On the question of why 'I' am right and 'you' are wrong.

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The centapede was happy quite

until the toad in fun

said, 'Pray which leg goes after which?"

This worked his mind to such a pitch

he lay distracted in a ditch

considering how to run.

--------------

I guess Socrates was wrong or lied to us when he said that he knew one thing and that was that he knew nothing at all. Apparently he concealed the fact that he knew he also existed.

Now that we have that out of the way I suppose we can get back to examining why we have political opinions since we actually know, well, almost nothing at all

Socrates told us he knew nothing... I take him at his word.. he did not lie. That he may have questioned his own existence proves his statement. Him knowing nothing is of little value to me and him expecting to examine me and my existence by presenting argument of his own non existence allows me to agree.. He was not. He wrote not and I did not see him write nothing. It is Socrates who sat idle in the ditch pondering my running about.

We know what we know if we exist. I know I am so I can create my truth as I go. It really don't matter if anyone else who may exist concurs or not. My truth and therefore my knowledge is a function of my process. I am and therefore I think... be it illogical or not.. is how it is for me. I don't need concensus of opinion. I need only to think it to be right. I am at one with me.
So when I say it is wrong for something to occur it is wrong and since Socrates said he knew he only knew one thing and that is that he didn't know anything ... that he didn't even know if he didn't know he didn't know... poor fellow.. well I do know... because I am... and I think.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Point: Since you do feel you exist why do you believe apathy or murder would be the result of not believing you do. This is a case of having an opinion that may change with new experience as you implied you recommend, no?. I'm not buying your assumption because it sounds to me like your suggesting you know something purely theoretical which you haven't experienced, or so it seems to me. Perhaps people who know they don't know have a different experience. Perhaps if Socrates didn't know anything and knew that he didn't know and said too that the unexamined life was not worth living and presumably too that he discovered that he didn't know through self examination then that might just imply that what Socrates was wasn't apathetic or murderous but something that makes the 'knower's' life pale by comparison. I hope that makes sense because I find it a bit awkward to explain. Of course I don't know if Socrates believed that he existed or not. I just assume from his not knowing anything that he didn't know.

Does the puppy dog know that he exists. Is he apathetic or murderous. It seems to me that if you are stuck with not knowing anything than you would naturally be stuck with what you really are. You would have no opinion to tell you to be some other way, no? So real or illusion you would be what you really are. Maybe that's what's really cool and makes the unexamined life a bummer by comparison.

Well, the bottom line is our lives only have the meaning we choose to give it. I don't believe that an assumption that we don't exist would necessarily result in any particular behavior, I'm just throwing out some extreme examples. We may not know whether we exist or not, all I'm saying is that we have to assume we do because everything else is predicated on it.

Hehehehehehe,
Dealer,
Are You in a quandary over whether You are a temporary existing You or the original, real and sole You. You are seeking confirmation that You are not the creation of another's imagination that will go poof when the need for your existence wanes. Only You can answer this. I can suggest that You may be a created You to serve the needs of the creator who from my point of view would be me. I needed additional persona about to satisfy my needs to have interaction. Or, I may be such an entity. I may possess only temporary existence to serve your needs and in particular to quench any doubts about your existence. Have I served your needs and am I to vanish?
I don't really know if where I am or all else about is real. It seems real because I exist as a mind. An intangible entity populating a form which seems to rely on all that is about to exist. The real me is my mind and not my body. They are separate and apart. Maybe as Descartes may say, the Soul. But, this mind or soul exists. I may have created an entire Universe to satisfy my needs... or You may have... or Moonbeam... I may be the only real thing that does exist. The greatest theory of the universe that seeks to unify the small physics with the large may be only satisfied by my redoing my entire creation... hehehehe
Or.... Or.. maybe God is the only existing thing... and we were created out of his mind to satisfy his needs and maybe our continued existence... that of our mind or soul depends on the compliance with God's demands given he may have provided his creations with some sort of 'latitude' in behavior and thought... I wonder...

Well, in a way, we are all a product of our perceptions. When they say perception is everything, they aren't lying. I know I exist because if I didn't exist, I wouldn't be asking the question. And even if I was asking it in an imaginary non-existant reality, the answer certainly wouldn't matter. It's a given. Or at least, it has to be assumed to be a given.

The only quandary is how do we ever attain true knowledge? Can we? How do we ever know that we don't even know? I suspect that in theory at least, it's possible to accumulate all the relevant data about a particular topic and therefore we would know. It would be impossible to know for sure though, that we actually have all the data. Therefore, all we can do at any given point is absorb the available data and arrive at a transitory knowledge. In other words, this is what we know now. Perhaps later, we will know differently.

