We see what we want to see

[zenmaster]

How Believing Can Be Seeing: Context Dictates What We Believe We See
(...)
Contrary to what one might expect, it is a vague rather than a bright and clearly visible context that most strongly permits our beliefs to override the evidence and fill in the blanks. In fact, a bright and clearly visible context actually overrides the evidence in the opposite direction - suppressing our 'seeing' of the vague target even when it is present.
(...)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...103210.htm

Paper:
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info...bi.0040014


Analogously, we have the old saying that a whisper can capture attention more than a shout.

Similarly, it is the vague yet subjectively compelling details in these stories of secrecy and strangeness that seem to capture people's attention. Some people seem to enjoy the extra effort involved in turning innuendo and inherently tenuous claims into something more substantial for digestion (thereby permitting their beliefs to override the evidence and fill in the blanks).

There may be an evolutionary basis for this behavior, in that there tends to be a perception of increased value in those resources that are perceived to be scarce.

[Ali Quadir]

Hear hear... Very important to realize for every one of us operating on the fringes of human culture and beliefs.

[zenmaster]

Hear hear... Very important to realize for every one of us operating on the fringes of human culture and beliefs.

I think it's important to simply understand what to relate or what action to take when we are being pressed for info that is not part of our world-view.

I'm certain that it's (at least) possible to always be aware of the current limit of our own knowledge (weltanschauung). If one is capable of accepting oneself, it does not call upon much honesty at all. It does oneself and others a disservice to make personally unsupportable claims. How is it possible to really learn in such an environment?

[Ali Quadir]

Hear hear... Very important to realize for every one of us operating on the fringes of human culture and beliefs.

I think it's important to simply understand what to relate or what action to take when we are being pressed for info that is not part of our world-view.

I'm certain that it's (at least) possible to always be aware of the current limit of our own knowledge (weltanschauung). If one is capable of accepting oneself, it does not call upon much honesty at all. It does oneself and others a disservice to make personally unsupportable claims. How is it possible to really learn in such an environment?

I do agree. And I hear the message between the lines. But like to add that learning at a deep level of self, not just the facts from the science teacher requires an environment of safety. Where in people are allowed to state their truth, their reality. Without having the book of fallacies pulled out on them.

Part of knowing truth is feeling what clicks deep within. Making the logical connection, the rational steps to the knowledge is something that comes next. And sometimes that's something we have to help each other with.

Or you end up with a bunch of ego's who just want to be right all the time.

[zenmaster]

Hear hear... Very important to realize for every one of us operating on the fringes of human culture and beliefs.

I think it's important to simply understand what to relate or what action to take when we are being pressed for info that is not part of our world-view.

I'm certain that it's (at least) possible to always be aware of the current limit of our own knowledge (weltanschauung). If one is capable of accepting oneself, it does not call upon much honesty at all. It does oneself and others a disservice to make personally unsupportable claims. How is it possible to really learn in such an environment?

I do agree. And I hear the message between the lines. But like to add that learning at a deep level of self, not just the facts from the science teacher requires an environment of safety. Where in people are allowed to state their truth, their reality. Without having the book of fallacies pulled out on them.

Part of knowing truth is feeling what clicks deep within. Making the logical connection, the rational steps to the knowledge is something that comes next. And sometimes that's something we have to help each other with.

Or you end up with a bunch of ego's who just want to be right all the time.

But that's a lesson here - the "truth" is that you can't be "right", or to put it another way, "everyone is right". Once that is learned, whatever the consequences of ignorance might be vanish into irrelevancy. Also, being truly "right" has nothing to do with learning here - sharing what one has uniquely and actually come to know does.

You *can* know the limits of your knowledge. And you can explain from your own perspective on the matter. Somehow people "become lost" and never "catch up" to what the intuition suggests. They even know deep down that learning from where their intuition leads holds great promise. However, compelled to always over-extend, there is no service provided.

What is the virtue in making something safe? After a certain point, you become an adult, somewhat individuated, and don't require such hand holding. (Excluding of course such things as damage recovery related to therapy.) What's with the coddling and over indulgence?

With regards to "ego": we are all subject to its defenses, in different situations. However, who's ego is really more jeopardized or more fragile in this case? Remember there are those that need protection from only themselves (taking ownership of their apprehensions) in order to be in a position to simply ask an honest question (and of an impersonal nature). I ask, not rhetorically, how can such behavior not be considered "pathological", for example?

[Nabil Naser]

I do not understand how knowledge's limit can be measured. Knowledge is like a live entity that grows and expands. in can't have a limit.
We can, however, become choosy in deciding what to learn and focus upon. This will expand our knowledge in the direction that we choose.
The best way is to focus on the basic truths and move on from there. This way, it does not matter whether the information is shouted or whispered, as it will be the same.

Hear hear... Very important to realize for every one of us operating on the fringes of human culture and beliefs.

I think it's important to simply understand what to relate or what action to take when we are being pressed for info that is not part of our world-view.

I'm certain that it's (at least) possible to always be aware of the current limit of our own knowledge (weltanschauung). If one is capable of accepting oneself, it does not call upon much honesty at all. It does oneself and others a disservice to make personally unsupportable claims. How is it possible to really learn in such an environment?

