, regardless of yo distaste fo` tha T-to-tha-izzerm - even though you may not takes tha belief too seriously over all, you MUST takes it seriously fo` tha purposes of any rizzy analysis in its regard. Thus, you tenatively beleive x fo` tha sakes of pusha , niggaz, better recognize.
Apologizes for just browsing through the other 18 pages... I guess I should ask what was the agreed-on definition of "reality".
Hehe... that goes on for a long time. Just thought the thread might be something you'd enjoy browsing. There's a long discussion about what reality is, and I don't know if anyone ever agreed on any of it.
