Logic

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: LunarRay
..... he extrapolates that his truth is universal.. and it sure seems like it is to me.......

Exactly. As long as he and you contend that any truth is universal, you shall be regarded as arrogant fools.

EDIT: That should have said "... any philosophical truth..."

I Don't know what I don't know.. so Universal is not the parameter I'd choose... assuming it means everything.. and with Infinity as the criteria.. everything that can occur will occur.... that is philosophically a truth, I'd think


So.. a truth is truth.. it is axiomatic... and if it ain't universal.. then it is at least up to this point in time universal.. is that arrogant.. hehehe
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Well the topic is logic so let's take a look and see:

GZ: Since you speak with one voice, I won't bother with which one said what and will address you as the individual I believe you to be. Let's examine some of your own statements:

M: You are wrong on all counts. We are not the same individual, which ought to be obvious to anybody with comprehension skills. And we express things from very different points of view. So you are not using logic at all. You are more like an irrational child than an analytical thinker. You make assumptions for which there is plentiful evidence to the contrary. To be less charitable, you are stupid.

GZ: (I have adopted an element of your posts, but more on that in a minute.)

M: Here is a logically constructed sentence that says nothing at all.

GZ: "So, are you saying that IF true you'd be inferior in your current state? If this is true and since you recognize superiority then what is it that keeps mankind from achieving this advanced state of mind?"

M: So you are saying you have a hair up your ass? Try to compose a sentence that says something understandable to somebody besides yourself.

GZ: - Obviously, I am in some "current state" while you have achieved some "advance state of mind". Arrogant and condescending.

M: Best you don't go for the obvious when it comes to what I say because you are out in left field in terms of comprehension. This arrogant and condescending crap is all about you you you. You have lots of time to masturbate your ego and that's what you do. You do not understand what I say, not because you are inferior, but because you lack experience. Your feelings of inferiority infer all the rest. You do feel inferior and it is a fact, not me, the superior one telling you your condition. Is the same for everybody and because you are illogical you can't hear it.

GZ : "The worm mocks the elephant's ears while the elephant has not a care in the world about the worm."

- If you truly did not have a "care in the world" about the opinions of others then your posts would not be the point-by-point counter views that you post. This style of post, which I adopted here, simply reinforces my view that you are trapped by your own egotistical need to be right. This is contradictory to the very message you try to convey. This is why you have richly earned the derision of others and can only be called a hypocrite.

M: No, he is somebody who is amused and has lots of time. :D

GZ: "hidden behind the reality you see is the reality you don't see"

- An inane and obvious observation almost unworthy of comment. Congratulations on having read a pop-culture book on psychology or completing Psyc101. The inclusion of such a statement can only lead to the assumption that you believe that you are privy to this unseen reality. Arrogant and condescending.

M: You incredible ass. Hehe Why is it that somebody with a third grade mind can tell us that something is Psyc101. Actually LR has 4 or 5 degrees and Masters and a PhD is Psychology. You aren't even a pimple on his behind. You make a lot of assumptions and you look like the fool you are when you do.

GZ: "You wouldn't notice how superior I am otherwise." ; "I am superior to you because I can happily be the inferior you can't be but are." ; "I'm infinitely superior to you at being nothing. My humility is maybe 100 times as great as your own."

- Hmmm... no arrogance is those statements. The fact that you make such statements belittles your "humility" and again shows you to be a hypocrite. You cloak your claims of superiority in statements of inferiority and no one is fooled.

M: Careful, you are starting to sound like the fool you pretend I am. You truly are beginning to babble. :D

GZ: "No it is your insecurities that cause you to challenge."

- Nice projection. "It's not me that does that, its you." 5 year olds make better counterpoints.

M: Then I can't wait till you're five. That one was maybe 3 year old stuff. But I do see the deep logic. Say whatever comes out of your ignorant mouth. YOU ARE A MAN!

GZ: "I am here to tell you that the reason you do not know truth is because the truth is something you hate. You also hate to be told."

- Once again, arrogant and presumptive beyond the pale. Has it occurred to you at all, that perhaps you don't know the "truth"? Of course not. Your ego will not allow it.

M: I knew you'd hat that.

GZ: "I am pointing to the way out of hell."

- Who ordained you? Just like the previous statement, what makes you think that you are the most qualified individual to point the right direction? Complete arrogance.

M: I did f@cktard. Who the hell did you think. Did you think I needed your permission? Sorry your poor self esteem was so threatened though, but I expected it would be. All we hear from you is whining and crying about how superior Moonbeam is but where's the logic to your claims? You are a pile of emotional rubbish.

GZ: These are just from your replies to me in a couple of posts. There are many more equally absurd statements in your other posts.