[zenmaster]

I do not understand how knowledge's limit can be measured. Knowledge is like a live entity that grows and expands. in can't have a limit.

We're talking about individual knowledge. In potential, it is limitless, but here we have limits. And it's not a measurement, it's merely accepting the awareness of what is currently available and what isn't.

[Ali Quadir]

Hear hear... Very important to realize for every one of us operating on the fringes of human culture and beliefs.

I think it's important to simply understand what to relate or what action to take when we are being pressed for info that is not part of our world-view.

I'm certain that it's (at least) possible to always be aware of the current limit of our own knowledge (weltanschauung). If one is capable of accepting oneself, it does not call upon much honesty at all. It does oneself and others a disservice to make personally unsupportable claims. How is it possible to really learn in such an environment?

I do agree. And I hear the message between the lines. But like to add that learning at a deep level of self, not just the facts from the science teacher requires an environment of safety. Where in people are allowed to state their truth, their reality. Without having the book of fallacies pulled out on them.

Part of knowing truth is feeling what clicks deep within. Making the logical connection, the rational steps to the knowledge is something that comes next. And sometimes that's something we have to help each other with.

Or you end up with a bunch of ego's who just want to be right all the time.

But that's a lesson here - the "truth" is that you can't be "right", or to put it another way, "everyone is right". Once that is learned, whatever the consequences of ignorance might be vanish into irrelevancy. Also, being truly "right" has nothing to do with learning here - sharing what one has uniquely and actually come to know does.

We agree.

You *can* know the limits of your knowledge.

I don't think you can. You can define the limits of the validity of your knowledge. By stating that all I know and accept as true comes through these and these sources, or everything that is repeated in three different sources, or everything that can be proven by the scientific method.

But you cannot know in many cases if something you suspect or feel is true is really true. So I must conclude that in most cases I don't know where my knowledge ends. I might know but I don't know that I know. What you speak of means you can state that some knowledge is true and be almost always right. But that is different.

Like most I use convenient cut off points for myself. When talking in this forum, I accept the Ra material pretty much as an absolute authority. Because everyone else does and I personally don't see a problem with it. It works for me like it works for them. However, suppose I go talk on an atheist forum about this. If I'd do the same there I'd get my bum handed to me. And they'd be right. This demonstrates that communication is context sensitive, and the context contains the listener..

In the end even scientific knowledge is only true because we made agreements on our cut off point. In many cases we know much more but we just do not consider it reliable.

What is the virtue in making something safe? After a certain point, you become an adult, somewhat individuated, and don't require such hand holding. (Excluding of course such things as damage recovery related to therapy.) What's with the coddling and over indulgence?

It is quite simply a choice based on the rules in this forum. (The purpose of our forum is to provide you and many seekers like you a safe meeting place conducive to conversation regarding the fascinating and inexhaustible field of spiritual evolution) This is therefore by definition also a safe place for people to share their ideas. It is clearly not defined to be a discussion forum dedicated to finding out the absolute truth. Like a scientific forum might be. It is a forum designed to allow seekers to explore their own insights and come to terms with their own position in all of this.

This requires a degree of safety. Yep, you could call this forum a form of therapy. It has been for me in a few instances. And I have seen cases where it was clearly therapy for someone other than me.

Also... on this forum there are people to whom communicating means different things. Some of us come here for the stimulating dialogs, some of us come here because it gives us support. Some of us came here because they feel they are wanderers. Some came to learn more about the Law of One.

Remember that the rule "Might is right" also applies to speech. Some people are mighty with words. Meaning they have a firm understanding of the rules of discourse and logic. Others are mighty with words meaning they have a firm understanding of a different level. For example the emotional. Some people are not mighty with words.

I believe in calibrating my vocabulary to those who I speak to. When in france I speak french. (I try to at least) And I reject the notion that there is a right way (or language) to communicate in. I have seen however that many people are stuck on one specific way of communication and they blame others who fail to follow protocol. While if they themselves chose to communicate on a different level or along a different protocol, they would conclude those people to be very intelligent and insightful. I personally am also comfortable on forums where the tone is downright hostile. I have fun there, sometimes I actually laugh at the names I'm called, they're an art form, I don't take it personal, and I enjoy the verbal jousts.

This is however not such a forum.

With regards to "ego": we are all subject to its defenses, in different situations. However, who's ego is really more jeopardized or more fragile in this case? Remember there are those that need protection from only themselves (taking ownership of their apprehensions) in order to be in a position to simply ask an honest question (and of an impersonal nature). I ask, not rhetorically, how can such behavior not be considered "pathological", for example?

The threat to an ego is not the issue here..

The man with the fragile ego is arguably in the best position to improve his world views. A fragile ego will not be a strong one. And thus there will be a less focused tunnel vision. Allowing that individual to see a greater picture. Whereas a strong ego can quickly develop tunnel vision.

Seeing what we want to see is an ego function. Seeing only the issue at hand from one singular perspective is tunnel vision. Not understanding that there is another underlying reality which would fit the same sense data but disagrees with the ego's expectations is a version of tunnel vision.

