2009/9/7 ornamentalmind <[email protected]>: > Well, I guess I could just repeat the exact words you use in the same > order however without rephrasing your words to how I interpret them, > and then asking you, I never know if actual communication has > occurred. So, yes, I do alter your words. And, with the current > example, I guess I don’t see what the problem is
What you wrote was... > So, the criteria you use is ‘sensibility’…along with simplicity, > correct? And, you arrived at this juncture how?...other than using the > very thing (thinking) that you are arguing about, no? Indicating that I was arguing about thinking. That is what is inaccurate. I was simply saying that I do not accept self-validating experiences as an argument. You somehow turned that into something about me using thinking to arrive at a conclusion being a contradiction of my position (contradicting myself). A very clever and useful tactic but only if you correctly understand what I said originally. The "very thing (thinking) that you are arguing about" should be replaced with, "the very thing (self-validating experience) that you are arguing about". However that would be nonsense since I do not use self-validating experiences either to ascertain my own understanding of a subject nor to use such as an argument to support my position. In short you misunderstood what I said and countered it with something I didn't say as evidence of me contradicting myself. > When it comes to ‘self-validation’, perhaps I do not understand what > you mean. Are you willing to share your view? I checked the phrase in > a list of fallacies and didn’t find it. It isn’t in many dictionaries. > And, god google comes up with software…perhaps you can shed a light on > your epistemology, OK? Thanks. My pleasure, I will use determining which holy text is genuine in this explanation ... The only direct avenue to the divine will is to undergo a personal experience in which one senses the presence of God and apprehends which of the putative holy books is the genuine one. But to avoid being deceived, to be sure it is God whose presence is being experienced and whose will is being apprehended, one must undergo a self-validating experience that carries its own guarantee of infallibility. Those who undergo what they believe to be such experiences are convinced which holy book is genuine, and, consequently, which actions, prayers, and rituals God approves. Notice they have thereby assured themselves of the existence of God, for unless they have actually experienced God's presence, they cannot be certain that the message they have received is true. They, therefore, have no further need for a proof of the existence of God. But suppose one does not accept any person's claim to a self-validating experience. Perhaps one doubts the logical possibility of such an experience' or is uncertain who, if anyone, has undergone it. In that case, one is thrown back on the resources of reason, coming to share Sidney Hook's view that: "Whether an actual angel speaks to me in my beatific vision or whether I only dreamed he spoke, the truth of what he says can only be tested in the same way as I test what my neighbour says to me. For even my neighbour may claim to be a messenger of the Lord." Hope that is informative. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