M: I have toned down my responses to your almost infinite ignorance because I want you to continue to be amused. But I and a panel of board specialists have determined you to be rather insane. I am so sorry you couldn't compete in the logic thread and like the ape you are came in and started throwing sh!t. You are a bad monkey. Illogical too.

GZ: If you are seeking to provoke a real debate about a practical issue, you are failing miserably. Your posts contain so much self satisfied arrogance that it difficult to find any actual opinion or point (other than satisfying your ego driven need for self promotion).

M: You are so consumed by your feelings of inferiority that you mask being an arrogant ego that you are incapable of thinking your way out of a paper bag much less comprehending something of the advanced level I provide. Blinded by the light, obviously. :D

GZ: If you truly have little or no knowledge of Scientology, then I suggest you examine it. You will find many concepts and philosophies that are parallel to your views as expressed here. I admit to my error - hardly my first - in presuming to know your philosophies well enough to categorize you as a Scientologist. However, as I stated, your views as expressed here have many parallels with Scientology.

M: You will find, if you reread everything I wrote in this thread from the beginning that I may have mentioned somewhere there the fact that there is one truth and it covers all. There is one truth and everybody has a piece of it. I know enough about Scientology that I don't want to know more about it. The notion that you can hold some cans and get a galvanic skin response to hidden feelings, fine in theory maybe, strikes me as patently absurd when it comes to the matter of clearing them from the mind. Everybody is looking for a way around hell. The way to clear your feelings is to feel them till you heal. What we hide is our grief and what grieving cures is grief. You have to cry for your broken self and it will mend. There are many paths. I would call this one direct. It is totally rational and fits the truth of the heart. Ask yourself what you really know. I have experienced this myself. You know nothing and I tell you that as a fact if you can't see the truth in this. Your arrogance and attacks on me slander only your own hope. You slime your own way out and encourage other fools. You can say whatever you want though because the door is always there for me. The heart is the door to life. The pimple on your ass can't change that.

I thank you for your offer of Scientology as something I might be interested in. I have given you something I hope will interest you and if not now than perhaps someday.
I have no quarrel with Scientology, Christianity, Islam or any other system of belief. In a free society each individual is entitled to adopt any philosophy or theology that provides them with peace.

I will however call 'BS' anytime an individual claims to be in exclusive possession of the "truth". Your "truth" is not universal. Not because it is unprovable, but because it is not even attached to reason. It is, therefore, your personal madness and you should have no expectation that others will be willing to share it.

Your inability to comprehend this is the surest sign of your arrogance and ego.
 

GZeus

Senior member
Apr 24, 2006
758
0
76
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: LunarRay
..... he extrapolates that his truth is universal.. and it sure seems like it is to me.......

Exactly. As long as he and you contend that any truth is universal, you shall be regarded as arrogant fools.

EDIT: That should have said "... any philosophical truth..."

I Don't know what I don't know.. so Universal is not the parameter I'd choose... assuming it means everything.. and with Infinity as the criteria.. everything that can occur will occur.... that is philosophically a truth, I'd think

Once again, psycho-babble BS.

"everything that can occur will occur"

I can fall from the top of the Sears tower. I, however, won't. I always manage to stay inside when I'm there.

Next...

Edit: Oh, and btw, if your read your post again "universal" is the parameter you chose
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have no quarrel with Scientology
Do a little reading on the subject and you will. In a nutshell, Scientology charges its adherents hundreds of dollars an hour for "religious processes" that are in essence revelations of the details of a vast science fiction story written by its founder L. Ron Hubbard (now deceased). That money is used to fund an army of lawyers who attack without mercy any individual or organization that opposes Scientology.

I am not making this up.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: LunarRay
..... he extrapolates that his truth is universal.. and it sure seems like it is to me.......

Exactly. As long as he and you contend that any truth is universal, you shall be regarded as arrogant fools.

EDIT: That should have said "... any philosophical truth..."

I Don't know what I don't know.. so Universal is not the parameter I'd choose... assuming it means everything.. and with Infinity as the criteria.. everything that can occur will occur.... that is philosophically a truth, I'd think

Once again, psycho-babble BS.

"everything that can occur will occur"

I can fall from the top of the Sears tower. I, however, won't. I always manage to stay inside when I'm there.

Next...

Edit: Oh, and btw, if your read your post again "universal" is the parameter you chose

Sorry.. but with infinity as the criteria.. hehehehehhe you will topple on down, but I'm sure you get my drift..
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: shira
My dear Moonie:

Of course "world" can mean something akin to "universe," given the proper context. But I think it's pretty clear that Blake's context in that line from "Auguries of Innocence" is a single world, not the entire cosmos. Let's look at that stanza again (the bolding is mine):

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.

