Nick, I think your honest answers to these questions and challenges will provide more clarity on what we each see.
Nick wrote:
We learned that deeper discussion on the depth of the esoteric ideas within Plato's Cave allegory are too insulting and controversial to discuss.
Lacewing wrote:
Who is "we"? Maybe you are mistaken about "what was learned" by others.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:02 am
We refers to those familiar with the depth of these ideas but have experienced the emotional resitance against them.
Why would people who already think such a thing, be "learning it" as you suggest?
And why are "they" (whoever they are) enough of a consensus for a conclusion?
So, see how your use of "We learned..." can be seen as deceptive and manipulative? It aims to frame what suits you -- and to dismiss what doesn't -- while claiming to be complete, which it is not.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:02 am
You do not seem to appreciate the difference between intellectual doubt which is a sign of intelligence and emotional doubt and ridicule which indicates a lack of intelligence.
So which one of these would it be when YOU disagree with someone else's idea/belief?
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:02 am
You [prefer] to believe in partial truths as the highest form of human consciousness.
This is your interpretation, Nick -- and it does not represent what I think. It's best if you don't make such claims when you lack the context and understanding that would help you get it right.
It's like trying to use a language that doesn't apply, to describe something you have no experience with. So when trying to compare yourself with me or others, your language and ideas are like some kind of tribal native babbling to people in a completely different land. Just as my language surely sounds to you.
You can question/challenge what I say... and I can question/challenge what you say... but it's dishonest and distorted for you to claim what I'm about. You have no clue.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:02 am
Lacewing wrote:
Truths are everywhere, in many forms.
Yes partial truths are everywhere but they all have a place within the ineffable whole truth which you reject
So here's another example of you reframing and then saying what I do.
You say, "Yes partial truths are everywhere". Well, I did not say "partial truths" -- that's your idea. You say "Yes", as if we're in agreement -- or as if you have the more complete view of what we both can see -- and then you state your complete view which you say I "reject". Rather than saying I "disagree"... you say "reject". Because you're framing it as the ONLY complete view, and therefore, my resistance is futile and I am "rejecting" it.
Dishonest, distorted, AND manipulative.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:02 am
You must believe that noesis as the highest form of human reason is just distortion and dishonesty.
You're misappropriating my comments and claiming what I believe as it serves your beliefs.
Nick wrote:
Secular intolerance is due to the conditioned tendency to remain closed to the third dimension of thought.
Lacewing wrote:
The same could be said of theist intolerance... just change "third dimension" to dimensions! Right?
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:02 am
Yes secular theism or theism without the third dimension of thought leads to idolatry.
Not what I said. Again you start out with "Yes" as if there's agreement with your conclusive view.
Nick wrote:
Lacewing wrote:Don't you think your dishonesty and distortions are nasty???
No, I just refer to ides you are closed to
How about communicating in an honest way and not claiming falsely what I believe? How about not framing and distorting things so that they can only suit your argument? Are you REALLY interested in "truth"? If so, you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:02 am
I support the young on the verge of awakening to their humanity and willing to sacrifice indoctrination. …/... You may call them dishonest and delusional but I know they are on the verge of remembering what has been forgotten and emotionally rejected by the darkness of the world.
Geez, Nick... can you really not see how you distort and misappropriate things in a way that truly misrepresents people? I have not spoken anything about this (above), and yet you are tying statements from me to THEM... "the young". It's outrageous the levels you stoop to. It appears to be an attempt to side-step responsibility for yourself... while projecting it onto others in my behalf, to claim how horrific and unfair I am? You really know how to twist things to serve yourself and deplore others, don't you? How are you able to be so blatant about it -- are you unconscious of it, or do you think it is some kind of debating/warfare skill?