--- 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. >
newmorning i very much doubt that Christine Breese was referring to any obvious, factual level cases or even to cases that basic common sense can determined where the truth resides. :D > > > > 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. >