Note that Blake uses "a world," not "the world." Clearly, "a world" is a part of something bigger, a something that contains this world, that world, Blake's "world" and every other world. A something that one could fairly refer to as "the universe."

Hehe, yes, but also note that the next two lines flesh out his real intention, that a world is infinity and a heaven is eternity. Infinity, of course, is the universe. Also poetically, it reads better as a world and a heaven, in my opinion, because you can't really say, in the context there, the world and the heaven. But, more importantly, if I may say so, he is talking about exactly that which I have been saying, namely, that there is a kind of awakening that collapses duality and ends time. One becomes the universe and enters the truth, heaven, when the ego disappears. I don't know Blake, but it sure as hell looks to me like, HE KNEW.

Also, since we are going to sever a thread with a sword here, I was referring to my statement, that the universe is contained in a grain of sand. When you said, 'Not the universe, exactly, but a good start.' I thought you were saying you might see a world an a grain of sand but not quite a whole universe whereas that is what Blake and I were both saying.

First, your analysis of Blake's poem:

Although Blake refers to eternity, infinity, and heaven in that stanza, he doesn't say that all or even any of those may be seen in a grain of sand. He says only that "a world" may be seen in a grain of sand (and that the other big things are in a wild flower, your hand, and an hour). So even if the "sum of the parts" of that stanza is referring to the universe, each part of the stanza (the "grain of sand" line being one of those four parts) does not.

To put this more succinctly: If the sum of the parts is the whole, that doesn't mean that each part is the whole. This is very basic stuff.

Bolded part next:

In an earlier post, you wrote about a grain of sand containing the universe. Presumably, that was intended as a paraphrase (whether you knew it or not) of Blake (who "coined" the grain of sand metaphor). So I was merely pointing out that Blake had made a much more modest statement - that a world (not the entire universe) may be seen in a grain of sand.

In other words, I was pointing out that the underpinnings of your claim didn't support the "universe" interpretation. But since I'm such a comedian, I said it in a highly amusing fashion ("Not the universe, exactly, but a good start."). I crack myself up sometimes.

There is a Sufi saying, "In it what is in it." Each of us takes from his experiences what he can carry. You see in a thing what is in you to see. Blake is what we think Blake is according to our own lights and understandings. What I know about Blake is that he was a Mystic, had some sort of experience I call the awakening, or have been lately. What I take from the poem is a statement of the mystical experience according to my own experience. I refer to it as a collapse of duality where conscience totally enters the now. The observer dissolves, the lover and beloved are one. Time disappears because the now is always all there really is. It is the collapse of individuality and merger with the infinite and Blake is telling you that in the poem. It is the universe that is in a grain of sand and infinite being in the now. He is not talking about followers and sand and the laws of physics don't apply. There are no parts there is only the All. Everything is the all eternally.

Truth has nothing at all to do with logic because logic flies out the window when truth comes to town. Of course it's a bit tough on people who feel inferior to suddenly be confronted with the sudden experience of being Everything. Woah! Wasn't I spose to make lunch.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have no quarrel with Scientology
Do a little reading on the subject and you will. In a nutshell, Scientology charges its adherents hundreds of dollars an hour for "religious processes" that are in essence revelations of the details of a vast science fiction story written by its founder L. Ron Hubbard (now deceased). That money is used to fund an army of lawyers who attack without mercy any individual or organization that opposes Scientology.

I am not making this up.

Not me that has no quarrel with Scientology. I do have a quarrel with it. You fingered the wrong guy or I put an M: where I should not have.
 

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,291
30
91
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yeah, because nobody's ever said "man are we a bunch of idiots".

But that doesn't really matter, because you're wrong. The comparison is equally valid when you are comparing something to what is expected from the average. ie. Stephen Hawking probably calls Einstein a genius, even if they are/were both of relatively equal intelligence. So when I say that Thai food tastes good, it only tastes good in comparison to myself? No, it is good in comparison to other food. So to be clear, Moonbeams postings are stupid when compared to the thoughts of the average person you see around here. Hopefully you see how you're wrong there.

Also, not to be pedantic, but the definition of idiot (and of stupid) is either someone of below average intelligence, or someone who is foolish. Guess which one I was going for.

Irregardless of all that, to think that notifying someone that they are doing something wrong can only be done in the context of self promotion is also... stupid.

You don't notify people they are wrong. You ridicule them and call them fools. I think that's what makes you a fool. All you do is mumble about how stupid I am, but you neither make any intelligent case of your own nor intelligently argue why what I say is wrong. It's just wrong because you say it's stupid. Hehe. You will never think I am as stupid as I do. I am a chimpanzee. And I know you're right because your roommate and 9 out of ten dentists says so. :D
Actually, that's exactly what he said. He said "you're wrong", you are the one who is ridiculing. BTW, Moonie, you are wrong. Also, you also never intelligently argue why what you say is right, nor why what others say is wrong. Nothing but psychobabble ever comes from your fingertips, that much I know. Are your lips as bad?

edit: Sorry, Seekermeister, I couldn't help myself.