In a circular kind of way, this is more or less how we arrive back at the beginning. In other words, what Moonie said. However, I think it's knowledge (and not opinions) if you can apply them to the so-called real world and get results. As an example, I know how to fix my car's motor, therefore when it breaks I know what to do to make it work again. This is, quite clearly, much more than an opinion. In the so-called real world, opinions don't get results.

 

[LunarRay]

Dealer,

In a circular kind of way, this is more or less how we arrive back at the beginning. In other words, what Moonie said. However, I think it's knowledge (and not opinions) if you can apply them to the so-called real world and get results. As an example, I know how to fix my car's motor, therefore when it breaks I know what to do to make it work again. This is, quite clearly, much more than an opinion. In the so-called real world, opinions don't get results.

But some say that you must know THE truth. And, that truth is that you can't know it. hehehehe.. But, I may know it and not know that I know it. So Socrates is wrong... I may know something that is truth. It is possible. So, I operate under that basis. That I may know a truth and because I've not met anything to contradict what I now know I don't wonder like Moonbeam's centapede about running... I just run.
Same with politics or anything... I may know and you may know so until it is apparent that you or I don't why accept the negative when the positive is much more inviting.
Like your automobile example, you may know a truth related to it. So like the bumble bee who according to the law of aerodynamics can't fly and who I assume can't read that law just ignores it and goes ahead and flys anyway... like you fixing your car.
That is the real world you speak of. The one that suggests accepting anything as truth may be wrong or it may be right.

 

[Moonbeam]

Several millennia ago Socrates brought to the attention of what would become the Western world that everybody thought they knew something making him the wisest man in the world because he knew one more thing than everybody else, that he knew he knew nothing. The obvious implication, one that equally obviously, goes completely unrecognized, is that you, the very you you call you, also knows nothing. In a political forum such as this one, where people are totally convinced of the rectitude of their own point of view, it strikes me as of some potential utility to point this out.

You know nothing and everything you believe to be the truth is just your own opinion. As opinion it has nothing whatsoever to do with truth. The truth is that you don't know anything.

It strikes me that in the coherent flow of ideas, therefore, the immediate question arises, then, as to what is the nature and property of knowing. Clearly, in the Socratic sense does it not also obviously follow that knowing is knowing you know nothing.

This certainly seems to suggest, therefore, that what people call knowing is something else, opinion disguised as knowing.

Well how could that happen and what does that imply?

This is, I think, a difficult question to deal with since it would seem, from what has gone before, that any answer we come to is clearly just opinion.

This might suggest, it seems to me, that what we need is some insight into the nature of our own opinion. How did you come to hold the opinion that you know something when the truth is that you know nothing at all.

But since we think we know, I guess the real question is, how is it that we can't really even seriously think about these questions because we instantly dismiss them as irrelevant in light of the fact that we know they are irrelevant, or are of that opinion.

 

[DealMonkey]

If we don't know anything at all, then how is it that we know we don't know anything? Quite a paradox, no?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
If we don't know anything at all, then how is it that we know we don't know anything? Quite a paradox, no?

How do we know this? Why can't I just not know I do know?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Deal Monkey
If we don't know anything at all, then how is it that we know we don't know anything? Quite a paradox, no?

It is a paradox, it seems to me, only as an artifact of logic. It seems to me that if you don't know anything you can't help but know that. So even if it's a paradox and a contradiction it can't be helped. Not knowing anything isn't a thing. You just know you don't know. You can just say and see that you don't know this or that as questions arise.

I started this thread not to talk about being and what we might really know, but to focus on the possibility that, knowing nothing, we are still full of political opinion.
================
"The only quandary is how do we ever attain true knowledge?"

My guess is that real knowledge is knowing that you don't know so well that your opinions disappear. Without any knowledge there would be only pure perception like on the day that you were born. You said, "Well, in a way, we are all a product of our perceptions. When they say perception is everything, they aren't lying." My guess is that seeing without the filter of what your opinion about what knowledge is is seeing what really is. And of course because your I is nothing but a bunch of opinions, that too would disappear leaving you to be that which you perceive, in this case the universe, so to speak.

So real knowledge, my guess would be, isn't the content of thought that you can put in words. Real knowledge is what you perceive when the opinionated you is not. That is why I think it is maybe very important to consider the possibility that we don't know anything.

