“Indicating that I was arguing about thinking. That is what is inaccurate.” – SE
After reading trough your post a few times, I finally think I understand how you interpreted my words. We have at the very least a miscommunication. I’m not sure how useful it is to hash out this relatively unimportant point, but will give it a quick go anyway. When I wrote: ” > 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?” – OM …rather than meaning to say that you are arguing *about* thinking, my intention was to point out that in the very process of your argument and coming to conclusions you were *using* thinking. And, in this sense, thinking itself is self-referential…in the current context, you came to conclusions within your own closed system…and as I understand from your later clarification for me on self-reference (thanks!), whether one is discussing deities or baseballs, the same principle(s) apply, no? …personal experience(s) and ‘senses’ of one sort or another?? And/or being ‘thrown back on the resources of reason’ (for the skeptic)…I was pointing out that the latter is itself self- referential using your criteria as I understand it…you are using your own (unprovable) subjective thinking (‘logic’). Regardless, I now see how my wording could have been interpreted the way you interpreted it. I was perplexed for a while though. So, I guess to be sure of your belief structures, I will ask for a little more clarification if you don’t mind. Could/would you give a non-theological example of self-reference as you understand it? Thanks. Oh, and in a late response to your comment(s) about solipsism…while I don’t exactly hold that philosophical view, I do embrace many of the tenets of the Buddhist Mind-Only Schools. There are differences. But, please do not let this hinder our current interaction. IF you wish to address it, a new topic perhaps? ...and, yes, it was informative...and what I had guessed you meant. Thanks again! On Sep 7, 7:12 pm, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