Being right is tunnel vision when it restricts our ability to see alternatives. I agree that in some cases there really are no alternatives... You cannot argue with someone who holds the position that water is 30 degrees, he's either right or wrong. But often there are alternative positions. You can argue with someone who holds the position that that same water is cold. Especially when the subject is the spirit are an enormous amount of valid positions. You just cannot use the same rules.


The assumption that there is a right way to communicate, is basically a suggestion that everyone should communicate the same way. Others who cannot handle that level, or refuse to follow protocol are considered the problem. This is the ego projecting it's own responsibility outside of itself. The ego reality tunnel actually marks those people outside the tunnel as wrong.

I basically attribute that insight to my time on bring4th. Honest to God I did that all the time. And I probably still do.

Note that it's always guys just like us who get stuck in this particular reality tunnel.. Women are remarkably absent in that tunnel. (Different tunnels sure but not this one) It's always intelligent males intellectually leaning toward the harder sciences. But guys like us should realize our style of communication is only right for us, and even then only in our field of expertise.

[zenmaster]

Quote:You *can* know the limits of your knowledge.

I don't think you can. You can define the limits of the validity of your knowledge. By stating that all I know and accept as true comes through these and these sources, or everything that is repeated in three different sources, or everything that can be proven by the scientific method.

But you cannot know in many cases if something you suspect or feel is true is really true. So I must conclude that in most cases I don't know where my knowledge ends. I might know but I don't know that I know. What you speak of means you can state that some knowledge is true and be almost always right. But that is different.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Being aware of the limits of one's knowledge has nothing to do with veracity of knowledge at all, just whether or not one genuinely perceives relavent knowledge is held. I contend that it's always possible to be aware of that case. That awareness is not even a skill to be learned, unless you consider honesty a skill.

In the end even scientific knowledge is only true because we made agreements on our cut off point. In many cases we know much more but we just do not consider it reliable.

This is certainly true. However, the knowledge presented in a research paper demands a certain format, it has logical restrictions. In general discourse, presented knowledge simply demands support, without regard to the original contention, or any subsequent support offered, being actually true. So to reiterate, this has nothing to do with knowing some truth, but rather simply being able to genuinely "back up" a sincere contention. Being able to answer "why is that?", if asked, for example - but not necessarily being "correct" in the answer.

Also... on this forum there are people to whom communicating means different things. Some of us come here for the stimulating dialogs, some of us come here because it gives us support. Some of us came here because they feel they are wanderers. Some came to learn more about the Law of One.

There is certainly no judgement being made about particular motivations or purposes for participation.

Remember that the rule "Might is right" also applies to speech. Some people are mighty with words. Meaning they have a firm understanding of the rules of discourse and logic. Others are mighty with words meaning they have a firm understanding of a different level. For example the emotional. Some people are not mighty with words.

This is understood, but I'm not sure how writing ability, logic skills (thinking), or emotional skills (feeling), or anything that has to do with personality for that matter, can considered pertinent "agencies" for honesty about one's knowledge.

I believe in calibrating my vocabulary to those who I speak to. When in france I speak french. (I try to at least)

As do I.

And I reject the notion that there is a right way (or language) to communicate in.

Of course there isn't and this should be obvious.

I have seen however that many people are stuck on one specific way of communication and they blame others who fail to follow protocol. While if they themselves chose to communicate on a different level or along a different protocol, they would conclude those people to be very intelligent and insightful.

The individual mind has been uniquely developed in a way that tends to bias certain ways of relating what is known. One would be a sociopath not to understand that.

I personally am also comfortable on forums where the tone is downright hostile. I have fun there, sometimes I actually laugh at the names I'm called, they're an art form, I don't take it personal, and I enjoy the verbal jousts.

The more hostile, the less common ground potential really. But it tends to be fun if everyone is "in on the game".

The man with the fragile ego is arguably in the best position to improve his world views. A fragile ego will not be a strong one. And thus there will be a less focused tunnel vision. Allowing that individual to see a greater picture. Whereas a strong ego can quickly develop tunnel vision.

My understanding of "fragile ego" is that which is easily threatened and thus put on defense. I suppose the opposite to this syndrome would be humility. I think only if there is conscious awareness of the ego's defense, could there be learning opportunity. But the defense generally serves to protect from learning.

Seeing what we want to see is an ego function. Seeing only the issue at hand from one singular perspective is tunnel vision. Not understanding that there is another underlying reality which would fit the same sense data but disagrees with the ego's expectations is a version of tunnel vision.

Actually, to be clear "ego" just means "I". Today it popularly refers to rejected or identified roles of self. Any personal, subjective perception is technically an ego function.

I believe I understand the "tunnel vision" potential that we are subject to when attempting to interpret claims. In this area we presumably allow for the enevitable mishmash of different aspects and levels of reality and must forgive all manner of descriptions of that which is currently or ultimately ineffable in order to discover or to share a possible insight, feeling, inspiration, or reasoning. I think a good example of the need to examine things in a holistic manner is the subject of one of John Mack's presentations (a link to this video is provided in one of my post here).