Hehe, I used to say that about my Physics teacher. Whenever anybody would tell him things fall up he'd start in with babbling in equations. The bastard was incapable of logical reason. But he was wrong.
So, since you never addressed my post at all, you're obviously admitting that you were, in fact, doing exactly what you were accusing him of doing. You aren't nearly as enlightened as you seem to think, now are you?

 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have no quarrel with Scientology
Do a little reading on the subject and you will. In a nutshell, Scientology charges its adherents hundreds of dollars an hour for "religious processes" that are in essence revelations of the details of a vast science fiction story written by its founder L. Ron Hubbard (now deceased). That money is used to fund an army of lawyers who attack without mercy any individual or organization that opposes Scientology.

I am not making this up.

ah... now I know or have in context Scientology.... L. Ron yes.. I remember now.. Welcome back Kotter's .. Barbarino.. can't think of his real name was into that.. and so were a few other 'actors'.. Tom Cruise, I think as mentioned earlier..

Look.. it may be 'out there' but the bottom line is: does it work? ... It may work for what some may deem the wrong reasons.. but does it work.. Christianity works.. lots of 'stuff' works.. AND ain't that the point... Folks are shackled by something in their mind.. that but for their finding they'd still be shackled.. .. We tend to look the the reasonableness of the process and label the outcome false..
Placebo works too... on some.
I know a person who labels as cult every belief but their own.. well except one other.. but they work.. they sate the need the individual has... I'd not use the methodolgy found but I do accept that it works.. I doubt it works by dealing with the reality that 'should' be dealth with and find it simply overwhelms and buries deeper ... so long as that overwhelming is there all is ok.. I'd opine.. and one may never have to visit the other..
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: LunarRay
..... he extrapolates that his truth is universal.. and it sure seems like it is to me.......

Exactly. As long as he and you contend that any truth is universal, you shall be regarded as arrogant fools.

EDIT: That should have said "... any philosophical truth..."

I Don't know what I don't know.. so Universal is not the parameter I'd choose... assuming it means everything.. and with Infinity as the criteria.. everything that can occur will occur.... that is philosophically a truth, I'd think

Once again, psycho-babble BS.

"everything that can occur will occur"

I can fall from the top of the Sears tower. I, however, won't. I always manage to stay inside when I'm there.

Next...

Edit: Oh, and btw, if your read your post again "universal" is the parameter you chose

You understand, I hope, the total illogic of calling things psycho-babble. To do so is what psycho-babble is. You are referring to a psychological phenomenon in a totally irrational way. You never attack the psychology or the idea put forth but just retreat behind your shield and scream like an idiot child, psycho-babble. Are you afraid that if you argue real ideas you won't have any to present?
 

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,291
30
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Are you afraid that if you argue real ideas you won't have any to present?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black:

Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: myocardia
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Yeah, because nobody's ever said "man are we a bunch of idiots".

But that doesn't really matter, because you're wrong. The comparison is equally valid when you are comparing something to what is expected from the average. ie. Stephen Hawking probably calls Einstein a genius, even if they are/were both of relatively equal intelligence. So when I say that Thai food tastes good, it only tastes good in comparison to myself? No, it is good in comparison to other food. So to be clear, Moonbeams postings are stupid when compared to the thoughts of the average person you see around here. Hopefully you see how you're wrong there.

Also, not to be pedantic, but the definition of idiot (and of stupid) is either someone of below average intelligence, or someone who is foolish. Guess which one I was going for.

Irregardless of all that, to think that notifying someone that they are doing something wrong can only be done in the context of self promotion is also... stupid.

You don't notify people they are wrong. You ridicule them and call them fools. I think that's what makes you a fool. All you do is mumble about how stupid I am, but you neither make any intelligent case of your own nor intelligently argue why what I say is wrong. It's just wrong because you say it's stupid. Hehe. You will never think I am as stupid as I do. I am a chimpanzee. And I know you're right because your roommate and 9 out of ten dentists says so. :D
Actually, that's exactly what he said. He said "you're wrong", you are the one who is ridiculing. BTW, Moonie, you are wrong. Also, you also never intelligently argue why what you say is right, nor why what others say is wrong. Nothing but psychobabble ever comes from your fingertips, that much I know. Are your lips as bad?

edit: Sorry, Seekermeister, I couldn't help myself.

Hehe, I used to say that about my Physics teacher. Whenever anybody would tell him things fall up he'd start in with babbling in equations. The bastard was incapable of logical reason. But he was wrong.
So, since you never addressed my post at all, you're obviously admitting that you were, in fact, doing exactly what you were accusing him of doing. You aren't nearly as enlightened as you seem to think, now are you?

