Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
>Well considering that ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing is relative to the observer, then it is just a plain and SIMPLE ALREADY KNOWN FACT that "some questions are contingent". But are you able to finish that statement? That is; What are these "some questions" EXACTLY, and what are they 'contingent' on, EXACTLY?
I divide the conceptual universe in twain at the appropriate spot, here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/ In the context of all questions, the ones on the "truth wisdom" side are non-contingent, universal.
I have NO idea what this 'conceptual universe' is, how it relates to 'in twain', nor what 'in twain' actually means, and how they relate to your link, nor what 'truth wisdom side' is.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
On the "practical wisdom side", where ethics, aesthetics, and politics lie, the contingencies are salience, perspective, and priority (in order of apparent controllability) and scale when applied to more than one person.
Okay.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
>For ANY human being to think that ANY "other" human being is, so called, "better than them" (for any reason) is just absurd and illogical.
I would reverse that and say that many people are better than many other people in many ways at many things, and that includes being a better person "on average", no matter what standards are used.
So, you BELIEVE you saying and BELIEVING that 'you' are BETTER than "others" are is NOT absurd and is a logical thing to do, correct?
If your ONLY example is "on average", then you have NOT reversed ANY thing.
If you want to say that MANY PEOPLE are BETTER than MANY "OTHER" PEOPLE, then WHO are those 'people'?
And, HOW EXACTLY are SOME people, supposedly, BETTER than "other" people are?
I NEED evidence through examples, and I NEED PROOF of HOW you arrived at this conclusion. Until then just saying, "on average", means and explains absolutely NOTHING, AT ALL, to me.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
>I read ENOUGH to ask you some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. Until you CLARIFY these questions, then I will NOT be able to understand the rest of what you wrote as proficiently as I could.
You appear to be answering in a particularly non-emotional way, which i acknowledge now as beneficial to the progression of this discussion, and appreciated.
>LOL EVERY human being uses that most OBVIOUS illogical and nonsensical excuse.
>"I cannot explain some thing because no one can."
>If you can NOT YET explain some thing, then you OBVIOUSLY still NEED to learn and understand MORE.
<pointing at the link above> The line between "reality" and "actuality" is one we cannot cross.
I am not sure if I am actually seeing what you see.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
We can move that boundary collectively by improving the resolution of our instruments and being rigorous about logical necessity, which is what i've tried to do here, in vernacular form. But not all answers will ever be available to us, because of scale.
Name some questions, and let us see if it is actually IMPOSSIBLE, or NOT, to answer them.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
We cannot know the number of levels between us and "the bottom",
What are you actually referring to here?
Who and/or what is the 'us'?
What is 'the bottom', and 'the bottom' of what exactly?
What is a 'level', and a 'level' in relation to what exactly?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
help someone make decisions contingent on their priorities when they don't even know themselves, or plumb the zeitgeist of superclusters.
I will not even bother 'trying to' get clarity on this here.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
I make no excuses - if a philosophical question can be answered, this world view can answer it.
What 'world view'?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
The proof is in the pudding.
The 'proof' is in the 'proof'. 'Pudding' is usually just food, for eating.
We are in a philosophy forum using words, so let us speak, literally, with these words. That way less things can be misinterpreted.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
The truth wants not to be believed but to be tested.
To me, the 'truth' does NOT want ANY thing.
The Truth is just what is agreed upon as being true
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
One exception is all it would take to prove me wrong.
One exception to 'what' exactly?
If it is in regards to your statement that; "The truth wants not to be believed but to be tested", then one exception to this is;
The truth does NOT want ANY thing. Unless of course you can explain, through logical sound reasoning just HOW 'the truth' could want SOME thing.
So, can you and will you explain just HOW a 'concept', itself, can WANT some thing?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
As for the caveats, they're each logically necessary so that's all there really is to say about them, unless you know a way to transcend laws of physics.
So called, "laws of physics", is NOT some thing that cannot be changed, corrected, and/or made better.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
>You BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW thee ANSWER, so you are NOT OPEN to ANY thing else contrary to that BELIEF of yours.
You are correct sir. I am here because i have The answer and i'm trying to improve it's presentation as a public service.
And, I am NOT disputing at all that you have The answer, and trying to improve its presentation as a public service might be a noble cause, I am just trying to understand what you call "The answer" more FULLY and more CORRECTLY.
Do you KNOW of a BETTER way for me to better understand you, and your answer, other than just asking you simple clarifying questions, from a Truly OPEN perspective?
If you do, then will you please share that or those way/s?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
There are many other stories that are perfectly compatible, a few of which are listed in that link up yonder.
All I can see in that "link up yonder" is just separate words on a spreadsheet. Or, if you mean that "link" further "up yonder", then it would really help "others" to BETTER understand you, and understand you in a much quicker and simpler way if you just said what you mean, and just mean what you say, as well.
So, what "link" are you actually referring to "up yonder"?
And, maybe if you provide us with an example here of just some of these stories that are perfectly compatible, while also telling us what they are 'perfectly compatible' with EXACTLY also, then this will speed up the process of learning for 'me' and/or 'us'?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
I am a Disciple of Truth, not a Seeker of Truth.
Okay, so by 'Disciple' what do you actually mean?
By 'Truth' what do you actually mean?
And, by 'Disciple of Truth' what do you actually mean?
To me, absolutely EVERY thing is very simple and very easy.
To me, Truth is just 'that', which could be agreement with and by ALL. And, if one is supposedly a 'disciple of Truth', then, to me, that infers that they MUST ALREADY KNOW the Truth. To me, one can NOT logically follow 'that', which they do NOT YET KNOW.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
This story is The Truth.
Which 'story'?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
If yours is compatible i'm open to hearing it
What are you referring to here?
If it is My Story, then OBVIOUSLY My Story would be and IS 'compatible' WITH Me.
To me it would be very strange if one's own story was NOT compatible with them. But OBVIOUSLY any story, which is compatible with any one, is NOT necessarily The Story that actually expresses thee actual Truth.
Obviously, ONLY thee Story, which IS compatible with EVERY one, IS The Story, which holds thee actual Truth.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:31 am
but i don't have the bandwidth to integrate it right now.
What does 'integrate' here mean?
What is 'it' that you do not have the bandwidth to integrate, right now?
And, how does this relate to the first part of the sentence where you state that if mine is compatible then you are open to hearing 'it'?
Are you saying that if My Story is compatible with Your Story, then you are open to hearing it, but at the moment you do not have the bandwidth on your internet connection to be able to receive My Story?
If yes, then how do you KNOW how big My Story is, and WHY are you ONLY 'open' to 'that', which is compatible with Your Story?