Being right is tunnel vision when it restricts our ability to see alternatives. I agree that in some cases there really are no alternatives... You cannot argue with someone who holds the position that water is 30 degrees, he's either right or wrong. But often there are alternative positions. You can argue with someone who holds the position that that same water is cold. Especially when the subject is the spirit are an enormous amount of valid positions. You just cannot use the same rules.

Agreed.

The assumption that there is a right way to communicate, is basically a suggestion that everyone should communicate the same way. Others who cannot handle that level, or refuse to follow protocol are considered the problem. This is the ego projecting it's own responsibility outside of itself. The ego reality tunnel actually marks those people outside the tunnel as wrong.

There is no right or wrong way to communicate. There is obviously better or worse forms of communication for relating particular information. But that is not even at issue.

I basically attribute that insight to my time on bring4th. Honest to God I did that all the time. And I probably still do.

I have learned a few things about the dynamics of discussion in the past 30 years both running and participating in electronic forums, such as this one, as well. One thing I've learned is that you can always count on people to be only as honest with you as they can be with themselves.

Note that it's always guys just like us who get stuck in this particular reality tunnel.. Women are remarkably absent in that tunnel. (Different tunnels sure but not this one) It's always intelligent males intellectually leaning toward the harder sciences. But guys like us should realize our style of communication is only right for us, and even then only in our field of expertise.

Yes there are different purposes and styles of communication. I understand that much of it may not even be intended to convey new information of any type to another.

But there can be an intention behind the communication, irrespective of gender bias. If a reader misinterprets or does not sufficiently understand some text, it is certainly appropriate to ask for clarification. We all understand that language is imperfect and information can always be related again in a different way. Such requests may have nothing to do with tunnel vision.

If we do not allow for clarification, then we presume that everyone knows the perspective of the writer or that the opinion of the writer does not matter or that the understanding of the reader does not matter.

[Ali Quadir]

Quote:You *can* know the limits of your knowledge.

I don't think you can. You can define the limits of the validity of your knowledge. By stating that all I know and accept as true comes through these and these sources, or everything that is repeated in three different sources, or everything that can be proven by the scientific method.

But you cannot know in many cases if something you suspect or feel is true is really true. So I must conclude that in most cases I don't know where my knowledge ends. I might know but I don't know that I know. What you speak of means you can state that some knowledge is true and be almost always right. But that is different.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Being aware of the limits of one's knowledge has nothing to do with veracity of knowledge at all, just whether or not one genuinely perceives relavent knowledge is held. I contend that it's always possible to be aware of that case. That awareness is not even a skill to be learned, unless you consider honesty a skill.

So let me try if I get you... You're basically saying that we know if we have no relevant knowledge? How would you explain the situation where we have knowledge in one area that can be used in another yet we did not realize we could?

Also... on this forum there are people to whom communicating means different things. Some of us come here for the stimulating dialogs, some of us come here because it gives us support. Some of us came here because they feel they are wanderers. Some came to learn more about the Law of One.

There is certainly no judgement being made about particular motivations or purposes for participation.

Not directly no. But those motivations determine protocol to a degree.

Remember that the rule "Might is right" also applies to speech. Some people are mighty with words. Meaning they have a firm understanding of the rules of discourse and logic. Others are mighty with words meaning they have a firm understanding of a different level. For example the emotional. Some people are not mighty with words.

This is understood, but I'm not sure how writing ability, logic skills (thinking), or emotional skills (feeling), or anything that has to do with personality for that matter, can considered pertinent "agencies" for honesty about one's knowledge.

If I wrote a scientific article, and wrote it in the same style I would use to explain my point to my non scientific friends. My colleagues could call me intellectually dishonest because I left out information that I should have put in there... My friends would not accuse me of this.

If I were to speak to my friends on the level I would when writing a scientific article they would consider me overly terse and impossible to understand.

Clearly aspects of the speaker and listener do factor in into how we judge honesty about ones knowledge.

I believe in calibrating my vocabulary to those who I speak to. When in france I speak french. (I try to at least)

As do I.

And I reject the notion that there is a right way (or language) to communicate in.

Of course there isn't and this should be obvious.

Yet you seem to me to be demanding a specific format. You actually measure honesty by that format.

I have seen however that many people are stuck on one specific way of communication and they blame others who fail to follow protocol. While if they themselves chose to communicate on a different level or along a different protocol, they would conclude those people to be very intelligent and insightful.

The individual mind has been uniquely developed in a way that tends to bias certain ways of relating what is known. One would be a sociopath not to understand that.

Yet it is extremely human to fall for those biases anyway.

I personally am also comfortable on forums where the tone is downright hostile. I have fun there, sometimes I actually laugh at the names I'm called, they're an art form, I don't take it personal, and I enjoy the verbal jousts.

The more hostile, the less common ground potential really. But it tends to be fun if everyone is "in on the game".

Precisely, when everyone has the same assumptions and expectations... As a kid in school I played hockey with a few friends. We had changed the rules to the point where bruises were okay. And foul play was fun. Our teachers didn't mind us roughing around a bit. But when another classmate who played hockey as a hobby and thus used the right rules decided to join in. He got extremely pissed off.

The expectation of the rules was different.