The illusion that we know something, seems to me, leads down a blind alley, the vane pursuit of more and more of what is useless. The reason the pursuit of truth is a bitch is that it's in the last place we'd ever expect to find it 180 degrees from where we look.

The thing is, we are deeply attached to our opinions. To let them go is to suffer. The thing about suffering that is felt rather than repressed is that it has a bottom and an end.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: 308nato
I believe that seafaring philosopher of old, Popeye, said it best.

"I y'am what I y'am.........."

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: X-Man

I think you're an intelligent person but you have a bad habit of "posting" down to other people.

He's not the only one, there are quite a few in here that I'm sure need a box of kleenex next to their keyboards because they are so high up their nose bleeds every time they make a post.

as long as you know who you are

Wow, Thats Deep Man............

(Preparing to light Joint)


Woah

if you have to remove yourself from this perspective of reality in order to think... well, it's sad :wine:

Is a thought real?

yes.

Is the knowledge you speak of that you exist a thought?

nope, memory, which is quite physical as well. As is the intrinsic knowledge that God exists and that i should follow his path, if you want to call it evolutionary while i call it divinely created is completely meaningless as I?ve found that with faith in and humbleness unto the Lord to be quite functional.

Can awareness be the object of itself?

that's going to far for these 8 fold pathers. no, this is how you understand that true understanding is understanding that nothing exists not even understanding.

duh!

And, how would you prove you exist?

i asked my little brother that same question, so he hit me, which is as close to real as i need.

if I don't exist,

then surely your wasting your non existent time with moonie's troll post that's in the wrong forum.

if you experience it, then it's as reel as to many an never mind to you anyway, so 'am i real' is just about the most foolish of questions someone can ask.

I guess Socrates was wrong or lied to us when he said that he knew one thing and that was that he knew nothing at all. Apparently he concealed the fact that he knew he also existed.

don't you see the inherent contradiction of knowing that you know nothing? better yet, don't you, in yourself, see the inherent contradiction in knowing that wisdom is knowing that you know nothing, knowing this through a philosopher, and thus actually having some knowledge.

The truth about knowing nothing and thus being wise isn?t that you question existence, it's to lack question for anything and allow the unknown world to work itself out, that is to rely on the Lord to make your path striate and walk in the path set before you in both the love and grace that you feel from the Lord.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
totalcommand,

I am therefore I think is a logically incorrect argument. Something/someone in existence doesn't necessarily have to think. I think therefore I am - How do we know we think? By the simple act of thinking; by definition we think. the hard part of the statement is not the "think", it's the "I am" part. The ability to think must imply that we exist; and, logically speaking, this statement is 100% correct. Why? because the thought that the thinking made is in existence. And, something that exists cannot come from something that is nonexistent; the thought itself cannot come from some nonexistent thing - it must come from something that exists. And that something is yourself, by the definition of thinking. The only problem is, how do we know that logic itself is always correct (the actual method of logic is always correct)? This I think is the only [possible] flaw in the argument.

So am I not permitted to create my universe in my own way.. In yours you must infer from some other source. In mine I need not do that... I am... is the predicate upon which all else follows.. and the think is simply the process that I use to sate the needs I have.

You could do this, but then you would not be following the definition of logic. This is exactly my question of whether the method of logic is always correct! It's a question of the method of knowing something is true in this case. If you take logic to be correct in all circumstances, then you must accept that I am therefore I think is false. But you are free to reject the method of logic. Like I said, this is the major flaw I see with this statement.

Most individuals take the universe to be bound by the rules of logic because if there were to be exceptions, it would be impossible for us to be sure of anything. The assumption is not of thinking or of existence, the assumption is that your universe is bound by the rules of logic.

Having this in mind we can easily see that Political opinion flows from WHO I AM! I've been trying, Moonster, to get on track... hehehehe but sometimes one must bus to the train..

When I see what is about and say that is wrong or that is absurd it is based on WHO I AM.. I AM and I think so it naturally follows that I must be right having thought it... right for me and if it is in conflict with you then what you say is wrong for me.
It is the old AntiMoonbeamism of something being right and wrong at the same time. And, whose the utimate authority on which is right... I AM!

A person is free to reject the method of logic, but they would be rejecting a key way of understanding the universe - they could not prove to themselves what is right and wrong. Since you reject the method of logic, as you said, something can become right and wrong at the same time, which puts you in a quandary, not me. Without logic, we cannot know truth.

 

[Moonbeam]

The truth about knowing nothing and thus being wise isn?t that you question existence, it's to lack question for anything and allow the unknown world to work itself out, that is to rely on the Lord to make your path striate and walk in the path set before you in both the love and grace that you feel from the Lord.

