Anyway, I hope this helps you guys have a better and more adult intellectual discussion. Right now the posts look like high school kids arguing.
HeHe. You can keep your adult intellectual discussions. They are so thoroughly boring. I talk to your "adults" who have an "understanding" and it's just more of the same stuff, going around in circles. Plus, when was this ever about logic? .
Do any of you actually claim to be logicians?
Did I ever make this claim? I have made the claim thus far that my posts are nonsensical. I say this because they make no more sense than some "educated" person telling me what a bunch of people agree a particular discipline is and what the problems are within it.
a body of knowledge does not have to assert or deny theism.
A body of knowledge by itself is a body of knowledge. A body of knowledge exists (Ex) but is not existence (E). Existence demands choice and choice means we should base it on the farthest point back possible, within a system. I happen to think my question of theism is that point, although I may be wrong.
When linuxboy told killface to "go deeper" and suggested that only he (and some others including Moonbeam and you) were the only ones who would be able to understand his weird story, it struck me as an arrogant POV
Woah, I said that as a newcomer, it would help if the chap read some other ramblings to understand where we are coming from. How are you inferring I imply necessity BASED on previous knowledge of our postings? I implied it would be beneficial and may be helpful if one is unaware but I did not claim necessity. Are you pulling something out of thin air, 'cause I can't follow your reasoning?
I did not say anyone would be able to understand my weird story. If you make claims, please support them, and I will try to do the same if you actually want to have a discussions, even though they wind up very boring. What good is it to know and know more, it is futile and endless.
My statement of "go deeper" meant that there was more to the story than met the eye. Aye.. Ok, let me eactually explain what I meant in this story, although this usually kills the point since the language itself preferably should be experienced.
instead he spouted off some obfuscating fable in an effort to appear superior. That is just my opinion, and it is possible that there was some meaning to linuxboy's fable, but I didn't think so
Obfuscation sometimes is about the only way to clarity. I do nothing to appear superior since I think that is meaningless. I do what I do because I think it's amusing. That is selfish, not superior. Did you ever think that maybe it's not about you at all and that I really don't consider the reactions before posting? (I have yet to decide the merits of this approach but I post here because it is fun and allows for my imagination to play)
Ok, on to an explanation of my story since you think that I'm just rambling. There are points hidden in it if you pay attention. It does not require higher knowledge, but it does require some amount of knowledge of the characters on these boards (and thus I advised reading past threads). Besides, this wasn't really addressed specifically to you. I really rarely go back and explain my stories... ah well, must break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Passing through an empty field, I met a wandering man. "Oh traveler, what brings you here?" I asked. "Through what act of God of man do you wander so about like a long-lost brother seeking. "
The passage through an empty field is living. We go through experiences, people, jobs, etc. It is empty because usually there is nothing there of value on the surface. The traveler is a random person encountered, a fellow traveler of sorts and the "I" is a strange person, possibly a sort of madman or a perceived madman who in the end has a point (I crafted this so the insane actually is the wise, notice the reversal. I did this for emphasis and you would need to pay attention to understand the complexity). The "I" here (a sort of connection to the reader in allowing the reader to be drawn in) begins the conversation and immediately seeks to build rapport by calling the traveler brother. A long-lost brother, that makes an allusion to the parable of the prodigal son. To sum, I open up with a metaphor for existence, for life, and for encounters people have who are likewise searching for a solution or for truth.
"Ah friend, I search for truth. I search for knowledge, I search for absolute objectivity. I seek to be logic incarnate. I see those around me and see they are flawed. The world around me is in disarray. Nobody understands me and I don't even understand myself but I will not give this up. I wander in field after field looking for treasure in the tall grasses but I only find the stings of insects and the cuts from weeds. Stinging nettles pierce my flesh but I do not give up. I strive forward in field after field knowing that if I do this, then surely, no matter what the consequences, I will finally know what everyone else didn't. After all, it's only logical."
