What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:45 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:28 pm ... for societies to exist there has to be a general attitude of mutual trust.
Maybe.

But "general" is the operative word there. Society can still exist (albeit less than completely happily, of course) with quite a few complete rotters in it. And those rotters can get an edge, or even rise to the top by exploiting the "general attitude of mutual trust."

Why shouldn't they be rotters, given that Atheism implies there's no objective standard against them?
"Should" implies a criterion according to which the thinking person chooses. Your criterion is God's commands. My criterion is human knowledge and reason.

Whether or not your God exists we still have human nature. The reason they should not be rotters is that if everyone, or a significant number of individuals, were rotters mutual trust would break down and society would collapse.

"exploiting the "general attitude of mutual trust." " is indeed something that rotters do and what a strict God-administration together with efficient police would tend to prevent. Presumably you don't want a police state for America; you want the leadership of God as interpreted by Authority.

But America has moved beyond Authority into democracy. You cannot put the genii back in the bottle except by either propaganda or by violent force.

Inadequate education of the American masses is facilitated by propaganda .
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by ken »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
ken wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:46 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pm
Well, look at it this way.
  • P1: A "rational" belief, by definition, is one for which "reasons" can be adduced.
There is no such thing as a rational belief.
Then you're not rational to believe that.
You are so blinded by your own beliefs that you can not even see what is being shown to you here. But that is the nature of how beliefs affect a person. Beliefs, by themselves, cause irrational behaviors, just like you are showing right now.

I do NOT believe that. I will say it again, so that I will KNOW if you are reading what I actually write, I neither believe or disbelieve any thing.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
...you know with certainty is actually true, then just provide the evidence for it so that every one else will also know this truth. However, if some thing is true, then that is just a fact, so there is no need for belief at all.
What does anybody actually know with the absolute "certainty" which you allege makes belief unnecessary? Give me an example, please. (One from real life, not from a closed system like mathematics or symbolic logic.)
Easy. Thoughts.

The thoughts that arise/appear/occur (or whatever else we want to say for when thoughts come into being) within the head ARE the only thing that we can be absolutely certain of KNOWING for sure. We KNOW with certain the thoughts that are within the head or body.

If, however, those thoughts are in fact true or false, right or wrong, et cetera, et cetera is a completely other and different matter, which we can look into and delve into much more if you, or others,like.

But none of this distracts from the point that you only copied and pasted what you wanted to reply to, and thus ignoring the main point of My WHOLE quote, which was and still IS; If you believe some thing is true that may not actual be true, then that is very irrational. If, however, you believe some thing is true that you know with certainty is actually true, then just provide the evidence for it so that every one else will also know this truth. However, if some thing is true, then that is just a fact, so there is no need for belief at all.

SO, either;
1. You have a belief in some thing, which may not even be true, so that is an irrational behavior.
2. You have a belief in some thing, which you KNOW for sure is true, and therefore could just provide us with the sound, valid argument for it or
show us this true fact with proof and evidence for it, of which no one could successfully dispute . Or,
3. You have a belief in some thing, which is actually an indisputable true fact, which is therefore just plain old fact, and like I said before, Then there is no need for belief at all.
You have 1. 2. or 3., which one is it?

Also, what else will be found and discovered when you are open enough to it, is that truth and fact stand up all by and for themselves, without any support from you or others. This will be seen and understood, almost immediately, when you STOP believing and start becoming OPEN.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
And, having a belief is irrational.
If you "believe" that, then by your own account, you must be "irrational."
I neither believe nor disbelieve it. It is a view that I observed, which could be totally wrong, partly wrong and right, or right. I just express what I observe, and then remain open, and wait for others to express their views and what they observe. If My view is shown to be wrong in any way whatsoever, then I await that patiently as I want to be informed of this. I WANT to keep learning more and anew. I WANT to be informed of what views I express are wrong, and most importantly WHY they are wrong. I much prefer this to happen as soon as practical, instead of long drawn out meaningless discussions.

If all you can say in reply is what you have said here, then this is rather very foolish, especially as you would surely KNOW by now, if you had read what I actually write, that I would NOT believe that.

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:44 pmSo far, we have three completely undebatable premises, I think. Any reasonable person would believe all three. Let's continue:
Have you noticed the way you try to argue? You have already come to a conclusion and if any person does not agree with you, then, to you, they are an unreasonable person.

The truth is, from My perspective,
P1 is untrue, for reasons given.
You don't agree with the definition of an Atheist? Then you have no idea what the word means.
1. What a word means to YOU does NOT mean that is what the word actually MEANS. In fact what a word means to ONE dictionary does NOT mean that that is what the word actually means. Further to this, what a word means to the MAJORITY does NOT mean that that is what the word actually means. Tell Me what the definition of an 'atheist' means to you, then I will tell you if I agree with it or not.

