Getting people to work cooperatively is certainly a challenge. Not sure if words, whether bull or not, facilitate when the war of agendas ensues. Something in me always leads to the higher truth, that the changing nature of experience is bound to changing viewpoint, the filter made up of those aspects of self better left behind like belief, concept, ego and other mental construct. What reflects back to us in the form of experience calls us to shed what doesn't work anymore and move into a greater harmony, It keeps calling until we recognize the call and our experience then changes, deconstructs, reconstructs, and calls again.
On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 6:12:51 AM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > We generally do two types of meaning theory - semantic and foundational. > it is worth noting that one prominent tradition in the philosophy of > language denies that there are facts about the meanings of linguistic > expressions. (See, for example, Quine 1960 and Kripke 1982; for critical > discussion, see Soames 1999.) > Soames 1999, “Skepticism About Meaning: Indeterminacy, Normativity, and > the Rule-following Paradox,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 23: 211–249. > > I prefer Facil's more cogent 'we might both be wrong'! Sue has just > handed me a paper with the title, 'Shooting the shit: the role of bullshit > in organisations' by Andre Spicer of Cass Business School. The abstract > starts, 'This article argues that great deal of 'talk' and text' in > organisational settings is ultimately bullshit ... produced with scant > regard for truth and is used to wilfully mislead and pursue the interests > of the bullshiter ... appealing on the surface but ultimately brittle'. > The firm GTAT is a current example, 'yesterday a buy, today in Chapter 11 > bankruptcy'. > > > On Monday, 6 October 2014 18:17:58 UTC+1, facilitator wrote: >> >> That's true, one can accept the common meanings. My preference is to >> hear the word, apply the common acceptance of the word and then decide for >> myself what it "Means". Democracy is (has been) horrid. Scaling it down >> to a simple mob would elucidate this fact since the final outcome rarely >> illuminates the catalyst of the problem. A number of years ago I had a >> gentlemen (minister) whom I strongly disagreed with on a theological point >> because I did not accept the "group think" and his conclusion was that >> either he was right and I was wrong or vice versa. I said there is >> another, less widely accepted answer, and that is, "We could both be >> wrong". >> >> On Monday, October 6, 2014 12:17:22 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >>> >>> One might accept the common meanings in their use Facil. This would >>> quickly lead us up the garden path in quantum considerations of 'spin' and >>> 'colour' without consideration of that use. Most common terms, like >>> freedom seem to need at least double consideration - personal freedom >>> raising, as we speak, issues of the collective. Democracy seems to need a >>> recognition of the evil done in its name. >>> >>> On Monday, 6 October 2014 17:01:22 UTC+1, facilitator wrote: >>>> >>>> Correct Mr. Heretic! I do not accept common meanings of words. When >>>> real communication occurs there are subtleties and nuances, inflections, >>>> body language etc. that give a deeper (or more proper) understanding of >>>> what is actually being said. The internet has reduced "Communication" to >>>> a >>>> series of letters sometimes accentuated with punctuation. Ex: Peace can >>>> mean the absence of war or the subjugation of all opposing views. >>>> >>>> On Sunday, October 5, 2014 12:26:18 AM UTC-4, Allan Heretic wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Tony been through that and agree with you except you apparently do not >>>>> accept common meanings of words. >>>>> So what else is there ,, we covered the topic of the 3D .. >>>>> Someday Tony an original thought is rare, extremely rare. >>>>> If you look at the idea there is a totality of knowledge in Hinduism >>>>> it is referred to as a cosmic egg and contains all knowledge. You cross a >>>>> time/space barrier and bring an idea into our reality . . . >>>>> >>>>> Allan >>>>> Living Soul >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: "'facilitator' via \"Minds Eye\"" <[email protected]> >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Sent: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 12:16 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Perception as action >>>>> >>>>> As I said before Allan, there is no "Present" everything, now matter >>>>> how perceptively small a fraction, is in the past. The only possible way >>>>> to be in the "Present" is to freeze time. And again, it is not a >>>>> substance >>>>> or a quantifiable entity. It is simply an invention of man. >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, October 4, 2014 5:07:44 PM UTC-4, Allan Heretic wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Time only marks a point in non time. The present , the future is only >>>>>> a possibility and does not exist ~ yet ~ and the past is only a >>>>>> reference >>>>>> point. >>>>>> The quirkiness of time really begins in observations of electrons >>>>>> highly observable in the hydrogen's solitary electron as it changes >>>>>> orbit >>>>>> without time lapse. Considering orbits are specific distances .. The >>>>>> leap >>>>>> of orbital distance is tremendous. Leaving one orbit continuing on in a >>>>>> totally different orbit in random selection. >>>>>> Time is strange to say the least considering sciences dependency on >>>>>> it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Allan >>>>>> Living Soul >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: "'facilitator' via \"Minds Eye\"" <[email protected]> >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Sent: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:48 PM >>>>>> Subject: Mind's Eye Re: Perception as action >>>>>> >>>>>> Perception is everything. We actually have the arrogance to call >>>>>> something "3D"! Our mind tells us what scale to place items in and at >>>>>> what distance. I find it humorous also from a philosophical point of >>>>>> view >>>>>> when people call something "A near death Experience". Everything in life >>>>>> is >>>>>> a near death experience when we finally realize the deception of >>>>>> something >>>>>> known as "Time". It is not quantifiable but we still rely on that tick >>>>>> that somehow represents 1 second. >>>>>> Back to perception. From a historical perspective, what have we not >>>>>> created that we have not perceived at first? The Sci Fi people seem to >>>>>> have a leg up on this, still, the gap of idea to invention keeps >>>>>> getting >>>>>> narrower. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