The man with the fragile ego is arguably in the best position to improve his world views. A fragile ego will not be a strong one. And thus there will be a less focused tunnel vision. Allowing that individual to see a greater picture. Whereas a strong ego can quickly develop tunnel vision.

My understanding of "fragile ego" is that which is easily threatened and thus put on defense. I suppose the opposite to this syndrome would be humility. I think only if there is conscious awareness of the ego's defense, could there be learning opportunity. But the defense generally serves to protect from learning.

Ok, I understand that's your interpretation of the word. I'm trained as a psychologist. So I'm stuck on the psychoanalytic interpretations which are not the same.

Not that yours is wrong and mine is right. It's an example of us speaking two different languages. And now that I know your interpretation I am protected from mistaking your words through my (for the purpose of communicating with you) invalid context.

Seeing what we want to see is an ego function. Seeing only the issue at hand from one singular perspective is tunnel vision. Not understanding that there is another underlying reality which would fit the same sense data but disagrees with the ego's expectations is a version of tunnel vision.

Actually, to be clear "ego" just means "I". Today it popularly refers to rejected or identified roles of self. Any personal, subjective perception is technically an ego function.

Same as above. I see ego as the reality tunnel. Episodes of psychosis are when the ego fractures to a degree where it no longer functions properly. Meaning the reality tunnel is inappropriate and all context is lost.

A healthy ego is simply one that supplies the proper context. A strong ego is one that is singleminded in what contexts it believes applicable. A weaker ego jumps between contexts.

I believe I understand the "tunnel vision" potential that we are subject to when attempting to interpret claims. In this area we presumably allow for the enevitable mishmash of different aspects and levels of reality and must forgive all manner of descriptions of that which is currently or ultimately ineffable in order to discover or to share a possible insight, feeling, inspiration, or reasoning. I think a good example of the need to examine things in a holistic manner is the subject of one of John Mack's presentations (a link to this video is provided in one of my post here).

Awesome.. The tunnelvision potential is what I'm speaking about here...

Imagine you're the perfect intellectual genius. Everything you say is exactly to the point, and your slightest utterances are perfectly converted opinions into language.

Yet your audience exists of neanderthals....

You're not going anywhere unless you change your protocol. Right or wrong is irrelevant, there is only action and consequence. If you adjust the context that defines what you see then the consequence is better communication.

Even if you're truly smarter and more capable in language.

I basically attribute that insight to my time on bring4th. Honest to God I did that all the time. And I probably still do.

I have learned a few things about the dynamics of discussion in the past 30 years both running and participating in electronic forums, such as this one, as well. One thing I've learned is that you can always count on people to be only as honest with you as they can be with themselves.

True Valid insight, but do you consider it relevant?

30 years of electronic forums? You were in the room when the world wide web was born were you not?

But there can be an intention behind the communication, irrespective of gender bias. If a reader misinterprets or does not sufficiently understand some text, it is certainly appropriate to ask for clarification. We all understand that language is imperfect and information can always be related again in a different way. Such requests may have nothing to do with tunnel vision.

True, but their underlying assumptions might have something to do with it.

If I ask for clarification I can ask it in the way where I communicate the presupposition that you're wrong. Or I can communicate the presupposition that I'm wrong. Or I can just leave out presupposition all together.

If we do not allow for clarification, then we presume that everyone knows the perspective of the writer or that the opinion of the writer does not matter or that the understanding of the reader does not matter.

Agreed, It is not clarification I object to.

[zenmaster]

Quote:You *can* know the limits of your knowledge.

I don't think you can. You can define the limits of the validity of your knowledge. By stating that all I know and accept as true comes through these and these sources, or everything that is repeated in three different sources, or everything that can be proven by the scientific method.

But you cannot know in many cases if something you suspect or feel is true is really true. So I must conclude that in most cases I don't know where my knowledge ends. I might know but I don't know that I know. What you speak of means you can state that some knowledge is true and be almost always right. But that is different.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Being aware of the limits of one's knowledge has nothing to do with veracity of knowledge at all, just whether or not one genuinely perceives relavent knowledge is held. I contend that it's always possible to be aware of that case. That awareness is not even a skill to be learned, unless you consider honesty a skill.

So let me try if I get you... You're basically saying that we know if we have no relevant knowledge?

Yes. But it's entirely subjective of course. By relevancy, I mean perceived relevancy. As we have with one's own prompt to share one's own particular info.

How would you explain the situation where we have knowledge in one area that can be used in another yet we did not realize we could?

I don't mean relevancy in the sense of a particular application or appropriateness. I mean, for example, the person thinking what they know should be shared in some circumstance, for whatever reason. Then they begin to relate whatever knowledge in whatever form. Given that, what I contend is that they always can know if such knowledge is actually known or what is being related is disingenuous or if over reaching is required. By over reaching, I do not mean a tenuous connection was presented - I mean a personally unsupportable claim was made. Has nothing to do with intelligence or gender or personality.

Yet you seem to me to be demanding a specific format. You actually measure honesty by that format.

It has nothing do with the manner in which something is related. It is the capability to support what is related (again, in any manner). By capability, I don't mean any judgment of capability, I mean one's own awareness of what one understands one knows (perceived relevance) in whatever worldview one has.