 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have no quarrel with Scientology
Do a little reading on the subject and you will. In a nutshell, Scientology charges its adherents hundreds of dollars an hour for "religious processes" that are in essence revelations of the details of a vast science fiction story written by its founder L. Ron Hubbard (now deceased). That money is used to fund an army of lawyers who attack without mercy any individual or organization that opposes Scientology.

I am not making this up.

ah... now I know or have in context Scientology.... L. Ron yes.. I remember now.. Welcome back Kotter's .. Barbarino.. can't think of his real name was into that.. and so were a few other 'actors'.. Tom Cruise, I think as mentioned earlier..

Look.. it may be 'out there' but the bottom line is: does it work? ... It may work for what some may deem the wrong reasons.. but does it work.. Christianity works.. lots of 'stuff' works.. AND ain't that the point... Folks are shackled by something in their mind.. that but for their finding they'd still be shackled.. .. We tend to look the the reasonableness of the process and label the outcome false..
Placebo works too... on some.
I know a person who labels as cult every belief but their own.. well except one other.. but they work.. they sate the need the individual has... I'd not use the methodolgy found but I do accept that it works.. I doubt it works by dealing with the reality that 'should' be dealth with and find it simply overwhelms and buries deeper ... so long as that overwhelming is there all is ok.. I'd opine.. and one may never have to visit the other..

Yes, Scientology just loves it famous members (they're a real draw for the general public). In fact, it runs its "Celebrity Center" to cater to high-profile adherents.

"Does it work?" Well, it has millions of adherents worldwide, so I imagine that at any instant in time there are many, many people who like what Scientology is doing for them. But almost every long-term member I know or know of has eventually become disillusioned and dissatisfied, and has left the organization - often tens of thousands of dollars (if not more) poorer. And there are many, many horror stories - just google on Scientology and you will find them.
 

GZeus

Senior member
Apr 24, 2006
758
0
76
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have no quarrel with Scientology
Do a little reading on the subject and you will. In a nutshell, Scientology charges its adherents hundreds of dollars an hour for "religious processes" that are in essence revelations of the details of a vast science fiction story written by its founder L. Ron Hubbard (now deceased). That money is used to fund an army of lawyers who attack without mercy any individual or organization that opposes Scientology.

I am not making this up.

Shira,

It was I who, made that statement. I am aware of the tactics and methods of The Church of Scientology and share the criticisms you expressed.

What I meant to say, but poorly expressed, is that I have no quarrel with individuals who chose that as their philosophical or theological structure. I believe in a completely free choice for individuals. The same could be said of other theologies. I disagree with them, but believe strongly that the individual can adopt any of them if they believe it provides them insight and peace. However, I will also condemn any that propose that they are the 'one' truth to the exclusion of all others.

I regretted the phrasing when I re-read it later. I hope that clarifies my view.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have no quarrel with Scientology
Do a little reading on the subject and you will. In a nutshell, Scientology charges its adherents hundreds of dollars an hour for "religious processes" that are in essence revelations of the details of a vast science fiction story written by its founder L. Ron Hubbard (now deceased). That money is used to fund an army of lawyers who attack without mercy any individual or organization that opposes Scientology.

I am not making this up.

Shira,

It was I who, made that statement. I am aware of the tactics and methods of The Church of Scientology and share the criticisms you expressed.

What I meant to say, but poorly expressed, is that I have no quarrel with individuals who chose that as their philosophical or theological structure. I believe in a completely free choice for individuals. The same could be said of other theologies. I disagree with them, but believe strongly that the individual can adopt any of them if they believe it provides them insight and peace. However, I will also condemn any that propose that they are the 'one' truth to the exclusion of all others.

I regretted the phrasing when I re-read it later. I hope that clarifies my view.

Sometimes Moonie concatenates/interleaves responses and replies without making the separation obvious. Sorry I got confused on who posted what.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Let me ask you...

A fellow has a very large and mean spirited dog... and a need to determine this dogs weight... The dog won't let anyone place it on a scale to get a reading so the fellow goes out and gets a balloon crafter to make him a balloon in the approximate size of his fido... He then proceeds to fill the balloon with air being careful to not exceed nor under inflate the balloon.. he wants the dimensions to be as close as possible... finally he is satisfied with his endevor and proudly places the balloon on the scale... gets the reading and satisfies the need he had... Dog is happy.. fellow has no bite marks.. and the balloon maker made a buck...
I think this is a perfectly good solution to the problem... IF the need was somehow also met.. but, with out us knowing the need how can we opine that the solution won't or didn't work...

So.. is that logical or not... to do as the fellow did.. AND how can we tell?
 