By the way what a word actually MEANS is only KNOWN by one way. I have already explained that way previously. Let us see who has read what I write and knows the way that I say. Again, I may be wrong, but until shown otherwise, this is what I observe. If my views are wrong, which they can very well easily be, and i can not obviously see this, then i need to be shown this.

2. My whole message was NOT about that I do not agree with YOUR definition of atheist, which as I just alluded to I do not even know what it is, but rather that you label people who disagree with your beliefs of "God" and other things, as being "unreasonable: people. And, obviously no person can reason with an un-reason-abled person. That is, your own distorted thinking is fooling you into believing that you are 100% absolutely correct here. You BELIEVE that you are correct and any one seeing and having a view otherwise is an unreasonable person.

3. WHY I disagree with YOUR P1, as I explained, IS for the actual reasons that I have ALREADY given. NOT because of your definition of atheist, of which I am not even aware of yet.

4. Your ASSUMPTION and obvious WRONG conclusion is blindingly obvious, and shown to all here, in the way you wrote your first "question" and also in your OWN subsequent answer to your own "question". Just putting a question mark at the end of a statement does NOT hide the fact what your underlying thoughts, assumptions, and beliefs are.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
P2's example needs further investigation
The example was merely to help any unknowledgeable observers to understand Leibniz's point at a rudimentary level. If you don't like the example, you can simply ignore it. It's not worth debating.
THERE IS NOTHING TO DEBATE, in this forum, and in Life also, by the way.

You clearly show that you do NOT read the actual words I write.

This is NOT about not liking the example at all. I SAID THAT, P2's example needs further investigation. There is to much relativity in it. For example is sperm small and weak? Sperm created human beings and human beings it might be argued are too large and substantive. Also, in your example you might have been thinking of some thing else, like the Universe for example, but is there any proof that it was at all created, by some thing else? AND, immanuel can does what immanuel can always does and that is NOT look at what is actually written. immanuel can also does NOT like discussing any thing that might take immanuel can of that one-sided position and track that immanuel can is on.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmI assume, as a rational person, you accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason. And if you do, you've got nothing to complain about.
I was NOT complaining. I was trying to get you to look at how absurd your example is and get you to discuss your example, but you are NOT open to doing either of these things. Instead you will try and twist this around to detract away from what I am pointing out and that that you do NOT want to even look at and consider.

So, just to show others how blinded you actually are, IS SPERM SMALL AND WEAK?

Do you think or believe that the Universe was created by some thing else?

Answer these questions and then we will KNOW that you are NOT blind to the real issues and thus are not trying to just side-step and distract the main issue here.

immanuel can's beliefs are great evidence of just how much blinding and distorting beliefs actually are, and the more immanuel can proceeds here the way they have been the more evidence and proof immanuel can is providing for all of us.

By the way I have no view on principle of sufficient reason because I have never read any thing about it. I do not recall even hearing that principle before, but just the way those words are written sound fair enough, and, the way you explained it it seems to make sense and be sensible. BUT your own example of supposedly "sufficient reasons" does NOT support the principle of sufficient reason, itself. If you are trying to prove God exists, then you will NEED a lot more than what you have provided. By the way 'a lot more' does NOT mean more reasoning but more reasonable reasoning.

Obviously, depending on what your definition of 'small and weak' is first, then that will influence greatly if things that are small and weak can actually create much greater and bigger things or not.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
P3 is just the exact opposite of theism. The belief in either atheism and theism are both irrational and illogical. Unless of course proven otherwise.
Your error is to thing that "belief" entails "irrational."
Okay that is fair enough. That is your view, but what evidence do you have to support this view?

What does "belief" actually entail then if it does not entail "irrational", as you say.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmActually, every scientific experiment and "law" we have is a matter of belief.
What do you actually mean by EVERY scientific experiment and "law" is a matter of belief?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmBut that's not even contested among epistemologists.
How many people labeled epistemologists do you actually know?

And, how do you know every thing that is contested or not among ALL of these people?

And, how does what is not contested among some people got to do with what is a matter of belief, and then how does that relate back to My error in thinking that belief entails irrational?

I just could NOT follow this "logic" you are using here.

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
That is just a part of the problem: Theism, as far as I am aware, can not fulfill P4 either.

It can, but it would not matter a jot if it couldn't.


Why would it not matter a "jot", whatever a 'jot' is, if theism could not fulfill P4, but to you it matters a great deal that atheism can not fulfill P4?

Could it have some thing to do with the fact that you call yourself a theist and NOT an atheist?


Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmFor Atheism, if it is a rational belief, must stand on its own two legs as such, and not merely say, "Well, some other systems are also wrong, therefore Atheism must be right." For it could just as easily be the case that Atheism is wrong too, even if some of them are.
The EXACT same thing could be said for theism.

WHY MUST atheism stand on its own when theism does NOT HAVE TO, for you?

If there are sufficient reasons for saying it is rationally answerable that God exists, then let us all see those sufficient reasons.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmYou need to understand the Principle of Sufficient Reasons. It doesn't mean "reasons you like," or "reasons you regard as true."
EXACTLY but you are the one who appears to follow that kind of logic.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmIt means, a cause adequate to its purported effect." And undoubtedly, IF (notice the hypothetical) a God were to exist, He would be entirely sufficient to the effect I have attributed to Him. That's manifest.
What effect have YOU attributed to God?

What do YOU mean by 'manifest'?

What sufficient evidence do you have that God is in any way a "him"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmSo the Principle of Sufficient Reason is satisfied by that explanation.


The only thing that explanation, in and of itself, satisfies, to Me, is that you have some conclusion that you believe is absolutely true and which you are trying to support. You have some clarifying and explaining to do first, before you even begin to satisfy the principle of sufficient reason to Me.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmTo continue to take issue, you would maybe say, "Well, I don't believe God exists."
Your assumption here is so totally off track and wrong that it is laughable.

What I would say is the actual questions that I just asked you for clarification.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm But two problems follow: 1) you claim your beliefs are irrational anyway, and 2) your belief is not required to satisfy the Principle of Sufficient Reason. All that's required is that potentially (that is, unless you can conclusively prove God does not exist) God is an adequate explanation for the effect I've attributed to Him.
The ONLY problems that follow from your declaration are the two problems that I posed, as questions, which are awaiting your response, by the way.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm We're talking about Atheism, not my beliefs.
My whole point IS theism has the EXACT same belief mentality.

Theists BELIEVE God exists, and, some atheists believe God does NOT exist.

Now, your stance is atheists have to provide sufficient reasons WHY God does NOT exist, and, I say you ALSO have to provide sufficient reasons WHY God does exist. If you want to believe some thing and state it as a factual truth, then where is the evidence or logical reasoning.

WHAT is the actual evidence for either side of this, one of the most drawn out and ridiculous, debates in human history.

The actual one and only TRUE answer is within ALL OF YOU. Only if YOU were OPEN to hearing and seeing IT.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pmAnd we've already seen that it cannot get a 'win' by simply denying my beliefs. It has to prove its own claim with sufficient rational evidence, or be found irrational, no matter what is the case with my beliefs.
Good point. Now let us see if you can actually prove, with sufficient rational evidence, your own claim.

What is your claim?

And, what is your sufficient rational evidence for it?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:18 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:45 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:28 pm ... for societies to exist there has to be a general attitude of mutual trust.
Maybe.

But "general" is the operative word there. Society can still exist (albeit less than completely happily, of course) with quite a few complete rotters in it. And those rotters can get an edge, or even rise to the top by exploiting the "general attitude of mutual trust."

Why shouldn't they be rotters, given that Atheism implies there's no objective standard against them?
"Should" implies a criterion according to which the thinking person chooses.
No, actually. "Should," if we're using the moral "should," can only ever mean, "morally obligated to do." What a person "chooses" is irrelevant. He or she might "choose" to rape, pillage and mutilate.

According to your definition -- "choice" as "should" -- if that's what they did choose to do, it's what they should choose to do. And I'm pretty sure that's not what you want to say, actually.
Your criterion is God's commands. My criterion is human knowledge and reason.
"Human knowledge and reason" are not any basis for moral precepts. You can have "reason" for killing children. "Human knowledge" includes the atom bomb. Whether we "should" use those things is an entirely different type of question.
Whether or not your God exists we still have human nature. The reason they should not be rotters is that if everyone, or a significant number of individuals, were rotters mutual trust would break down and society would collapse.
The rotters know that. But they don't care. What's more, they know that so long as their number is not too many -- that is, so long as not "everyone," as you put it -- is a rotter, they win.

What makes them "wrong"? In practical, non-moral terms, they're more right than you are. They can see their advantage. You don't, apparently.
Presumably you don't want a police state for America; you want the leadership of God as interpreted by Authority.
Dead wrong.

I don't want either. Human authority, whether religious or secular, always needs checks and balances to safeguard against abuses.

You've guessed completely wrong about that. But I'm happy to set the record straight.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Immanuel Can »

ken wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:22 pm I do NOT believe that. I will say it again, so that I will KNOW if you are reading what I actually write, I neither believe or disbelieve any thing.
I see you're not very aware of irony.

If you say you don't believe anything, then you also say you don't believe what you're saying.