I have seen however that many people are stuck on one specific way of communication and they blame others who fail to follow protocol. While if they themselves chose to communicate on a different level or along a different protocol, they would conclude those people to be very intelligent and insightful.

The individual mind has been uniquely developed in a way that tends to bias certain ways of relating what is known. One would be a sociopath not to understand that.

Yet it is extremely human to fall for those biases anyway.

Or maybe there is a limit of successful discourse due to perhaps the time/energy required vs the perceived benefit.

I basically attribute that insight to my time on bring4th. Honest to God I did that all the time. And I probably still do.

I have learned a few things about the dynamics of discussion in the past 30 years both running and participating in electronic forums, such as this one, as well. One thing I've learned is that you can always count on people to be only as honest with you as they can be with themselves.

True Valid insight, but do you consider it relevant?

Yes. For example, because one tends to know when to stop asking for clarification.

[Lavazza]

Ali, you simply must link your discussions at the atheist forums here. I'm up for a hoot and a laugh.

More to the the topic of this thread, I find both of your commentaries educational. Thank you for sharing them.

L&L, ~E

[Ali Quadir]

Quote:You *can* know the limits of your knowledge.

I don't think you can. You can define the limits of the validity of your knowledge. By stating that all I know and accept as true comes through these and these sources, or everything that is repeated in three different sources, or everything that can be proven by the scientific method.

But you cannot know in many cases if something you suspect or feel is true is really true. So I must conclude that in most cases I don't know where my knowledge ends. I might know but I don't know that I know. What you speak of means you can state that some knowledge is true and be almost always right. But that is different.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Being aware of the limits of one's knowledge has nothing to do with veracity of knowledge at all, just whether or not one genuinely perceives relavent knowledge is held. I contend that it's always possible to be aware of that case. That awareness is not even a skill to be learned, unless you consider honesty a skill.

So let me try if I get you... You're basically saying that we know if we have no relevant knowledge?

Yes. But it's entirely subjective of course. By relevancy, I mean perceived relevancy. As we have with one's own prompt to share one's own particular info.

Ok, I suppose that could work. It means that the situation could arise where I don't know I have knowledge relevant from some perspective. And that's all I was really saying.

Yet you seem to me to be demanding a specific format. You actually measure honesty by that format.

It has nothing do with the manner in which something is related. It is the capability to support what is related (again, in any manner). By capability, I don't mean any judgment of capability, I mean one's own awareness of what one understands one knows (perceived relevance) in whatever worldview one has.

But isn't saying "I dreamt it last night" sufficient support if indeed you mean it when you say "In any manner"? If this is true, I don't see how you could reject anything anyone ever says, because quite clearly nothing is said or even thought without being supported in some way.

The issues arise when I give my views a means of support that another person does not agree with.

I have seen however that many people are stuck on one specific way of communication and they blame others who fail to follow protocol. While if they themselves chose to communicate on a different level or along a different protocol, they would conclude those people to be very intelligent and insightful.

The individual mind has been uniquely developed in a way that tends to bias certain ways of relating what is known. One would be a sociopath not to understand that.

Yet it is extremely human to fall for those biases anyway.

Or maybe there is a limit of successful discourse due to perhaps the time/energy required vs the perceived benefit.

There's another alternative, not being word oriented, but being intention oriented. Don't ask yourself what is the other saying, but what is the other trying to say? It will help a lot most people are all over the place with their communications. Exaggerating one moment and ignoring something the next. We should not take words too literal.

@Eric, That forum was killed. It was the Dawkins forum. I think the man grew pretty tired of all the bickering. I half suspected him to be fed up with the fact that the subtitle of the forum "An oasis of reason" was no more than a thin layer of paint on what was essentially a cestpit of emotional gut responses and badly contained frustrations. He pulled the plug quite suddenly and people actually rabidly started attacking him for it.

I don't agree with Dawkins on a lot of levels. But he is a very decent and civilized human being. And I do sympathize with his desire for religion to just get out of the social arena.

Those don't ask don't tell issues the US is having right now don't belong in this century. People don't have the right to stop other people from expressing who they are just because they happen to be uncomfortable with the idea of two men kissing. Certainly not in a place where they're being very comfortable with two men trying to put bullets in each others bodies. The numerous child abuse cases in Europe don't belong in society and would not have occurred (at least to this level) if some people in the church got of their high horse and gave priests and nuns the permissions to just have sex to their hearts content. In the monestaries churches and cloister gardens. It would not only revitalize the church it would also get that sour dried plum expression of their faces.

The core of religion to me is beauty with no limits. It brings me to tears on a regular basis. But what mankind has made of it should not be mistaken for divine.

[Lavazza]

Ali,

I sincerely hope you don't often become bored when we converse because I agree with you so often I rarely have anything to offer in the way of differing viewpoints! Haha.

