Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:23 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:21 pm
But absolutely EVERY thing I say could be WRONG or partly WRONG.
Everything you say IS wrong. That's 100% certain.
If you say so, but can you SEE how that contradicts your own "Everything you say IS wrong" statement?
Or, is "logik" proposing that 'Everything "age" says IS wrong' but 'NOT everything "logik" says is wrong'? And, in fact what "logik" says can in fact be 100% certain of being Right?
Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:23 pmWe aren't worried about that. We are only worried about the degree of "wrongness" and the consequences of your mistakes.
Is there NO way that I can just express one of the VIEWS that are from within this body, without CORRECTLY reiterating that this VIEW is NOT stating any thing as being true, right, and/or correct but rather that this VIEW is only one of the many VIEWS, gained from what this body has experienced, and this VIEW is NOT stating any other than 'IT IS JUST AN OBTAINED VIEW', without this VIEW, HAVING TO BE WRONG in some degree?
Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:23 pmSome errors are inconsequential. Like spelling "sea" as "see".
Some errors are devestating. Like screwing up the design of the Boeing 737 MAX so badly that it has killed 300 people in 5 months.
I think it might be found that it was not actually the design of the plane itself but rather the computer software or the the programming of that software and or computer, that was the consequence for those one or two mishaps.
(Remember absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.)
Can a VIEW be expressed without it necessarily HAVING TO BE a "model" of some thing or other?
To express some thing as though it is true, right, and/or correct would be to express a "model" as such. But if one is NOT expressing in such way, then HOW could they be WRONG, in any degree?
I am NOT sure if it is clear or NOT but I WANT to refrain from creating a "model" EVER. As I have continually said I much prefer to just LOOK AT
what IS and SEE the actual and real Truth of things, instead of making up or TRYING TO make up any assumptions and/or models of any thing.
I agree wholeheartedly ALL models are wrong, that is WHY I like to stay completely away from ALL of them and ignore them ALL. I find just LOOKING AT
what IS instead much more exciting, rewarding, fulfilling.
Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:23 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:21 pm
I have stated this many times already, here in this forum. I have also sought out that I be informed of WHEN I am WRONG, and especially and more so WHY I am WRONG. In fact I thrive on being SHOWN WHERE I am WRONG so that I can change.
OK. You have stated that "you have no beliefs".
In stating that it is pertinently obvious that you believe that you have no beliefs.
But this 'OBVIOUSNESS' ALL depends solely on from what perspective one is LOOKING and SEEING from.
It is pertinently OBVIOUS, to me, that I do NOT believe this.
For example; I also state that I have NO elephants in my bedroom, but I still do not HAVE TO believe this is true. AND, I do NOT believe this is true. (I also do NOT believe that this is NOT true by the way.) Because IF I was to BELIEVE this, or any thing, then I would NOT be OPEN to any contrary EVIDENCE whatsoever being provided and shown. I want to REMAIN OPEN ALWAYS, so that I can SEE the Truth of ALL things, therefore that is the very reason WHY I do NOT believe any thing.
Now if any one does NOT believe that this is true, then they are FREE to BELIEVE or DISBELIEVE absolutely any thing that they may so choose to. But just because "they" or "you" BELIEVE any thing, that does NOT mean that I HAVE TO any thing also.
There is NO "rule book", which I am aware of anyway, that STATES that one MUST believe whatever they say they do or do NOT do.
If I or you do NOT do some thing, then that is just what it IS. If it is true, then it is a fact, and if some thing is a fact, then it is completely unnecessary to BELIEVE it. A 'fact' speaks for itself, without HAVING TO believe it is true.
NO. It is NOT necessarily a belief. AND, it is NOT a belief from the definition of 'belief' that I have ALREADY provided.
If you or anyone else wants to say that the statement "I have no beliefs" is a belief, then you will have to provide a definition for the word 'belief'. But will "you" do that "logik"?
Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:23 pmIf you are lying then "I have no beliefs" is a lie so you have beliefs.
That is IF I am lying.
And, IF I am lying, then just prove it.
Also I am NOT sure if by telling a lie how that then translates to having beliefs. Can you elaborate on this?
How is a "lie" HAVING beliefs?
By the way; If "you" BELIEVE that the by stating "I have no beliefs" is a belief, then that in and of itself does NOT mean that it is a belief.
Just BELIEVING some thing does NOT make that thing either true, right, nor correct. Usually some sort of EVIDENCE is needed FIRST for a thing to be proven to be true, right, and/or correct. BELIEFS and BELIEVING are usually based only on what is ASSUMED to be true and NOT on what is ACTUALLY True.
To me, "you" appear to be making ASSUMPTIONS and jumping to CONCLUSIONS,
before I am even given a chance to EXPLAIN ALL of what I have to say.
Just a reminder, "you" talked about the degree of "wrongness" in what is said, earlier on, and the consequences of those mistakes.
This now reminds me. You stated;
We are only worried about the degree of "wrongness" and the consequences of your mistakes. Now, in YOUR statement;
In stating that it is pertinently obvious that you believe that you have no beliefs. What do you think is the degree of "wrongness" in that statement?
From my perspective I SEE that it is completely WRONG. If, however, you had written instead;
In stating that it is pertinently obvious, TO ME, that you believe that you have no beliefs. Then I would suggest that there is now NO degree of "wrongness" at all. I can SEE and KNOW that that is just YOUR VIEW, which obviously I could NOT dispute. A 'VIEW', in and of itself, can NOT be wrong, if expressed as being just a VIEW. BUT, the 'VIEW', itself, could be wrong, in degrees of "wrongness".