nameless
Tiro
Offline
Posts: 32
Here
|
[quote author=curious_aardvark link=1181975538/15#24 date=1182983771][quote]Quote: Don't you just love semantics ;-) It is 'semantics' that define our 'reality'. In the beginning is the "WORD"! I love when people erroneously use 'semantics' in a dismissive way. It is not to be 'dismissed' so easily. Nothing can exist without 'definition/context', semantics! [/quote] Umm, which is what I said lol I love semantics - how is that dismissive ? Try not to see what you think people said rather see what is there ;-)[/quote] Point taken. It is a vast majority of times that 'semantics' is quoted as something dismissive. "I love semantics" could easily have been sarcasm. As it wasn't... point, again, taken. (so, are you claiming to 'see what is there' rather than 'what you think is there'?? Really?)
[quote]Infected with belief, well you do seem to believe that your beliefs are more valid than techstuffs so - who is the infected one - you him, all of us.[/quote] This all-too-common response is invalid. I 'believe' nothing. A simple declaritive statement regarding what is within ME. How is it that you presume to argue, thereby calling me a liar? If I said that I am hungry, would you argue with that? If I said that I am an Amerikkkan, would you argue with that? I don't have the flu either...
Despite your doubts of my honesty, the fact remains, like it or not, I HARBOR NO BELIEFS. That is quite simple. Why so difficult for you to accept? Perhaps your understanding of 'beliefs' might need some education? [url]http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html[/url]
I can't say who is infected but by their obvious (and well documented) symptoms. I know that 'he' is, I know that most are, I certainly can't say that everyone is, as I am not, there must be others. I also don't have the west nile virus, want to argue that too?
[quote]We all harbour erroneous beliefs - yep even you :-)[/quote] Again, your arrogant ass-umption is incorrect and invalid. Should you see the symptoms, then feel free to point them out to me. Otherwise, your assumption is as erroneous as was mine regarding your 'semantic' statement.
[quote]Surely true enlightenment would be the abaility to understand and accept anyones beliefs.[/quote] Are you enlightened that you can speak for 'enlightenment'? I have no trouble accepting all as is, is perfect. 'Beliefs' are still a toxic and cognitively destructive virus. Symptomatic. AIDS is a virus too. AIDS is still perfection as far as I can see, as are those infected.. I am not judging, I am observing and commenting on that observation.
[quote]Any point can be argued with anyone. And any discussion where one party attempts to enlighten the other (obviously less enlightened) party is an argument. [/quote] I don't agree with your definition of argument. A teacher in school teaches. He doesn't attempt to 'enlighten' (in the 'spiritual' definition) but to educate, offering food for thought! That is what I do. I offer food for thought. I am not telling anyone what to think, I just share what I see from experience. No argument. The words have meaning or they do not, to an individual. No argument. I don't want to, CAN'T, change anyone's mind, just 'jumpstart' it.
[quote]It does rather sound like you've given up searching and have settled into the mirk of perceived knowlege. [/quote] Another erroneous and biased assumption. After over half a century of 'searching' (for 'self', for 'Truth'), the results are; there is nothing to 'search' for. Why is that a problem to you? If you must be searching, you must do as you must. Why not I?
[quote]If one is familiar with the power of belief, then the natural philosophical position to take is skepticism: "accept nothing unless proven or verified." While the Greek philosophers thought skepticism meant suspension of belief or agnosticism (admitting that one really did not know anything), many modern 'skeptics' are really 'debunkers' or 'disbelievers.' That is, rather than choosing to suspend belief in X, they choose to believe in not-X, often with a lack of criticality that they ascribe to believers in X. While skepticism is closely linked with empiricism - one should base all epistemological precepts on induction, observation, and experience - the two concepts are not identical. The skeptic realizes that both his reason and his senses can fail him at times, so both rationalism and empiricism are insufficient. Skepticism is based in the critical method: question and challenge all authority and all prevailing ideas. Scientific "skepticism" is limited in that it refuses to question its own radical privilege over other modes of comprehending the world, or its own possible insufficiency. [b]The true skeptic (zetetic) has no stake in any discourse/belief-system, religious, scientific, mythic, or otherwise, but he may borrow from any system the concepts he chooses to assimilate into a personal worldview.[/b] [/quote]
[quote]"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But when, after observation and analysis, you find anything that agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it (tentatively -n) and live up to it. -- The Buddha's Kalama Sutra[/quote]
I claim no inherent superiority of one person over any other, not in 'thought', or 'belief' or any other way. All are of equally inherent 'value' in this great Tapestry of existence. What is, is.
Peace
|