About the gays in the military issue... tell me about it. For some reason it seems America is behind on a lot of issues that feel like no brainers to me... and I'd venture most of us here on the forum. Fortunately I think there are also a large number of people in the U.S. who are equally fed up and are instigating changes now. Same sex marriage is another one that I'm sure will be looked back on in the context of "What on Earth were they thinking, not allowing same sex people to marry??" In the same way we look at how interracial marriages were also illegal once. Also things like marijuana legalization, universal health care... I also suspect things like immigration shouldn't be such a huge issue as it is.. the list goes on and on. If I had it my way I'd burn down all the border guard stations and dissolve all nations borders, opting instead for a collective tribe of humans on a physically limited geographic area... the circumference of the Earth.

I've been thinking more and more about something you wrote in your wanderer's story. About how at a certain point you just stopped questioning your metaphysical backstory and just went with it. I think I'm prepared to do the same thing now. I feel that I'm a wanderer also- from fourth density. I've often felt compelled towards love and compassion over reason. Wisdom is not something I'm here to express- I don't know much about it. So if you put me in charge I'll dissolve the world's governments.... who knows if that's a wise thing to do? Maybe not- but that's honestly how I feel inside.

On Dawkins, yes. It's pretty clear to me that his chosen mission in this day and age is to enlighten humans to the fact that what we've made of religion makes little sense when you get down to logic and rationality. And that it can actually be detrimental sometimes. Unfortunately he was so determined to fulfill this mission that he's taken it to 200% and debunks everything in sight, and this almost certain includes his own experience. Thus there are many things that he supports that I can't get behind either... But I think the ends justify the means in this case. If a handful of people can become liberated of dogma and experience greater joys in life, it's well worth having a crotchety angry man swirling around Youtube. Haha!

L&L, Eric

[Ali Quadir]

I sincerely hope you don't often become bored when we converse because I agree with you so often I rarely have anything to offer in the way of differing viewpoints! Haha.

Yawn, lol

About the gays in the military issue... tell me about it. For some reason it seems America is behind on a lot of issues that feel like no brainers to me... and I'd venture most of us here on the forum. Fortunately I think there are also a large number of people in the U.S. who are equally fed up and are instigating changes now. Same sex marriage is another one that I'm sure will be looked back on in the context of "What on Earth were they thinking, not allowing same sex people to marry??" In the same way we look at how interracial marriages were also illegal once.

Precisely. When I started to go out, the first place that ended up being my semi homebase downtown was the local gay bar. We happened to know a few people there. And it was always fun, no ego's no nonsense. I had to learn that people don't all see it like that. But to me this is the truth. If we went elsewhere it was always a circus of egos and peacocks.

If a guy in a dress is more relaxed less self important and just fun to be around, I'll be around the guy in the dress! Thank you!

The only thing real and valuable in this world is quality contact with other people. Everything else is valuable only because it creates the possibility of this contact. In my humble opinion that makes putting demands on others to not be themselves in any way a costly choice. Why on earth would we want to spend time with make belief copies of ourselves?

Also things like marijuana legalization, universal health care... I also suspect things like immigration shouldn't be such a huge issue as it is.. the list goes on and on. If I had it my way I'd burn down all the border guard stations and dissolve all nations borders, opting instead for a collective tribe of humans on a physically limited geographic area... the circumference of the Earth.

I would recommend changing the flow of wealth first. That's the real reason people move from warm climates to cold rainy places. Bottom line is if everyone moves to a few specific places on earth and bring their issues with them it's not going to work either. So we need a more thorough solution but the end result I would aim for is the same

Besides, I love foreign food.

As for universal healthcare, it's right isn't it? Health is a problem we should fix, like education, infrastructure both physical and digital. It's just common sense. People are the engine to a society. All of them. If you don't keep them happy and humming you're going to lose productivity and growth.

I've been thinking more and more about something you wrote in your wanderer's story. About how at a certain point you just stopped questioning your metaphysical backstory and just went with it.

Yes, that's how it went. It no longer mattered if it was real or not, it was right, and what I learned there worked. It's kinda taking things to the next level. Don't worry about the basics assume your direction is right, and take the stand. We do what the basics enable us to do if we put our confidence there.

I think I'm prepared to do the same thing now. I feel that I'm a wanderer also- from fourth density. I've often felt compelled towards love and compassion over reason. Wisdom is not something I'm here to express- I don't know much about it. So if you put me in charge I'll dissolve the world's governments.... who knows if that's a wise thing to do? Maybe not- but that's honestly how I feel inside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mVvMopn2os

In a world which we created where our future is the result of our choices. What excuse do we have to speak about real? We define real. We do not define right. We know right! If we choose right massively, globally, individually then real will be right.

All I can say really is welcome brother Trust your core. No matter what we are, our guidance lies within.

On Dawkins, yes. It's pretty clear to me that his chosen mission in this day and age is to enlighten humans to the fact that what we've made of religion makes little sense when you get down to logic and rationality. And that it can actually be detrimental sometimes. Unfortunately he was so determined to fulfill this mission that he's taken it to 200% and debunks everything in sight, and this almost certain includes his own experience. Thus there are many things that he supports that I can't get behind either... But I think the ends justify the means in this case. If a handful of people can become liberated of dogma and experience greater joys in life, it's well worth having a crotchety angry man swirling around Youtube. Haha!