You mean the love and grace that restricts truth only to Christians?

Edit: To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
The truth about knowing nothing and thus being wise isn?t that you question existence, it's to lack question for anything and allow the unknown world to work itself out, that is to rely on the Lord to make your path striate and walk in the path set before you in both the love and grace that you feel from the Lord.

Where there are holes in our knowledge, we fill them with God. While personally I view that as a cop-out considering you don't possess the fortitude to figure things out for yourself -- I don't hold it against you because as water always finds the path of least resistance, so does man.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: LunarRay
totalcommand,

I am therefore I think is a logically incorrect argument. Something/someone in existence doesn't necessarily have to think. I think therefore I am - How do we know we think? By the simple act of thinking; by definition we think. the hard part of the statement is not the "think", it's the "I am" part. The ability to think must imply that we exist; and, logically speaking, this statement is 100% correct. Why? because the thought that the thinking made is in existence. And, something that exists cannot come from something that is nonexistent; the thought itself cannot come from some nonexistent thing - it must come from something that exists. And that something is yourself, by the definition of thinking. The only problem is, how do we know that logic itself is always correct (the actual method of logic is always correct)? This I think is the only [possible] flaw in the argument.

So am I not permitted to create my universe in my own way.. In yours you must infer from some other source. In mine I need not do that... I am... is the predicate upon which all else follows.. and the think is simply the process that I use to sate the needs I have.

You could do this, but then you would not be following the definition of logic. This is exactly my question of whether the method of logic is always correct! It's a question of the method of knowing something is true in this case. If you take logic to be correct in all circumstances, then you must accept that I am therefore I think is false. But you are free to reject the method of logic. Like I said, this is the major flaw I see with this statement.

Most individuals take the universe to be bound by the rules of logic because if there were to be exceptions, it would be impossible for us to be sure of anything. The assumption is not of thinking or of existence, the assumption is that your universe is bound by the rules of logic.

Logic... hmmm... Me thinks this Logic thing thinks it possesses all the truth and therefore provides all the answers. My logic... says that in order to think I must be. You won't find to many thinks bounding about with out 'Me's' attached... The brain the mind... the soul.... I figure that the brain povides the means by which the mind functions... without the brain there can be no think... so because I think I know I AM. I AM and I may think or may not.. either way I AM... and all else proceeds from there.

Having this in mind we can easily see that Political opinion flows from WHO I AM! I've been trying, Moonster, to get on track... hehehehe but sometimes one must bus to the train..

When I see what is about and say that is wrong or that is absurd it is based on WHO I AM.. I AM and I think so it naturally follows that I must be right having thought it... right for me and if it is in conflict with you then what you say is wrong for me.
It is the old AntiMoonbeamism of something being right and wrong at the same time. And, whose the utimate authority on which is right... I AM!

A person is free to reject the method of logic, but they would be rejecting a key way of understanding the universe - they could not prove to themselves what is right and wrong. Since you reject the method of logic, as you said, something can become right and wrong at the same time, which puts you in a quandary, not me. Without logic, we cannot know truth.

It is what is relevant that is at issue. If I hold a rock and drop it I'm reasonably certain about the outcome. I understand gravity. I may find that gravity don't function the same everywhere and then that would become illogical. Imagine a rock flitting about like a humming bird when dropped... it is not behaving according to the rules... it is illogical for that to occur... but, the rock don't know logic so it just does what it does. [(M1*M2/D2)*(?*C3/V3)*(-M3*X)] The new logic! ....
You cannot know truth for certain with infinity as the criteria! You may now know truth but you cannot know you know it. And that is my point. Socrates is wrong! I know that I may know something but, I'll never know for sure that I do.

 

[LunarRay]

MB

Edit: To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

To the man with a nail .. nothing looks like a hammer....

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The truth about knowing nothing and thus being wise isn?t that you question existence, it's to lack question for anything and allow the unknown world to work itself out, that is to rely on the Lord to make your path striate and walk in the path set before you in both the love and grace that you feel from the Lord.

You mean the love and grace that restricts truth only to Christians?

Edit: To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

You are wrong, we can know what we know but we can not know what we do not know.

Question everything, be a child when it comes to knowledge, don't be afraid to ask questions.

You speak of the Lord, like if you knew the existance of a Lord, you are proclaiming to know what you do not know, i say you are wrong.

Now what?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
MB

Edit: To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

To the man with a nail .. nothing looks like a hammer....