GZeus

Senior member
Apr 24, 2006
758
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: LunarRay
..... he extrapolates that his truth is universal.. and it sure seems like it is to me.......

Exactly. As long as he and you contend that any truth is universal, you shall be regarded as arrogant fools.

EDIT: That should have said "... any philosophical truth..."

I Don't know what I don't know.. so Universal is not the parameter I'd choose... assuming it means everything.. and with Infinity as the criteria.. everything that can occur will occur.... that is philosophically a truth, I'd think

Once again, psycho-babble BS.

"everything that can occur will occur"

I can fall from the top of the Sears tower. I, however, won't. I always manage to stay inside when I'm there.

Next...

Edit: Oh, and btw, if your read your post again "universal" is the parameter you chose

You understand, I hope, the total illogic of calling things psycho-babble. To do so is what psycho-babble is. You are referring to a psychological phenomenon in a totally irrational way. You never attack the psychology or the idea put forth but just retreat behind your shield and scream like an idiot child, psycho-babble. Are you afraid that if you argue real ideas you won't have any to present?

Please do tell me which part of his post contained any "real ideas". If he was assuming infinite possibilities from parallel universes or another phenomenon, then he should have stated the actual "idea" that was the basis for his statement.
Without the actual idea, it is psycho-babble because it contains no context and was a vain attempt to sound 'deep'.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Let me ask you...

A fellow has a very large and mean spirited dog... and a need to determine this dogs weight... The dog won't let anyone place it on a scale to get a reading so the fellow goes out and gets a balloon crafter to make him a balloon in the approximate size of his fido... He then proceeds to fill the balloon with air being careful to not exceed nor under inflate the balloon.. he wants the dimensions to be as close as possible... finally he is satisfied with his endevor and proudly places the balloon on the scale... gets the reading and satisfies the need he had... Dog is happy.. fellow has no bite marks.. and the balloon maker made a buck...
I think this is a perfectly good solution to the problem... IF the need was somehow also met.. but, with out us knowing the need how can we opine that the solution won't or didn't work...

So.. is that logical or not... to do as the fellow did.. AND how can we tell?
Who is the "you" you are asking this question of?

But to provide the "short" answer: You are right. Without knowing what the man's real need was, it's impossible to say whether the described solution is satisfactory (= "logical") or not.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have no quarrel with Scientology
Do a little reading on the subject and you will. In a nutshell, Scientology charges its adherents hundreds of dollars an hour for "religious processes" that are in essence revelations of the details of a vast science fiction story written by its founder L. Ron Hubbard (now deceased). That money is used to fund an army of lawyers who attack without mercy any individual or organization that opposes Scientology.

I am not making this up.

Shira,

It was I who, made that statement. I am aware of the tactics and methods of The Church of Scientology and share the criticisms you expressed.

What I meant to say, but poorly expressed, is that I have no quarrel with individuals who chose that as their philosophical or theological structure. I believe in a completely free choice for individuals. The same could be said of other theologies. I disagree with them, but believe strongly that the individual can adopt any of them if they believe it provides them insight and peace. However, I will also condemn any that propose that they are the 'one' truth to the exclusion of all others.

I regretted the phrasing when I re-read it later. I hope that clarifies my view.

I address the salient part (IMO) of this post..
How do you expect someone.. anyone to adhere to a religion or other 'structure' and not believe that their's is the truth.. and that all the rest are not.. unless the rest are so similar as to make a distinction with out a difference. It seems to me that most belief center on this fundemental issue. Then proclaiming from the roof top that all non believers are heretic.. (religion) or completely looney. Should we not expect that reality.. that each 'knows' their's is the truth and no other truth exists...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Let me ask you...

A fellow has a very large and mean spirited dog... and a need to determine this dogs weight... The dog won't let anyone place it on a scale to get a reading so the fellow goes out and gets a balloon crafter to make him a balloon in the approximate size of his fido... He then proceeds to fill the balloon with air being careful to not exceed nor under inflate the balloon.. he wants the dimensions to be as close as possible... finally he is satisfied with his endevor and proudly places the balloon on the scale... gets the reading and satisfies the need he had... Dog is happy.. fellow has no bite marks.. and the balloon maker made a buck...
I think this is a perfectly good solution to the problem... IF the need was somehow also met.. but, with out us knowing the need how can we opine that the solution won't or didn't work...

So.. is that logical or not... to do as the fellow did.. AND how can we tell?
Who is the "you" you are asking this question of?

But to provide the "short" answer: You are right. Without knowing what the man's real need was, it's impossible to say whether the described solution is satisfactory (= "logical") or not.

Why.... you of course... :)

So ... maybe L. Ron's system IS good for the folks that it meets the needs of.. and as Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once said... "James, my boy... a broad question can be 'partially' answered by just about any response..."