Here, I characterize the traveler. I tie in aspects of Elledan's personality (which you would need to read the threads to discover, as I suggested people would do, not arrogantly commanded). The traveler is the personaification of an intellectual youth lost in thought and trying to make sense of existence while going through life. So the traveler is in a field, in life, stopped at a point by another wandered, the average person who is mad (reference to an earlier assertion in another thread that I thought the western culture right now is maddening). The traveler laments and bemoans the state of the world. He recognizes that there is something wrong and that he/she is not healthy. Here, I also tied in a statement made by Elledan that he doesn't even really understand himself. I also tied in Elledan's striving and passion for science and discovery, a sort of curiosity (which you would have discovered had you read past discussions). I also at the end poke some fun at Elledan's commitment to a "logical" solution despite luvly's, my own, John's, and others' objections to his not really having a pure sort of logic or otherwise using words to mean something they do not. To sum, I characterize the traveler, I tie in aspects of Elledan and prepare the way for a response by everyman or the "I".
"I heard these words uttered by a strange man and I grew sad.
Here, I speak from my real self (that is, who I am in real life and not through the eyes of a character) and express my own emotion when seeing someone struggle with a problem and that leading to frustration. I really am saddened.
That is not logic my friend, that is folly.
Here, I disquise my real reponse in having it come from everyman. I also reiterate John's comments that logic is by itself a subset of reason and thinking logic is all there is can lead to failure and maladaptation (an idea I voiced earlier in another thread)
That is not genuine seeking, traveler, that is madness. You want something that will kill you. You want something that is not who you are.
Here, I tie in Moonbeam's response to Elledan in saying that this approach he had tried (he said, I am you) and that it is frustrating and maddening, not wise. I thus reiterate the point made from the voice of everyman, mad as he/she may be.
Do you not see these birds who wander in the bushes and eat the seeds falling from the branch? Do you not see these ants crawling, working to survive. Do you not see them here? They are. This world and what is in it is not an outside something one gathers through inferential processes, themselves dependent on self-aggrandizing judgments. This world is us. We have the world inside of us. You separate and divide and claim knowledge with your immoral logic and you are then safe from this world until one day it will want to enter again and will do so with a vengeance. That is what objectivity does. This is madness and folly."
Here I continue with my objection and tie in my idea (introduced in another thread) that separation and division will not lead to perception or understanding. It will lead to more separation. I also wanted to tie in aspects of theology or Moonbeam's assertion of "everywhere I lookm there appears to be Thou" and that "oceanic experience" as the beyond-self sort of thing that does not stem necesserily from objectivity. To sum, I emphasize the importance of not realying too much on logic systems. I put luvly's formal objections about logic levels and incompleteness theorems into the mouth of everyman and also snuck in ideas about the importance of real experience, or what Moonbeam has called "tasting the wine". Thus, I integrated multiple people who object to Elledan, had them make their objections and now we are ready and we await the response of Elledan or some other person I call traveler since the character is not really Elledan but a convenient adaptation for artistic reasons.
My interlocutor heard this and grew pensive. "But wait, "he said, "this is not what I mean at all. I never said those words. My utterances were brief and enigmatic.
In past discussions, Elledan made claims like "this is false" and moved on. We didn't have a clue what to say since our posts were some 1500 words each. Here, I am poking some fun of the posting style, but very subtly. Also, I do make the point, in Elledan's defense, that many times we really are misinterpreting and my hope is that the reader will recognize the inevitability of this and possibly be humbled at the knowledge that we don't know (reference to Sokrates and Moonbeam's use of Sokrates).
I see your interpretation as pulling straws from thin air. How did you arrive at your conclusion. Explain them to me, I must have a method !!!"
I again make fun of the need to have methods and integrate typical reponses received that "this doesn't make sense". usually, I don't go back and explain myself but today I do just this to have you see that there's more than one way to make a point and that sometimes, one must become a child and read stories to gain insight. This was the direct opposition to logic and systems and the emphasis on experience I intended to emphasize.
I heard these words and I grew sad again, flickering lights of hope growing dimmer.
Stylistic devices/imagery. Also a real response by those who argue and argue and then become saddened that the arguing leads to more separation. Partially an intergration of my thought about the need for everything (nothing short of evrything will really do, a claim made some 2 months ago I think by myself)
"Ah, weary traveler you search for treasure with a fine comb but do not see it. You look but miss it. Here is your treasure."
