On Nov 26, 1:47 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > If you have had those experiences, why do you still think in terms of truth > and lie??? This doesn't make any sense to me. >
That was in reference to trying to share one's experience. You have to tell or write and the other person, without direct experience, must be persuaded by your 'argument'. That's why I said "I can't share those experiences, I can only write them down or tell them, which isn't the same as giving someone else that same experience. Rather, it requires the reader/listener to believe that I'm speaking the truth, which adds a further layer of confounding, especially if the experience is counter to the reader's/listener's pre-conceived belief." You can't give someone else the same experience, you can only give an account OF the experience. And that account must be believed and, when another person's experience doesn't have a similar experience to relate to yours, the persuasion can be nigh on impossible. > Am 26.11.2010 14:23 schrieb "Pat" <[email protected]>: > > On Nov 26, 12:52 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:> Pat, dear, I > understand the negative... > > Nevertheless, that is irrelevant to my usage. > > >To me this is a neutral scientific term. > > and THAT was how I intended it to be taken. > > >Tell me, > > which special ability do you have that allows you to make quantative > > statements on ot... > > My point of view, which no one else has. ;-) > > To be fair, until another's subjective experience is laid out in full, > I couldn't, in detail, comment upon it. > > If you would like to, for example, take the generic experience of > 'seeing a ghost'; this is an experience 'most people' do not claim to > have had, therefore most people pooh-pooh the concept, as they have no > similar experience with which to compare. Personally, I've seen two > things that, in my opinion, many would have thought to have been a > ghost; however, I don't believe what I saw WAS, in fact, a ghost, as I > know ALL the facts surrounding those experiences including the fact > that both were 'upon awakening' and what was seen was very similar to > the last thing about which I was dreaming. In both cases, I believe > there was an overlapping of dream-to-waking phenomenon that made me > think, for a moment, "wait, that looks like a ghost". But, after it > faded, and I was able to put the dream-related information together > with what my eyes saw, I 'thought differently' about what I'd seen. > That's not to say I don't believe that people can see ghosts, but, as > of yet, although I have two experiences that would have convinced > many, I think there is a simpler explanation. > So you see, I even put my OWN experiences to a very stringent tests > and, only when I can find no other plausible reason, then, and only > then, do I consider that the experience was rare indeed. > > Generalisations ARE just that, generalisations. They don't address > specific scenarios. If you want to talk specifics, you'll have to > site an example and give me ALL the information regarding it. Only > then do I stand a chance at answering any questions about it. > > >What do you think makes > > your experiences more special? > > I've had them and I know the full details OF them. "Most people", > when hearing the details, would think I'm either a liar or a > lunatic...but they weren't there and would think otherwise had they > been. > > > > > Am 26.11.2010 13:18 schrieb "Pat" <[email protected]>: > > > On Nov 25, 5:54 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:> Pat, Pat, > > Pat... writing in his most... > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