 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have no quarrel with Scientology
Do a little reading on the subject and you will. In a nutshell, Scientology charges its adherents hundreds of dollars an hour for "religious processes" that are in essence revelations of the details of a vast science fiction story written by its founder L. Ron Hubbard (now deceased). That money is used to fund an army of lawyers who attack without mercy any individual or organization that opposes Scientology.

I am not making this up.

Shira,

It was I who, made that statement. I am aware of the tactics and methods of The Church of Scientology and share the criticisms you expressed.

What I meant to say, but poorly expressed, is that I have no quarrel with individuals who chose that as their philosophical or theological structure. I believe in a completely free choice for individuals. The same could be said of other theologies. I disagree with them, but believe strongly that the individual can adopt any of them if they believe it provides them insight and peace. However, I will also condemn any that propose that they are the 'one' truth to the exclusion of all others.

I regretted the phrasing when I re-read it later. I hope that clarifies my view.

I address the salient part (IMO) of this post..
How do you expect someone.. anyone to adhere to a religion or other 'structure' and not believe that their's is the truth.. and that all the rest are not.. unless the rest are so similar as to make a distinction with out a difference. It seems to me that most belief center on this fundemental issue. Then proclaiming from the roof top that all non believers are heretic.. (religion) or completely looney. Should we not expect that reality.. that each 'knows' their's is the truth and no other truth exists...

If one is an agnostic in the true sense of the word, then one can be an adherent to a particular and distinct belief system without feeling the need to label competing belief systems nonsense.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: LunarRay
..... he extrapolates that his truth is universal.. and it sure seems like it is to me.......

Exactly. As long as he and you contend that any truth is universal, you shall be regarded as arrogant fools.

EDIT: That should have said "... any philosophical truth..."

I Don't know what I don't know.. so Universal is not the parameter I'd choose... assuming it means everything.. and with Infinity as the criteria.. everything that can occur will occur.... that is philosophically a truth, I'd think

Once again, psycho-babble BS.

"everything that can occur will occur"

I can fall from the top of the Sears tower. I, however, won't. I always manage to stay inside when I'm there.

Next...

Edit: Oh, and btw, if your read your post again "universal" is the parameter you chose

You understand, I hope, the total illogic of calling things psycho-babble. To do so is what psycho-babble is. You are referring to a psychological phenomenon in a totally irrational way. You never attack the psychology or the idea put forth but just retreat behind your shield and scream like an idiot child, psycho-babble. Are you afraid that if you argue real ideas you won't have any to present?

Please do tell me which part of his post contained any "real ideas". If he was assuming infinite possibilities from parallel universes or another phenomenon, then he should have stated the actual "idea" that was the basis for his statement.
Without the actual idea, it is psycho-babble because it contains no context and was a vain attempt to sound 'deep'.

Don't ask me. LunarRay is way way deeper and much more subtle than me. I get all happy if I think I got 10%. I usually have to ask for clarification.
 

GZeus

Senior member
Apr 24, 2006
758
0
76
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have no quarrel with Scientology
Do a little reading on the subject and you will. In a nutshell, Scientology charges its adherents hundreds of dollars an hour for "religious processes" that are in essence revelations of the details of a vast science fiction story written by its founder L. Ron Hubbard (now deceased). That money is used to fund an army of lawyers who attack without mercy any individual or organization that opposes Scientology.

I am not making this up.

Shira,

It was I who, made that statement. I am aware of the tactics and methods of The Church of Scientology and share the criticisms you expressed.

What I meant to say, but poorly expressed, is that I have no quarrel with individuals who chose that as their philosophical or theological structure. I believe in a completely free choice for individuals. The same could be said of other theologies. I disagree with them, but believe strongly that the individual can adopt any of them if they believe it provides them insight and peace. However, I will also condemn any that propose that they are the 'one' truth to the exclusion of all others.

I regretted the phrasing when I re-read it later. I hope that clarifies my view.

I address the salient part (IMO) of this post..
How do you expect someone.. anyone to adhere to a religion or other 'structure' and not believe that their's is the truth.. and that all the rest are not.. unless the rest are so similar as to make a distinction with out a difference. It seems to me that most belief center on this fundemental issue. Then proclaiming from the roof top that all non believers are heretic.. (religion) or completely looney. Should we not expect that reality.. that each 'knows' their's is the truth and no other truth exists...

Actually Shira, on that I disagree. Many people make use of their faith daily without feeling the need to condemn those who believe differently. The vast majority of people of faith are satisfied that their faith is a personal truth to themselves and feel no need to scream heretic at others. It is only fanatics, who use faith as a tool to divide and project/protect power, that demand strict adherence to a particular dogma and condemn all others.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: LunarRay
..... he extrapolates that his truth is universal.. and it sure seems like it is to me.......