Heh, did you see Network? a 1976 movie, it's wel worth it if you can find it. It's about a news anchor man going through a personal crisis, he is going to get sacked. His outrage on air about how things are, that we are scared. Frightened by the television we sit in our homes. Even afraid of the neighbors. He get's the people to the point where they open their windows shouting that they're mad as hell and they just won't take it anymore.

Dawkins is like that. And he's right, his debunking if you look at it carefully isn't really saying much "There probably is no god"... To me I think he would be more successful if he just said I don't care about your God believe in him or not, but here's what's pragmatically wrong about religion. We can argue metaphysics forever. No one can argue facts.

That anger is justified, and when properly channeled it can change the world. Bottom line as religious as I am I realize we need Dawkins. We need people who are angry to point out what's wrong with the world today. I would sacrifice religion in a heartbeat for world peace. But spirit and love go hand in hand. I don't believe religion is the problem, and I don't care about the political structures around it myself.

[zenmaster]

Yet you seem to me to be demanding a specific format. You actually measure honesty by that format.

It has nothing do with the manner in which something is related. It is the capability to support what is related (again, in any manner). By capability, I don't mean any judgment of capability, I mean one's own awareness of what one understands one knows (perceived relevance) in whatever worldview one has.

But isn't saying "I dreamt it last night" sufficient support if indeed you mean it when you say "In any manner"?

Yes. I think we are getting somewhere now.

If this is true, I don't see how you could reject anything anyone ever says, because quite clearly nothing is said or even thought without being supported in some way.

Take the dream example. If the person really thought their dream was that compelling for support, don't you think it could be an interesting discussion? (If they did not feel a compelling degree of support was there, then they were simply being dishonest.)

The mere fact than an infinite entity who felt their dream was that relevant, could also explain why it was so, for example. I, for one, would not dismiss such an explanation out of hand.

Also, what does it really mean to reject, or accept for that matter? Not so black or white when ideas are encountered that may not reinforce existing prejudice.

The issues arise when I give my views a means of support that another person does not agree with.

I don't necessarily have issues with that situation. However, I tend to have a dilemma when I know there is a misunderstanding and that an understanding is still possible.

I have seen however that many people are stuck on one specific way of communication and they blame others who fail to follow protocol. While if they themselves chose to communicate on a different level or along a different protocol, they would conclude those people to be very intelligent and insightful.

The individual mind has been uniquely developed in a way that tends to bias certain ways of relating what is known. One would be a sociopath not to understand that.

Yet it is extremely human to fall for those biases anyway.

Or maybe there is a limit of successful discourse due to perhaps the time/energy required vs the perceived benefit.

There's another alternative, not being word oriented, but being intention oriented. Don't ask yourself what is the other saying, but what is the other trying to say?

It is difficult to ignore what one is saying and try to read into what they are saying if what they have already said crosses the curiosity or begs-the-question threshold. In certain circumstances, using one's intuition or gut feeling to fill in the blanks may also be appropriate.

However, learning relies on not being blind to what another has to offer.

It will help a lot most people are all over the place with their communications. Exaggerating one moment and ignoring something the next.

Have also you considered that, in a dialog, for example people can help each other understand more or add focus through various ways of asking or directing clarity? What do you think about the Socratic method?

We should not take words too literal.

Words are symbols used to convey meaning about a ephemeral ideas. Further, if someone was using words to describe something natural (rather than abstract or artificial), they could never actually describe that thing wholly or as it actually is. However, one's communicated ideas could impress enough of a vague notion in another to allow useful work to be done.

Take David Wilcock's research for example. Even though he mentions scientific discoveries (from authors had quite a bit of literal intention) to back up his apprehensions, I'd know better than to take his apprehensions literally. That's because the presumed context has a spiritual or transcendent intention. But it's very easy to not take a synthesis of words like that, which tend to be a hyper-intuitive "soup" of metaphor and allegory, literally.

[Lavazza]

I sincerely hope you don't often become bored when we converse because I agree with you so often I rarely have anything to offer in the way of differing viewpoints! Haha.

Yawn, lol

Doh!

Besides, I love foreign food.

Oh yeah, me too! Indian cuisine is probably one of my favorites. The wife and I recently decided to try this game, of a sort, where we find a country whose cuisine we've never had before a try cooking up a meal at home. Like once a week or something. First one on the list is Russian. I think I've actually had it before but it must have been about ten years ago.

As for universal healthcare, it's right isn't it? Health is a problem we should fix, like education, infrastructure both physical and digital. It's just common sense. People are the engine to a society. All of them. If you don't keep them happy and humming you're going to lose productivity and growth.

Seems so obvious doesn't it? I'm always baffled by the opposition.

All I can say really is welcome brother Trust your core. No matter what we are, our guidance lies within.

Thanks man

By the way... in re: to an earlier point in this disucssion: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BG0IS20101219

One step at a time.

L&L, Eric

[Monica]

Seems so obvious doesn't it? I'm always baffled by the opposition.

Me too!

[zenmaster]

Seems so obvious doesn't it? I'm always baffled by the opposition.

Me too!

Good article on Pros and Cons of the current proposal:

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universa...h_care.htm