So let's cut the bull shit that I appear not to do this because if you had said that, as I already pointed out, there would be no problem. But you made no suggestion whatsoever that I appeared to do that, you said you honestly don't think I do most of the time.
Correct. You asked me if I thought you "confront the certainty" of yourself in the same way you do to others. And I said that most of the time, I do not think that you do this.
If you didn't want my opinion, why did you ask for it?
You honestly know that I never look at my motives most of the time and not that I don't appear to.
I cannot possibly
know your motives. Only you can. The best I can do is judge your motives based on your actions. And your postings are, in my opinion, generally not indicative of someone who routinely questions his own certainty.
Furthermore, your notion of certainty certainly seems different than mine. I am pretty certain I have five fingers on each of my hands that that something I call myself is typing, but I am not certain I know my unconscious motivations.
Well, this is rather interesting, because the other day you told me something along the lines of truth being a "state of consciousness". Yet here you seem to be implying that truth can be
objective -- either you have five fingers on each hand or you do not.
So, which is it? Is truth a "state of consciousness", or is it based on objective reality? Do you have five fingers or is the number of fingers you have based on your state of consciousness?
So when I'm talking about uncertainty, I am talking about hidden morivations that make people do things they think they do for other reasons.
Okay, and if you can say that about others, why cannot others say the same about you?
I am also certain about what I think about, that I spend time trying to understand my motivations, and I am certain you have no idea if I do or not.
So, you are certain about what you think, and why. But you challenge the certainty of what
others think, and why. Yet, you take offense when others are not certain about what
you think.
Seems like a convenient double-standard to me.
You challenged my certainty that I know what I think about, not anything with hidden motivation.
I did so because you like to challenge others on that same exact basis.
I know what the fuck I think about.
Exactly as much as others know what they think about, unless you can somehow demonstate a level of superiority in this regard.
You didn't challenge any unconscious assumptions I make, you challenged something I certainly know.
Heh.. by definition, you have
no way of knowing whether or not what you think you know is affected by your unconscious assumptions. If you knew, they wouldn't be unconscious. Right?
M: The only double standard appears to me to be a product of desperate and illogical thinking and a kind of pettiness. Pretty sad is what it seems.
I find it interesting that you challenge my thinking as "illogical", yet, rather than present a compelling logical counter-argument, you just resort to ad hominems.
This doesn't serve as a very strong position that mine is "illogical".
Again, all I am doing is challenging you to see if you're willing to accept the same treatment you dish out to others. You are obviously not. And I find that interesting.
I can't see what others think unless they tell me. If somebody says he self-reflects I don't tell him he lying. I comment on real thoughts that others express.
That hasn't been my experience. I have routinely see you question the motivations -- both conscious and unconscious -- of others.
Yesterday you even went so far as to say this: "People lie to themselves all the time. They lie about things when they think." In fact, in the post prior to this one!
This directly contradicts a claim that you "can't see what others think unless they tell you".
So, which is it?
I know that you are wrong and I am completely certain of it just like what I had for breakfast.
So, another example of how you are fine with your own certainty but not others'. Thanks.
You didn't tell me you know what I think.
Correct.
You told me you know I don't think what I said I do which is patently absurd.
Incorrect. At least, I have no recollection of ever saying that. If you can provide me with a quote, I'll explain or retract it.
I don't tell people they don't think what they say they think but that what they say they think has unconscious bias.
But you take great offense when anyone suggests the same of you. Why is that?
Are you somehow immune to unconscious bias? How would you even know?
There were so many issues I brought up I thought more important than being dragged through this crap, the notion that self knowledge requires self confrontation, the matter of unconscious assumptions, the beauty of faith that leads to God as a manifestation of love, the notion of religions as bridges, the motivations of folk who argue for and against belief, etc.
If it requires
self-confrontation, then it doesn't require that others get confrontation from you, does it?
Or if confrontation from others is in fact valid, why is it great when you confront others, but "dragging through crap" when someone confronts you on the same basis?
What are your unconscious assumptions? How would you know what they were? If you can't know your own, how could you know
mine?
But the problem with self hate is that the one thing it will never allow is self confrontation.
Well, that's interesting. Because you seem to me at least as reluctant to confront yourself as anyone else here. That said, I don't think a lack of desire to confront oneself necessarily implies "self-hate".. which, I'll point out, is yet another value judgment you are making of others that you have no way of knowing.
It is that simple truth, I think, that makes you sure that what you say to me makes me angry. It would make you angry. Do you notice at all that you are extremely defensive? If so can you say why?
In our most recent exchanges, you have called me "insane", referred to one of my arguments as "pathetic and sad", said that "any pretense
had to reasonableness [had been thrown] down the toilet", said "let's cut the bull shit", used the expletive "fuck" at least once, again referred to my arguments as "desperate and illogical thinking" (but didn't provide a counter-argument), and once more referred to "pettiness" and said it was "pretty sad"."
I have not used any language like that in my recent posts.
So, which of us is angry? Which is "extremely defensive"? Seems to me that it's you.
Can you say why?
Facebook
Twitter