No we can carry on this feud in any topic, in any thread, in any forum.

Yeah....

That is a lie. I did not say that, nor did I think it. It is this kind of thing that you do. Put words into my mouth. Change the entire meaning of what I say, and then extrapolate upon the lie, just like you have done here... once again.



This entire statement rest it's validity upon the above lie.

That is groundless.

Just more of the same character attacks.

Groundless thoughts...

eh hem...

Please don't not take offense.

Most of the last few posts were (IMVHO) Groundless thoughts...

When you start telling others how they are thinking...

Not being in their shoes you have no clue...

There fore you are passing a groundless thought...

Which brings confusion...

ding...

can we put the boxing gloves away gentlemen and lady...

and talk bout science and stuff like that...

I had put the 'boxing gloves' away when I edited my post, but Creative resurrected it.

If you want to talk about science, be my guest. I don't talk about science much. (It is just part of the illusionary construct of this mind matrix. ) I'm not that interested in it. I'm not dismissing it, I'm just not that interested in it.

Jb...



I do not want to, nor am I, placing blame on anyone. It is no one's fault, so I have no idea what you mean. It is about your groundless personal judgement of me, which continues in this thread as well.

In order to assess the validity of a claim, it's grounds must be examined, which is what I am doing.



If you could just see how unsubstantiated the grounds for your claims regarding my character are, then we could get somewhere. Nearly every thread I begin has you in it making claims about me personally, that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

This thread is about groundless claims. There are those who seem interested in that concept. I have chosen to do my best to illustrate what constitutes a groundless claim.

Regarding your own ability to judge another's character based upon only the written word, you had this to say...



Evidently not, because you still think that your perception of my general attitude/character is accurate. It is not. I would know that better than you, wouldn't you agree?

Do you believe that your assessment of my character is unmistakable?

I had written...



Your response...



Yes!

Your recognition of ambiguity in my writing does not constitute sufficient grounds for character assessment.



That is the reason why it is insufficient.



That is quite a suggestion.

It is not my responsibility to know whether or not you understand. If you do not, perhaps if you would ask me I would clarify as best I could.

You never ask.

Quote me and clearly show which words are in question, and then perhaps you could further develop your understanding of what those words mean(to you) and why. After that it should be clear what the grounds are. Right now, your opinion of my character rests upon your first impression of what you think I mean.

Do you not see a problem with that?



I usually do not find myself communicating with people who feel confident in the ability to judge a complete stranger's character based on ambiguous word usage alone.



This presupposes that I am "so afraid to be true" to myself. Why do you think that you know that?



What do you call what you are doing?



Philosophy is the intention, it is a little late to ask seeing how you have already come to so many conclusions without knowing. Whether or not you believe or trust me completely depends upon how you perceive things. Whether or not that perception is logical depends upon what grounds it.



Seems like you are the placing blame here...

I created the fact that you already think you know me and my intentions without ever asking? I had nothing to do with your perceptual faculty before you met me. That is where your meaning is derived.

Ab...



Quote me so we can further discuss exactly what you are referring to.

I dunno, but one awesome thought my friend Eric always repeats to me is a quote from a teenage girl who has a myspace page he saw once.


"If it werent for cancer, and all those other diseases, cigerettes would be the coolest."




Rock on.

It all seems to come down to EGO.

Someone throws a shoe in a general direction, another one madly runs for it, grabs it, and then says: 'Now prove to me that it fits'.

This is beyond laughable.

So who here has the true sense of reality? hm?

I am just trying to answer questions from your OP. Can you add to the subject by describing the grounds for this conclusion?

Creative you said:



Reviewing this statement:




It seems to me that your complaint is that your character is being "misjudged." Correct? Yes or no?

The essay above is your logic as to the reason why you are being misjudged. Correct? Yes or no?

You state that you "KNOW" that what one says about your character has "it's origin in a pre-existing belief regarding what those words mean to that person based upon that person's past experience in life. Those prior emotions and feelings and thoughts were resurrected from unconscious thought via my words. Those words have their meaning(to others) established by prior correlations to a previous experience regarding them and the situation at the time(s)"

Hence, this concludes that the lack of communication and misjudgment of your character is NOT YOUR FAULT but the fault (or failing) of the other person. Correct? Yes or no?

Or at the very least, you feel you have it all figured out WHY someone has misjudged you or your words. (If so, then what is the problem?)

Okay, assuming this is the case, and you believe it, then logically you should just consider the source and not be so offended by someone else's misjudgment of your character. You do, after all, have it all figured out in YOUR mind why they have misjudged you. It was their own fault, not yours. Right or wrong?

I just want to know if I am understanding you correctly.

**********************************

Now, in the matter of why I called your statements "vague and veiled."

They were directed at (or to) no one. They were general statements. They were third person statements. They were non-personal third person statements. They were your logic and your conclusions.

You said:



Wrong! That you would choose ambiguity paints a picture of your character as choosing to be ambiguous which can be viewed as being vague and veiled.

I do have grounds for everything I say. If I have said anything else to you that you feel I have no grounds to have said please quote me and I will review my grounds.

I have a feeling that I need to apologize for this thread.

The reason I posted it was to prove that I can read into any post what I want to see in it, either intentionally, or because of the way I understand it.

This is why I maintain that no thought is groundless, because we are all subjective on any thought.

Unless we are prepared to explore what is behind it we will never find a common ground.

There is too much EGO involved, and unless we are prepared to get over ourselves first, there will never be a healthy discussion.

