--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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.
>
new morning says it perhaps far better than I did. Agreed.:-)
