Because this is a timely rap given someone's propensity lately to trot out my postings of OPINION to counter my jabs at her for declaring her opinion to be FACT, I will rap some more on it. I actually like Issac's essay in that he ends with the right note by saying that his knowledge (and the knowledge of science) cannot be considered "wrong," merely "incomplete." That I have no problem with, especially related to issues of supposed scientific fact.
What I object to is declarations *in matters of pure opinion* that a person's OPINION is fact. If you haven't noticed, I don't do this. As often as I can, I pepper my posts with "IMO" or even spell it out. I also don't try to SELL anyone my opinion. I just state it. And yet there are people on this forum who seem to believe that I am trying to "convince" them of something, and am trying to make a statement that my opinion is "fact." For the record, it's not. It's JUST MY OPINION. Equally for the record, I think that the reason so many TM TBs seem to get so seemingly threat- ened by my opinions, and *mistake* them for declarations of fact and an attempt to sell them something, is that THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. THEY are always trying to sell something. They are incapable of stating their own opinion on a subject without equating that opinion with fact. They are seemingly incapable of hearing an opinion that disagrees with theirs or with Maha- rishi's without perceiving it as some kind of "attack," some attempt to "sell" them something. I am NOT trying to sell any of you anything. I have NOTHING TO SELL. I have *no illusions* that any of my opinions are, on any level, "fact." I have said so many times, and say so again. And it won't do a damned bit of good to say it. Because tomorrow (maybe even today) Judy, Nabby, ed11, Raunchydog and others will claim that I'm trying to "convince" them of something, that I'm trying to "sell" my opinions here or "prove" them more "right" than other people's opinions. That's PROJECTION. That's what THEY do. And IMO they do this because THEY are so limited that they cannot even *conceive* of someone being content with his own opinion AS opinion, and not needing to try to sell it to others or impose it on them as some kind of "fact" or "truth." I deal solely in OPINIONS. My suspicion is that every single human being who has ever lived -- including all of the supposed "seers" of the Vedas and all of the spiritual teachers in history -- has also dealt solely in OPINION. Not a single one of them ever had access to something called "truth." But that is just my OPINION. I'm not trying to sell it to you. If you believe I am, that's your problem, not mine. --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], ruthsimplicity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm > > > > "The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, > > went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every > > century people have thought they understood the universe > > at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. > > It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern > > "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted > > with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the > > Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. > > "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I > > alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that > > I was very foolish because I was under the impression I > > knew a great deal. > > > > My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth > > was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was > > spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking > > the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth > > is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." > > > > The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" > > and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly > > and completely right is totally and equally wrong. > > > > However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and > > wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an > > explanation of why I think so." > > While it is an entertaining rap, and Issac gets > *part* of it right (that all assessments of "right" > or "wrong" are relative), he then goes on to make > an assumption based in ego -- that "my" (his) view > is "more right" than others. He thus bases his final > statements on an assumption of *his* relative > importance. > > For anyone who ever knew him or met him, this comes > as no surprise. In my youth I was a science fiction > addict, and attended many conferences in which the > authors were present. I have to say that out of all > of them, it is a close tie as to whether Issac Asimov > or Harlan Ellison was the biggest, most insufferable > egomaniac. :-) > > The man didn't wear his ego on his sleeve. His sleeve > wouldn't have been BIG enough for his ego. :-) > > We are talking the man who had an ongoing, compulsive > "contest" with Bob Silverberg as to who could publish > the most books. Last time I checked, both had written > and published well over 300 books, and at *every* > conference they would trot out the statistics and > the "loser" would get all glum and go home and dash > out five more books so that he could be the "winner" > at the next conference. It was ludicrous. > > So my "take" on his quote is that it is a manifest- > ation of EGO, pure and simple. Asimov, *unable to see > past his own ego*, assumes that it is somehow more > "important" and "valid" than those who weigh the > relative value of one theory vs. another, and that > as a result his assessment of that value "wins." > > But he's doing this TO PUFF UP HIS EGO, *not* > out of any sense of really trying to determine > "right" or "wrong." He and the flat-earthers are > in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION, *given what they have > to work with*. The people in the past who worked with > only what they could see with their naked eyes, came > to a decision about the nature of the shape of the > earth. Later, given better instrumentation and more > input, others came to a different decision. Both > were "right," *given the inputs*. But Asimov chose > his example to put down those who were working with > less input as "lesser" than he was, when in fact if > he had been living back in flat-earth times, I can > assure you he would be JUST as much a raving ego- > maniac about his "certainty" that the earth was flat. > > Asimov makes a good point -- the assessment of "right" > and "wrong" are fuzzy. THAT is what one should come > away with as the result of reading his quote, not > that their sense of "right" is "better" than someone > else's. >