Here, I wanted to portray that to get anywhere, someone must look below the surface of an empty field. You see, I actually left clues to how one should interpret my story. It is not the straightforward sort of jibberish. It's nonsense with a twist
I got on my knees and began digging with my hands. I dug and shoveled and scooped and scraped until the flesh wore off and the blood flowed without reservation. Frenzied by madness, I dug and hit the treasure. I took it out and yelled ?HERE IS THE TREASURE. IT IS IN EVERY FIELD, IN EVERY STREAM, ALL AROUND YOU?.
Ok, by this I meant that the answer is right under our noses. We have it. This is an allusion to the idea of "the Kingdom of God is within you" or Jesus' idea of the eschatological ending event being now or that one must work out one's salvation with diligence. The treasure also is found in science, in nature. Where did the "I" dig? In the field, in the dirt and muck. That was hard work. By that, I wanted to show that it takes alot of effort to get to the treasure and not just wandering around and digging here and there or seeing empty fields or sometimes seeing fields with grass and moving on because the nettles sting.
My now stranger backed away slowly frightened and puzzled by the behavior of a madman. Turning around, he broke into a gallop and ran with the wind to the other fields in the lowlands.
Here, I am making fun of those who hear insane people present in everyday life and run away because they think that those "I"'s encountered are really weird and that those who really search feverishly are nuts. I also wanted to shift some emphasis on the similarity between the traveler and the average person who seeks. They are both very very curious. It's just that one knows that he doesn't know and the other wanders in search of something thinking he has it while missing the real point, that of digging inside the self (and then reliving the pain, an idea introduced by Moonbeam roughly 2 weeks ago I think in the huge religion thread)
I have never seen him again and do not know what became of him.
Now that I made my points, I go back to the problem of existence, as exemplified by the empty field. You see, now that there was a problem and objections made, I want to integrate the entire work and make a final conclusion, as is my usual style, a sort of summation at the end.
My hands healed and I went home with my treasure and the knowledge of every treasure in every field that through no effort I had come to know.
I am here alluding to the idea of drace of the gift of love that comes through no effort. Also making the practical parallel to "dumb luck". The person who really digs will discover the fountain that is neverending. This is Moonbeam's idea and one I share since I think that there is a sort of second, true self, a sort of born anew thing and is love itself. I am thus proposing a solution to both the madman "I" and the traveler. For both of them, the answer is not in excessive lucubrations or endless reading or in denying health or thinking oneself superior (which you claim I do, and you may be right although at the moment I find my motivation to be based on selfish pleasure through laughter and merriment) but rather in hunting for that treasure (also a parable of the person selling everything and buying a field with a rich treasure and holdin on to it once it is found). I also further tied in Moonbeam's idea of awakening. Those who awaken know others who are awakened and then I tied in my idea that "every person is a treasure of a gem waiting to be discovered". See the tapestry I weave? I thought it faster and more fun than typing out this long, long, and boring response. People complain to me that I am loquacious. I fix that and tell stories hoping that people will understand and then you come along and call me arrogant. I can't win, can I?
My friend, I think, is still looking, is still in pain from the travels, and still wishes to dig his up his own treasure but with a different approach.
Here, I make an analysis. Namely, that the traveler wants to know that THAT but the end goal is still desired while the process is not enjoyed and learned from. Here, I wanted to emphasize the importance of the journey and not the treasure.
You see, good reader, he doesn?t want to get his hands dirty (or bloody).
I thus conclude. I conclude that it is very painful to discover onself and experience the pain of a lifetime. This is dirty, or I call it getting one's hands dirty. Since this process is not done, there can not be health and no discovery of the inner sort of self or of the freedom (see my post on freedom) since the work is not done, although I still think it is a gift (see earlier comment about gift).
Does that make sense? It's still useless and very long-winded but it at least is explained so you logicians can understand . Although, luvly, did you get something like that from reading my post? I specifically turned this into a high-school level discussion because that seemed like the most amusing thing to do given its opposition to a logical approach.
There is a method to the madness.
Cheers !