Doesn't work, how often haven't you used whatever was handy to hammer down that nail?

Oh i get the symbolism, but the symbols have to work for the symbolism to work.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The truth about knowing nothing and thus being wise isn?t that you question existence, it's to lack question for anything and allow the unknown world to work itself out, that is to rely on the Lord to make your path striate and walk in the path set before you in both the love and grace that you feel from the Lord.

You mean the love and grace that restricts truth only to Christians?

Edit: To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

You are wrong, we can know what we know but we can not know what we do not know.

Question everything, be a child when it comes to knowledge, don't be afraid to ask questions.

You speak of the Lord, like if you knew the existance of a Lord, you are proclaiming to know what you do not know, i say you are wrong.

Now what?

Klixxer, I don't know to whom you are addressing your question. In case you interpreted "You mean the love and grace that restricts truth to Christians?", let me rephrase it. You mean the lack of love and grace that arrogantly assumes that only Christians, and perhaps only ones of a certain type, have a handle on truth?" It wasn't me who was speaking of the Lord but you quoted my post.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: LunarRay
MB

Edit: To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

To the man with a nail .. nothing looks like a hammer....

Doesn't work, how often haven't you used whatever was handy to hammer down that nail?

Oh i get the symbolism, but the symbols have to work for the symbolism to work.

Lots of times I haven't.

My point is subtle... One has an issue and nothing seems to provide the answer... so one is left to use the next best thing to solve the problem... The next best thing don't give the warm and fuzzies to the process even if at the end of the day the nail has been driven...

 

[Moonbeam]

DP

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: LunarRay
MB

Edit: To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

To the man with a nail .. nothing looks like a hammer....

Doesn't work, how often haven't you used whatever was handy to hammer down that nail?

Oh i get the symbolism, but the symbols have to work for the symbolism to work.

Lots of times I haven't.

My point is subtle... One has an issue and nothing seems to provide the answer... so one is left to use the next best thing to solve the problem... The next best thing don't give the warm and fuzzies to the process even if at the end of the day the nail has been driven...

I could use lots more explanation, but nothing subtle. I'm too dense for that.

My point about the hammer is that you use the tools you have for whatever job comes along. If what you have been steeped in is Christianity you will probably get your answer there. But if you can't hit the nail on the head you may need a different tool. A man who has only ever nailed may become a bit closed minded about this.

A man with a nail can make nail soup.

 

[LunarRay]

MB,

Lots of times I haven't.

My point is subtle... One has an issue and nothing seems to provide the answer... so one is left to use the next best thing to solve the problem... The next best thing don't give the warm and fuzzies to the process even if at the end of the day the nail has been driven...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could use lots more explanation, but nothing subtle. I'm too dense for that.

My point about the hammer is that you use the tools you have for whatever job comes along. If what you have been steeped in is Christianity you will probably get your answer there. But if you can't hit the nail on the head you may need a different tool. A man who has only ever nailed may become a bit closed minded about this.

A man with a nail can make nail soup.

I agree... the environment one is raised in has a profound effect on the person they become. Unless they opt out and become a hippy or a liberal PhD they are more than likely going to rely on their programming. To some that hammer has been imbued with qualities that make it the tool of choice for anything... and when they attempt to saw metal with it... instead of changing tools they simply say they didn't need that metal anyway or the metal was faulty and that is why my hammer wouldn't cut it...
It is how we seem to view politics and how we argue in this forum from time to time...

 

[DealMonkey]

So the analogy here is: We're running around hitting topics with our blunted intellect? That makes sense to me, after all 2000 years ago we looked up into the night sky with total bewilderment. No wonder we made up Gods who alternately watch over us and take the blame for bad things that happen to us. We plug the holes in our knowledge with the nails of our ignorance. Only when we're way down the road do we ever look back and realize how silly we were.

 

[feelingshorter]

nice post...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So the analogy here is: We're running around hitting topics with our blunted intellect? That makes sense to me, after all 2000 years ago we looked up into the night sky with total bewilderment. No wonder we made up Gods who alternately watch over us and take the blame for bad things that happen to us. We plug the holes in our knowledge with the nails of our ignorance. Only when we're way down the road do we ever look back and realize how silly we were.