That's nonsense. But it's your nonsense, not mine. You, not I, are the one who equates "belief" with "irrationality." I think there are warranted and unwarranted beliefs; you don't see the distinction.

So you fixed yourself on that one.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm
...you know with certainty is actually true, then just provide the evidence for it so that every one else will also know this truth. However, if some thing is true, then that is just a fact, so there is no need for belief at all.
What does anybody actually know with the absolute "certainty" which you allege makes belief unnecessary? Give me an example, please. (One from real life, not from a closed system like mathematics or symbolic logic.)
Easy. Thoughts.

The thoughts that arise/appear/occur (or whatever else we want to say for when thoughts come into being) within the head ARE the only thing that we can be absolutely certain of KNOWING for sure. We KNOW with certain the thoughts that are within the head or body.
No good.

When you dream, you have "thoughts." But you awake to find they're all unreal. So while you were asleep, you 100% "knew" you were being chased by a dinosaur through Tesco aisles. But when you awoke, in a puddle of sweat, you found you had been completely deceived. Your thoughts were passionately wrong.

Now, you might say, "I at least know that I had the thoughts." But no, you don't. You awake, and there is no proof you ever had them. In your head remains the IMPRESSION you dreamed of a dinosaur, but there's no dinosaur to prove that actually ever happened. So now you are merely thinking (or worse, gasp, "believing") that you thought something, not knowing that you thought something. :shock:

You see, the same acid of knee-jerk cynicism that you claim dissolves all confidence in belief does the same for all knowledge...even for thoughts inside your own head.

Descartes saw that. You should read him.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Dontaskme »

Dontaskme wrote:
There is no such thing as remaining open,
ken wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:38 amWhy not?

Are you telling us that dontaskme can NEVER be open?

Are you saying that dontaskme is always closed, and thus NEVER open to any new ideas or other views?
Nothing is revealed that is not already known... there really is no 'dontaskme' to reveal nor be surprised by, or opened up to 'new' knowledge.

That which is known is in awareness in the moment it is re-cognised... no 'other' is the source of this knowing. Any idea or view I hold is inseparable from this knowing.


.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:


(quoted Belinda):"Should" implies a criterion according to which the thinking person chooses.

(IC)No, actually. "Should," if we're using the moral "should," can only ever mean, "morally obligated to do." What a person "chooses" is irrelevant. He or she might "choose" to rape, pillage and mutilate.

According to your definition -- "choice" as "should" -- if that's what they did choose to do, it's what they should choose to do. And I'm pretty sure that's not what you want to say, actually.

(Belinda): But I did not say that what is chosen implies what should be chosen! 'Should' implies paying one's dues.There are moral duties that humans are heir to.

(Belinda)Your criterion is God's commands. My criterion is human knowledge and reason.

(IC)"Human knowledge and reason" are not any basis for moral precepts. You can have "reason" for killing children. "Human knowledge" includes the atom bomb. Whether we "should" use those things is an entirely different type of question.

(Belinda): But our human knowledge and reason are what established your God, and other gods. You keep shifting responsibility for moral choices from men on to another all too human Authority. Men would not even have thought of Monogod unless first there was a social order with a king at the top. And we know how kingship gets established! You should be more pessimistic about all authorities including priests and holy books.

Knowledge and reason are necessary but insufficient. In addition to knowledge and reason, sufficiency requires ordinary human sympathy which comes not from God but from nature.

(Belinda):Whether or not your God exists we still have human nature. The reason they should not be rotters is that if everyone, or a significant number of individuals, were rotters mutual trust would break down and society would collapse.

(IC)The rotters know that. But they don't care. What's more, they know that so long as their number is not too many -- that is, so long as not "everyone," as you put it -- is a rotter, they win.

(Belinda): True. Like the poor, the rotters are always with us. BTW did your God promise that rotters would disappear from the world? If He did, then did He say how we can help to make rotters disappear? The evidence is such that secular crime control for all its weaknesses is better than religion at controlling crime . What we can take from religion is that to understand is to know, and that control of crime should('should' as 'in debt to right action') not be based upon retribution that is , an eye for an eye. Control of rotters should be based upon rehabitilation.
rehabilitation

noun
the action of restoring someone to health or normal life through training and therapy after imprisonment, addiction, or illness.
"she underwent rehabilitation and was walking within three weeks"
the action of restoring someone to former privileges or reputation after a period of disfavour.
"a posthumous rehabilitation of the activist"
the action of restoring something that has been damaged to its former condition.
"the rehabilitation of the mangrove forests"

(Belinda):Presumably you don't want a police state for America; you want the leadership of God as interpreted by Authority. [/quote]
(IC)Dead wrong.

