--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > It seems to me that the attempt to claim that some- > > thing is "true," and to actively get someone else > > to "buy into" that "truth," is an attempt to get > > them to *share your state of consciousness*.
If the discussion is not mataphysical, but rather is focussed on the dynamics of the everyday word, then I disagree. If the cat is white and you say its black, I am not subsequently arguing against your state of consciousness -- (if you get the point ---- without going off into metaphysical realms). > > Any appeal to others to believe something that is > > true only from the unenlightened waking state is, > > almost by definition, an appeal to these others > > to look at the situation *from* the POV of unenlight- > > ened waking state. If these others are looking at > > the situation from another state of consciousness, > > from the POV of, say, UC, then the situation as > > described by someone in the state of ignorance is > > *not* true, for them. The cat is still white. It may also be known by some to be a reflection of the same omnipotence that they are a reflection of. But the cat is still white. > > But the folks who feel the need to *convince* these > > others that they "know" the "truth" often keep ham- > > mering away at the UC POV, telling it that it's > > "wrong," and that they should look at things from > > the "right" POV. Which in this case, of course, is > > ignorance. > > Actually, I don't recall having seen many, if any, > disputes of this nature here. I agree. I can't recall many if any, Turq, can you cite 3-4 of these discussion, My mind draws a blank. >I think the assertion > above is being used to lump all disputes about > what is true and what isn't into this category and > thereby stigmatize anybody who takes a stand on > anything as being in "ignorance," as well as to > excuse those who contradict themselves or get > their facts wrong or express an opinion that is not > well founded. Some true contradictions are inevitable -- and useful -- if used well. That is far from validly concluding or infering that ALL contradicions are good. If someone says the cat is black, when its white, thats a contradiction. One of mistaken perception. Its not profound. > > > > > Something to bear in mind when trying to claim that > > your POV is "true." When you make that claim, aren't > > you *really* saying, "*Mine* is the POV or SOC from > > which 'truth' is determined?" Since few discussions are really debating such, your point is not relevant to 99%+ of all dsscussions here that focus on the every day material world. If in that context if "you know, its a contradiction" is used as a trump card -- to justify poor logic, cognitive difficulties or incorrect "facts, then its a cop-out. > Nope. Depends entirely on the claim and the > nature of the POV. > > Charles Manson is reported to have said, "If all > is One, nothing can be wrong." > > That's true, but it's irrelevant, even if we > accept for the sake of argument that Manson was > in UC. To claim that it makes a difference on > the level of human interaction is just sophistry. Yes.