Exactly. As long as he and you contend that any truth is universal, you shall be regarded as arrogant fools.

EDIT: That should have said "... any philosophical truth..."

I Don't know what I don't know.. so Universal is not the parameter I'd choose... assuming it means everything.. and with Infinity as the criteria.. everything that can occur will occur.... that is philosophically a truth, I'd think

Once again, psycho-babble BS.

"everything that can occur will occur"

I can fall from the top of the Sears tower. I, however, won't. I always manage to stay inside when I'm there.

Next...

Edit: Oh, and btw, if your read your post again "universal" is the parameter you chose

You understand, I hope, the total illogic of calling things psycho-babble. To do so is what psycho-babble is. You are referring to a psychological phenomenon in a totally irrational way. You never attack the psychology or the idea put forth but just retreat behind your shield and scream like an idiot child, psycho-babble. Are you afraid that if you argue real ideas you won't have any to present?

Please do tell me which part of his post contained any "real ideas". If he was assuming infinite possibilities from parallel universes or another phenomenon, then he should have stated the actual "idea" that was the basis for his statement.
Without the actual idea, it is psycho-babble because it contains no context and was a vain attempt to sound 'deep'.


ooh...ooh...me ... me Mr.. Kotter... let me answer that... (got Horshack on the brain)

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: LunarRay
..... he extrapolates that his truth is universal.. and it sure seems like it is to me.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Exactly. As long as he and you contend that any truth is universal, you shall be regarded as arrogant fools.

EDIT: That should have said "... any philosophical truth..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I Don't know what I don't know.. so Universal is not the parameter I'd choose... assuming it means everything.. and with Infinity as the criteria.. everything that can occur will occur.... that is philosophically a truth, I'd think
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Once again, psycho-babble BS.

"everything that can occur will occur"

I can fall from the top of the Sears tower. I, however, won't. I always manage to stay inside when I'm there.

Next...

Edit: Oh, and btw, if your read your post again "universal" is the parameter you chose

end quote

I said "with infinity as the criteria all things that can occur will occur"... that is logical, i presume.. Is it? In my little mind if parallel universes can occur they will... you can easily infer that from what I said.. Perhaps you'd expect one to list every possible thing that can occur ...EVEN the ones I don't know about.. hehehhehehehhe





 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Why.... you of course... :)

So ... maybe L. Ron's system IS good for the folks that it meets the needs of..
Possibly. However, sometimes society decides that the harm caused by an activity that people may voluntarily engage in outweighs the potential good.

For example, why should society make fraud a crime? After all, there's a period of time during which the sucker who voluntarily sends his money to the swindler is quite happy: He thinks he's going to receive something nice in return. However, eventually this pleasurable expectation is shattered by the reality that the money's gone and nothing is going to be received in return.


Do you think it's okay for society to ciminalize fraud? If so, then you might want to reconsider your attitude toward Scientology: People send in lots of money, and they're quite happy for a period of time. But eventually, they realize they've lost their money and ended up with nothing in return.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: GZeus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have no quarrel with Scientology
Do a little reading on the subject and you will. In a nutshell, Scientology charges its adherents hundreds of dollars an hour for "religious processes" that are in essence revelations of the details of a vast science fiction story written by its founder L. Ron Hubbard (now deceased). That money is used to fund an army of lawyers who attack without mercy any individual or organization that opposes Scientology.

I am not making this up.

Shira,

It was I who, made that statement. I am aware of the tactics and methods of The Church of Scientology and share the criticisms you expressed.

What I meant to say, but poorly expressed, is that I have no quarrel with individuals who chose that as their philosophical or theological structure. I believe in a completely free choice for individuals. The same could be said of other theologies. I disagree with them, but believe strongly that the individual can adopt any of them if they believe it provides them insight and peace. However, I will also condemn any that propose that they are the 'one' truth to the exclusion of all others.

I regretted the phrasing when I re-read it later. I hope that clarifies my view.

I address the salient part (IMO) of this post..
How do you expect someone.. anyone to adhere to a religion or other 'structure' and not believe that their's is the truth.. and that all the rest are not.. unless the rest are so similar as to make a distinction with out a difference. It seems to me that most belief center on this fundemental issue. Then proclaiming from the roof top that all non believers are heretic.. (religion) or completely looney. Should we not expect that reality.. that each 'knows' their's is the truth and no other truth exists...

If one is an agnostic in the true sense of the word, then one can be an adherent to a particular and distinct belief system without feeling the need to label competing belief systems nonsense.

Hmmm... not sure one can be agnostic and not have the self supporting reason being the nonsense of the rest.. but ok.. perhaps some can..