(IC):I don't want either. Human authority, whether religious or secular, always needs checks and balances to safeguard against abuses.

(Belinda): But human authority does, at its best, provide checks and balances. I say "at its best". I don't deny that European man's past has been such that the " best" has come to us modern people through institutions of religion together with faith in a higher Authority. However the time has now come that ordinary men have graduated from monarchy and feudal system to the status of republicans each of whom has the duty to choose for himself.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Belinda »

Belinda wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:31 am Immanuel Can wrote:


(quoted Belinda):"Should" implies a criterion according to which the thinking person chooses.

(IC)No, actually. "Should," if we're using the moral "should," can only ever mean, "morally obligated to do." What a person "chooses" is irrelevant. He or she might "choose" to rape, pillage and mutilate.

According to your definition -- "choice" as "should" -- if that's what they did choose to do, it's what they should choose to do. And I'm pretty sure that's not what you want to say, actually.

(Belinda): But I did not say that what is chosen implies what should be chosen! 'Should' implies paying one's dues.There are moral duties that humans are heir to.

(Belinda)Your criterion is God's commands. My criterion is human knowledge and reason.

(IC)"Human knowledge and reason" are not any basis for moral precepts. You can have "reason" for killing children. "Human knowledge" includes the atom bomb. Whether we "should" use those things is an entirely different type of question.

(Belinda): But our human knowledge and reason are what established your God, and other gods. You keep shifting responsibility for moral choices from men on to another all too human Authority. Men would not even have thought of Monogod unless first there was a social order with a king at the top. And we know how kingship gets established! You should be more pessimistic about all authorities including priests and holy books.

Knowledge and reason are necessary but insufficient. In addition to knowledge and reason, sufficiency requires ordinary human sympathy which comes not from God but from nature.

(Belinda):Whether or not your God exists we still have human nature. The reason they should not be rotters is that if everyone, or a significant number of individuals, were rotters mutual trust would break down and society would collapse.

(IC)The rotters know that. But they don't care. What's more, they know that so long as their number is not too many -- that is, so long as not "everyone," as you put it -- is a rotter, they win.

(Belinda): True. Like the poor, the rotters are always with us. BTW did your God promise that rotters would disappear from the world? If He did, then did He say how we can help to make rotters disappear? The evidence is such that secular crime control for all its weaknesses is better than religion at controlling crime . What we can take from religion is that to understand is to know, and that control of crime should('should' as 'in debt to right action') not be based upon retribution that is , an eye for an eye. Control of rotters should be based upon rehabitilation.
rehabilitation

noun
the action of restoring someone to health or normal life through training and therapy after imprisonment, addiction, or illness.
"she underwent rehabilitation and was walking within three weeks"
the action of restoring someone to former privileges or reputation after a period of disfavour.
"a posthumous rehabilitation of the activist"
the action of restoring something that has been damaged to its former condition.
"the rehabilitation of the mangrove forests"

(Belinda):Presumably you don't want a police state for America; you want the leadership of God as interpreted by Authority.
(IC)Dead wrong.

(IC):I don't want either. Human authority, whether religious or secular, always needs checks and balances to safeguard against abuses.

(Belinda):

As I said you want Authority ===to provide the checks and balances. But human authority does, at its best, provide checks and balances. I say "at its best". I don't deny that European man's past has been such that the " best" has come to us modern people through institutions of religion together with faith in a higher Authority. However the time has now come that ordinary men have graduated from monarchy and feudal system to the status of republicans each of whom has the duty to choose for himself.
[/quote]
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by ken »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:14 am
ken wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 1:22 pm I do NOT believe that. I will say it again, so that I will KNOW if you are reading what I actually write, I neither believe or disbelieve any thing.
I see you're not very aware of irony.

If you say you don't believe anything, then you also say you don't believe what you're saying.
You have just proven and SO I now KNOW that you are NOT reading the actual words that I actually write.

I will write it again, and let us see if you are reading what I actually write this time, I neither believe or disbelieve any thing. THIS IS NOT AT ALL SAYING WHAT YOU THINK, ASSUME, BELIEVE IT IS SAYING, which is "I don't believe anything".

What you think I am saying and what I am actually saying are two OPPOSING things. The reason you can NOT see what I am actually writing is very simply because you are being distorted by YOUR own very naturally irrational and unwarranted beliefs.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:14 amThat's nonsense. But it's your nonsense, not mine. You, not I, are the one who equates "belief" with "irrationality." I think there are warranted and unwarranted beliefs; you don't see the distinction.
Let Me take a very wild guess here. The beliefs you have are warranted beliefs, and, the beliefs that oppose the beliefs that you have, are unwarranted beliefs, am I right?

