Thanks, Richard, here's another list of his I found in wiki and like also:

        1. Be creedless; that is, be intelligent enough to make adaptations 
without dependence upon some formula.
        2. Be self-reliant; that is, be not dependent upon supernatural agency 
for intellectual support or moral guidance.
        3. Be critical; that is, question assumptions and seek certitude 
scientifically.
        4. Be tolerant; that is, be open-minded and hold conclusions 
tentatively.
        5. Be active; that is, live today and grow by exercising his capacities.
        6. Be efficient; that is, accomplish the most with the least effort.
        7. Be versatile; that is, vary his interests to attain a variety of 
interesting thoughts.
        8. Be cooperative; that is, find some of his satisfactions in social 
activities.
        9. Be appreciative; that is, make the present enjoyable by his attitude.
        10. Be idealistic; that is, create and live by ideals which he finds 
inspiring.


________________________________
 From: Richard J. Williams <rich...@rwilliams.us>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 3:55 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re:Spinning, was Carlos Castaneda on self-importance 
and petty tyrants
 


  
Share Long:
> ...how can you really tell 
>
The universe is spinning out of control - if it 
wasn't then there would be stasis, no movement and 
no life. If it is spinning and under control, then 
under the control of what or who? An intelligent 
agent? 

But, are things really moving or spinning?

According to my Professor, A.J. Bahm, there are 
six statements that summarize the realist view:

1. Objects which are known exist independently of 
their being known.

2. Objects have qualities or properties, which are 
parts of the objects.

3. Objects are not affected merely by being known.

4. Objects seem as they are and are as they seem.

5. Objects are known directly.

6. Objects are public.

If appearances derived through one sensory channel 
appear contradictory, it is natural to appeal to other 
senses for corroboration. When they contradict, which 
sense shall we accept as reliable? If we observe the 
realist closely, we will find that at some times he 
relies principally on his eyes and, at other times, on 
his ears. When different senses corroborate an error, 
we are still more baffled. 


 

Reply via email to