Hehehehe

I'd only add that some are placing nails in baloons and others on rock and still others in sand... Some of us never look to see what the nails may do... but, plug away, anyhow... Once in awhile a tree gets in our way and we figure what the heck... I'll put some nails in there too...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So the analogy here is: We're running around hitting topics with our blunted intellect? That makes sense to me, after all 2000 years ago we looked up into the night sky with total bewilderment. No wonder we made up Gods who alternately watch over us and take the blame for bad things that happen to us. We plug the holes in our knowledge with the nails of our ignorance. Only when we're way down the road do we ever look back and realize how silly we were.

Hehehehe

I'd only add that some are placing nails in baloons and others on rock and still others in sand... Some of us never look to see what the nails may do... but, plug away, anyhow... Once in awhile a tree gets in our way and we figure what the heck... I'll put some nails in there too...

Palms and feet is where they usually go.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: LunarRay
totalcommand,

I am therefore I think is a logically incorrect argument. Something/someone in existence doesn't necessarily have to think. I think therefore I am - How do we know we think? By the simple act of thinking; by definition we think. the hard part of the statement is not the "think", it's the "I am" part. The ability to think must imply that we exist; and, logically speaking, this statement is 100% correct. Why? because the thought that the thinking made is in existence. And, something that exists cannot come from something that is nonexistent; the thought itself cannot come from some nonexistent thing - it must come from something that exists. And that something is yourself, by the definition of thinking. The only problem is, how do we know that logic itself is always correct (the actual method of logic is always correct)? This I think is the only [possible] flaw in the argument.

So am I not permitted to create my universe in my own way.. In yours you must infer from some other source. In mine I need not do that... I am... is the predicate upon which all else follows.. and the think is simply the process that I use to sate the needs I have.

You could do this, but then you would not be following the definition of logic. This is exactly my question of whether the method of logic is always correct! It's a question of the method of knowing something is true in this case. If you take logic to be correct in all circumstances, then you must accept that I am therefore I think is false. But you are free to reject the method of logic. Like I said, this is the major flaw I see with this statement.

Most individuals take the universe to be bound by the rules of logic because if there were to be exceptions, it would be impossible for us to be sure of anything. The assumption is not of thinking or of existence, the assumption is that your universe is bound by the rules of logic.

Logic... hmmm... Me thinks this Logic thing thinks it possesses all the truth and therefore provides all the answers. My logic... says that in order to think I must be. You won't find to many thinks bounding about with out 'Me's' attached... The brain the mind... the soul.... I figure that the brain povides the means by which the mind functions... without the brain there can be no think... so because I think I know I AM. I AM and I may think or may not.. either way I AM... and all else proceeds from there.

You said it right there: because I think I know I am. This is exactly the same as "I think therefore I am". You concede that you think, and from there you draw the fact that you exist. But you don't take the fact that you are thinking from the fact that you exist (I am therefore I think).

Having this in mind we can easily see that Political opinion flows from WHO I AM! I've been trying, Moonster, to get on track... hehehehe but sometimes one must bus to the train..

When I see what is about and say that is wrong or that is absurd it is based on WHO I AM.. I AM and I think so it naturally follows that I must be right having thought it... right for me and if it is in conflict with you then what you say is wrong for me.
It is the old AntiMoonbeamism of something being right and wrong at the same time. And, whose the utimate authority on which is right... I AM!

A person is free to reject the method of logic, but they would be rejecting a key way of understanding the universe - they could not prove to themselves what is right and wrong. Since you reject the method of logic, as you said, something can become right and wrong at the same time, which puts you in a quandary, not me. Without logic, we cannot know truth.

It is what is relevant that is at issue. If I hold a rock and drop it I'm reasonably certain about the outcome. I understand gravity. I may find that gravity don't function the same everywhere and then that would become illogical. Imagine a rock flitting about like a humming bird when dropped... it is not behaving according to the rules... it is illogical for that to occur... but, the rock don't know logic so it just does what it does. [(M1*M2/D2)*(?*C3/V3)*(-M3*X)] The new logic! ....
You cannot know truth for certain with infinity as the criteria! You may now know truth but you cannot know you know it. And that is my point. Socrates is wrong! I know that I may know something but, I'll never know for sure that I do.

A rock however, does not think and is not concious of its existence. I am concious of my existence because I think. Logic is a method of finding the truth, but like any method it depends on the premises. So, if you take the method of logic to be correct always (in its method, not in the premises), you must concede that logic is able to find the truth given correct premises.

"I know that I may know something but, I'll never know for sure that I do." This statement is incorrect by the rules of logic. If you know that you may know something, you are sure, by definition, that you may know you know something - the very knowing that you might know something eliminates the possiblity of being unsure of the statement "I may know something". Thus, you do have some knowledge - the knowledge that you may know something.