So, I do see a distinction, and it is a very obvious one to notice also.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:14 amSo you fixed yourself on that one.
Can you explain what you mean here? Fixed on what one, and how have I fixed on that one?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:14 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:35 pm What does anybody actually know with the absolute "certainty" which you allege makes belief unnecessary? Give me an example, please. (One from real life, not from a closed system like mathematics or symbolic logic.)
Easy. Thoughts.

The thoughts that arise/appear/occur (or whatever else we want to say for when thoughts come into being) within the head ARE the only thing that we can be absolutely certain of KNOWING for sure. We KNOW with certain the thoughts that are within the head or body.
No good.

When you dream, you have "thoughts." But you awake to find they're all unreal. So while you were asleep, you 100% "knew" you were being chased by a dinosaur through Tesco aisles. But when you awoke, in a puddle of sweat, you found you had been completely deceived. Your thoughts were passionately wrong.
YOU ARE SO FAR OFF THE MARK IT IS BECOMING CLOSE TO UNBELIEVABLE NOW. Being deceived by thoughts is far different from what I said about knowing with certainty the thoughts, within this body.

If you only read what you quoted Me as saying and did NOT read on, then that would explain this response here. Because immediately following that paragraph I wrote;
If, however, those thoughts are in fact true or false, right or wrong, et cetera, et cetera is a completely other and different matter, which we can look into and delve into much more if you, or others,like.

Obviously you did NOT want to delve into this further. Maybe because you do NOT read what I actually write.



Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:14 amNow, you might say, "I at least know that I had the thoughts."
WHY would I say that? And, more so, WHY do you assume things, without clarifying FIRST.

i was asleep. Therefore, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING. How could i possibly KNOW if there were thoughts or not, within this body, if i am asleep.

The ONLY thing I say in regards to what we can KNOW, for sure, IS the only thing we can KNOW, for sure, are the thoughts that come into being, within this body. OBVIOUSLY, one would need to be AWARE FIRST to KNOW, for sure, if thoughts come into being within a body or not.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:14 am But no, you don't.
Now you are answering your OWN assumption about what another person might or might NOT say.

A deepening spiral down your own distorted tunnel in the hope of coming out exactly where your own beliefs want to take you.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:14 am You awake, and there is no proof you ever had them. In your head remains the IMPRESSION you dreamed of a dinosaur, but there's no dinosaur to prove that actually ever happened.
WHAT???

A waking person can dream of being chased by a dinosaur, AND OF COURSE there is NO dinosaur to prove that actually happened BECAUSE dinosaurs became extinct some time ago.

But back to the point about being asleep, I do NOT know if dreams are thoughts or just a screen on which i am watching some thing happening. Obviously i am asleep so i not fully conscious so i do not know what is happening. They could be thoughts or they could be some thing else.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:14 am So now you are merely thinking (or worse, gasp, "believing") that you thought something, not knowing that you thought something. :shock:
You can NOT escape from the belief that I can not look upon life without HAVING TO believe some thing, can you?

Anyway, back to your WRONG assumption here.

You have gone back to, or have twisted this around again. This is NOT about thinking that I thought some thing, and thus not knowing if I thought some thing or not. This is about the ONLY thing I can KNOW, for sure, are the thoughts that arise, come into being, or whatever terminology or label wanted to put onto the fact when thoughts come, within the body.

The ONLY thing I do KNOW, for sure, are the thoughts, within THIS body.

If you would like to now partake in a discussion about what dreams actually are when a person is asleep, then we can proceed.

You see, the same acid of knee-jerk cynicism that you claim dissolves all confidence in belief does the same for all knowledge...even for thoughts inside your own head.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:14 amDescartes saw that. You should read him.
descartes saw what exactly?

I could also say, God sees much more. You should read God. But I will not.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by ken »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 6:54 am Dontaskme wrote:
There is no such thing as remaining open,
ken wrote: Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:38 amWhy not?

Are you telling us that dontaskme can NEVER be open?

Are you saying that dontaskme is always closed, and thus NEVER open to any new ideas or other views?
Nothing is revealed that is not already known... there really is no 'dontaskme' to reveal nor be surprised by, or opened up to 'new' knowledge.

That which is known is in awareness in the moment it is re-cognised... no 'other' is the source of this knowing. Any idea or view I hold is inseparable from this knowing.


.
Okay, thanks for clearing this up. Correct Me if I am wrong, but dontaskme is saying that awareness is closed because there is no such thing as remaining open, is this right?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Dontaskme »

ken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:44 pm
Okay, thanks for clearing this up. Correct Me if I am wrong, but dontaskme is saying that awareness is closed because there is no such thing as remaining open, is this right?
To say remain open is to imply there is an openess that can appear closed..there is not.

