--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > 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_reply@> 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. > > >
IMO you're selling your POV that your OPINION is only OPINION. IMO the lady doth protest too much, methinks.