"I" exists . . . not as body, idea, or story-of-"me", but as I-Amness, I-awareness, I-aliveness, I-Being, and most curiously, WITHOUT any automatic understanding, knowing or knowledge of, "what this means" or "what is" true.

.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by ken »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:27 pm
ken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:44 pm
Okay, thanks for clearing this up. Correct Me if I am wrong, but dontaskme is saying that awareness is closed because there is no such thing as remaining open, is this right?
To say remain open is to imply there is an openess that can appear closed..there is not.
There is an openness that can NOT be closed ever, which by now you would know what I call THAT THING. But surely even you know that what appears to be the case is only an illusion. So, the open Mind can appear to be closed but It never is and never could be.
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:27 pm"I" exists . . . not as body, idea, or story-of-"me", but as I-Amness, I-awareness, I-aliveness, I-Being, and most curiously, WITHOUT any automatic understanding, knowing or knowledge of, "what this means" or "what is" true.

.
WHY do 'you' automatically think and assume that 'I' do NOT automatically know and understand what 'this and every thing for that matter means' nor 'what IS' true?

Just because dontaskme does not know nor understands this, does NOT in and of itself mean that 'I', the pure One, does not know nor understand every thing.

AND, how exactly that united of EVERY thing pure One 'I' appears closed is by the very thought within human beings that they themselves think, assume, and/or believe that they already know what the truth of things is. This closing of one's self is evidenced being evidenced here by dontaskme thinking that they know what the actual truth is already.

dontaskme says that 'I', the pure united One of ALL, can NOT know 'what is' true, but fails to even recognize that that is being expressed as a truth of 'what is', which is supposedly KNOWN by the one and only one known as 'dont-ask-me'.

The contradiction fits the supposition, quite nicely.

I have already warned you, thus you are well aware, that the words and terminology that you use are absolutely useless in trying to describe what it is that you are trying to describe.

I have offered to help you, tried to help you, and even tried to guide you with more correct usage of terminology and words, BUT dontaskme does NOT even want to accept nor listen to any of this. So, you can continue on in your fruitless attempts, if that is your desire. But every time you try to propose some thing as an absolute truth, and it is clearly not, then do not expect others to let it be.

By the way, there is A Mind that can appear closed, thus the very commonly used, but totally misused and incorrect usage of the expression "open your mind". The Mind is NEVER closed, but just appears so. But only to some only.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Dontaskme »

ken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:31 pm
WHY do 'you' automatically think and assume that 'I' do NOT automatically know and understand what 'this and every thing for that matter means' nor 'what IS' true?

Just because dontaskme does not know nor understands this, does NOT in and of itself mean that 'I', the pure One, does not know nor understand every thing.

AND, how exactly that united of EVERY thing pure One 'I' appears closed is by the very thought within human beings that they themselves think, assume, and/or believe that they already know what the truth of things is. This closing of one's self is evidenced being evidenced here by dontaskme thinking that they know what the actual truth is already.

dontaskme says that 'I', the pure united One of ALL, can NOT know 'what is' true, but fails to even recognize that that is being expressed as a truth of 'what is', which is supposedly KNOWN by the one and only one known as 'dont-ask-me'.

The contradiction fits the supposition, quite nicely.

I have already warned you, thus you are well aware, that the words and terminology that you use are absolutely useless in trying to describe what it is that you are trying to describe.

I have offered to help you, tried to help you, and even tried to guide you with more correct usage of terminology and words, BUT dontaskme does NOT even want to accept nor listen to any of this. So, you can continue on in your fruitless attempts, if that is your desire. But every time you try to propose some thing as an absolute truth, and it is clearly not, then do not expect others to let it be.

By the way, there is A Mind that can appear closed, thus the very commonly used, but totally misused and incorrect usage of the expression "open your mind". The Mind is NEVER closed, but just appears so. But only to some only.
As usual there is a lot of mentioned name-tag (dontaskme) labels and wild misguided accusations in the Ken replies and responses, which cloud and distort what it is here that is actually being pointed to, and is why the Ken response posts are nothing more than monkey mind babble, that make absolutely no coherent sense whatsoever to this one here.

Everything and anything ever written here or there, is FROZEN THOUGHT.
All known knowledge is thought appearing as words. Real knowing is tacit.

Thought-ing cannot know anything of truth except what thought believes. DISBELIEVING Beliefs are leeched of any meaning or significance. Implying nothing ever THOUGHT is true.

"I" exists . . . not as body, idea, or story-of-"me", but as I-Amness, I-awareness, I-aliveness, I-Being, and most curiously, WITHOUT any automatic understanding, knowing or knowledge of, "what this means" or "what is" true. ''Believed Thought'' is not real...including this.

Once the "residual-conceptual-distortion" is dropped by no one aka(thought)...there's just here pure not-knowing. Enjoying the ever-changingness, enjoying the aliveness of Being. . "before" I-awareness the emptiness from where I AM looking at "what is" through mind's filters of beliefs, assumptions, knowledge, experience, memories, aspirations, opinions.

.
Belinda
Posts: 8035
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Belinda »

I can't be sure what dontaskme is talking about, but what I glean from her post, above, is that the person is her perceptions but not her conceptualisations.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

It's a shame when a thread appears that IC thinks he has a stake in. It ends up full of the same repeated garbage, making it unreadable.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: What Is The Meaning Of Life?

Post by ken »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:21 am
ken wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:31 pm
WHY do 'you' automatically think and assume that 'I' do NOT automatically know and understand what 'this and every thing for that matter means' nor 'what IS' true?

Just because dontaskme does not know nor understands this, does NOT in and of itself mean that 'I', the pure One, does not know nor understand every thing.

AND, how exactly that united of EVERY thing pure One 'I' appears closed is by the very thought within human beings that they themselves think, assume, and/or believe that they already know what the truth of things is. This closing of one's self is evidenced being evidenced here by dontaskme thinking that they know what the actual truth is already.

dontaskme says that 'I', the pure united One of ALL, can NOT know 'what is' true, but fails to even recognize that that is being expressed as a truth of 'what is', which is supposedly KNOWN by the one and only one known as 'dont-ask-me'.

The contradiction fits the supposition, quite nicely.

I have already warned you, thus you are well aware, that the words and terminology that you use are absolutely useless in trying to describe what it is that you are trying to describe.

I have offered to help you, tried to help you, and even tried to guide you with more correct usage of terminology and words, BUT dontaskme does NOT even want to accept nor listen to any of this. So, you can continue on in your fruitless attempts, if that is your desire. But every time you try to propose some thing as an absolute truth, and it is clearly not, then do not expect others to let it be.

By the way, there is A Mind that can appear closed, thus the very commonly used, but totally misused and incorrect usage of the expression "open your mind". The Mind is NEVER closed, but just appears so. But only to some only.
As usual there is a lot of mentioned name-tag (dontaskme) labels and wild misguided accusations in the Ken replies and responses, which cloud and distort what it is here that is actually being pointed to, and is why the Ken response posts are nothing more than monkey mind babble, that make absolutely no coherent sense whatsoever to this one here.
Do you ever wonder WHY what I say absolutely makes no coherent sense to you, BUT every thing that you are TRYING TO SAY, is already known and perfectly understood already by Me?

Even you admit that what you want to explain is futile with the words, terminology, and language that you use.

Also, if my replies are wild misguided accusations, then why do you not highlight and explain or show what the actual truth is?

Further to this I note again that you do not answer My clarifying questions, is this partly because My alleged "wild misguided accusations" might actually be brought to light if you actually were open and truthful here?
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:21 amEverything and anything ever written here or there, is FROZEN THOUGHT.
All known knowledge is thought appearing as words. Real knowing is tacit.
Real knowing and thought do actually come into line, some times, for your information.

Even some of those thoughts, within that head, that you write down here are actually true and real. Is dontaskme aware of this fact, or is dontaskme under the delusion that all of those thoughts are really just illusions?
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:21 amThought-ing cannot know anything of truth except what thought believes.
A thought does not believe, but a belief is a thought.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:21 am DISBELIEVING Beliefs are leeched of any meaning or significance.
So WHY say it then? This is the first time I have ever heard a person using that terminology.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:21 amImplying nothing ever THOUGHT is true.
But some thoughts are true, some are false, and some are partly true and false.

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:21 am"I" exists . . . not as body, idea, or story-of-"me", but as I-Amness, I-awareness, I-aliveness, I-Being, and most curiously, WITHOUT any automatic understanding, knowing or knowledge of, "what this means" or "what is" true. ''Believed Thought'' is not real...including this.

Once the "residual-conceptual-distortion" is dropped by no one aka(thought)...there's just here pure not-knowing. Enjoying the ever-changingness, enjoying the aliveness of Being. . "before" I-awareness the emptiness from where I AM looking at "what is" through mind's filters of beliefs, assumptions, knowledge, experience, memories, aspirations, opinions.

.
Mind does NOT have filters. Thoughts are the actual filters, which can distort what the Mind sees. 'I' am the Mind.

That pure not-knowing that you talk about is actual KNOWING. This is because of the human brain that this used to be not-knowing comes to be able to discover, learn, understand, and reason Who and What Its Self actually IS.

By the way I some times use the name-tag (dontaskme), which is the one you gave yourself, because I will use dontaskme as example in future reference to show others what it is that I am eventually expressing and explaining.
Post Reply