I will continue to read threads that do interest me, but I refuse to post again.

I do not wish my posts to be drowned out because the same people fight over the same issue over and over again.

To continue, I will answer your questions:

QUOTE:(Jeanniebean)
"Don't be so afraid to be true to yourself."


Creative:
"This presupposes that I am "so afraid to be true" to myself. Why do you think that you know that? "

Answer: It is my impression from past my experience that a person who is true to himself is also true and open to others, (unless they have something to hide.) You, by your own admission, choose to use ambiguous non-personal statements. That strikes me as a fear of personal interaction that may involve feeling.

QUOTE: (Jeanniebean)
"Stop trying to analyze everything and everyone."


Creative:
"What do you call what you are doing? "


Answer:
I don't mentally analyze people. I form simple impressions based on my prior experience with people. I do it with feeling and intuition (as my guide) you analyze with MIND....seemingly devoid of feeling.. but that is just my impression.

Ego is a fact of the human condition. There is no reason to apologize for this thread. What we are doing is exactly what you intended. We are exploring what is behind our words and I for one, wish to get to the truth of the matter where communication fails and misunderstanding arises.

Ignoring it won't solve the problem. I have not figured it out yet.

I don't know what issue you are referring to that we are "fighting over." I am not fighting over anything. I have been accused of groundlessly and inaccurately "assessing someone's character."

My expression of my impressions is honest and strait forward. Your assessment that there is "too much ego" involved is your impression.

Whether you post again or not is of course, your choice. IF that is supposes to be some kind of moral protest to the conversation here, then consider your protest noted.

No, it is not a moral protest, it is an observation of many weeks.

The same people will quote and unquote each other until they get red

in the face and in the progress overlook the other ones that have

something to say.

There is no point posting.

I apologize for ignoring you. I know that happens a lot here when two people are involved in a conversation. I was once told by a person on this club to "butt out" of their conversation. I had to remind him that this is a public forum and if he wanted to have a private conversation he should send a private message.

Yes I agree that ego is a big part of it. I should have given up on trying to communicate in some of these cases, but I hate giving up.

Perhaps I should anyway. Perhaps I am just being played or toyed with. Perhaps it is a waste of time.

I'm not sure if ego is necessarily the correct concept. Although that might be the basis for it. I don't honestly know. There could be another explanation, and I will attempt to communicate my perception of this here.

I see this as being something entirely different from ego and basically focused on the specific pyschological needs of a particular person. And that person is the one who is demanding that "groundless thoughts" not be permitted in the forums.

What exactly is the problem?

Well if a person has it in their mind that all thoughts can be determined to be 'grounded' or 'groundless' then that person believes that everything has an absolute final truth value that ultimately cannot be denied. Therefore he is in pursuit of what he believes to be this ultimate undeniable absolute truth.

So what he does is go around dismissing views that he feels are obviously absolutely false. And he demands that they are absolutely false because he says so. And of course he has his own 'grounds' for making his assertions. But he simply can't comprehend other people's grounds. He dismisses other people's 'grounds' as being 'groundless'.

To other people this come across as being extremely arrogant and egotistic. But it ultimately may not be ego-driven. It may simply be driven by an absolute obsession to believe that once he had determined something to be true, then it must be absolutely true and cannot be denied.

So from the point of view of others he appears to be out to prove something (which in a very real way he is). He's out to establish a logical construct that cannot be denied. That's simply his approach to philosophy. It's an approach that other people simply do not accept. It's an approach that many people, including myself, believe is rooted in Newtonian thinking and outdated deterministic philosophies such as the philosophy of Spinoza.

So Creative is basically trying to demand that the entire forum and all of philosophy conform to his own personal views of what he feels philosophy should be.

Is that ego-driven? Or is that just a refusal to accept that the world might not be deterministic? He could simply be vehemently against the idea that "God plays dice". He's kind of taking the stance of Einstein and demanding that every thought can ultimately be determined to be 'grounded' or 'groundless' by some absolute standard of logic.

I personally feel that he's so determined to maintain this view and protect it that he's willing to go to great lengths to do so. Perhaps even on a subconscious level that he's not even aware of. If something is brought up that threatens his need for absolute determinism he evades that issue by quickly changing the subject via the use of semantic confusion.

To someone who is talking with him this may appear to be an 'ego thing' where he simply refuses to accept that he might be wrong about something. But in truth, it may not have anything to do with 'ego'. It may simply be a safeguard to protect against having to face that ultimately reality that knowing absolute truth just might not be possible. That we might not live in a deterministic Newtonian and Spinozian universe.

I pass no judgments on the man. But his approach to philosophy is almost religious. He seems to have already decided that everything must be reducible to an absolute concrete value of true or false and he's determined to show that this necessarily needs to be the case.

But this comes off to other people as simply a person who is totally arrogant about his own opinions. It comes across like he thinks only his conclusions are valid and everyone else must just be ignorant to not be able to see it.

And the thing that makes it so bad is that he demands that his conclusion are logically irrefutable. So he keeps making assertions and demanding that they must be accepted because his 'grounds' behind them is irrefutable.

Thus he demands that everyone be required to support their thoughts with irrefutable 'grounds'. (i.e. No 'groundless thoughts' permitted in philosophy)

But that's just not the way modern philosophers think anymore. That kind of thinking went out with the Newtonian and Spinozian world views. Modern philosophers accept the indeterminism that has been discovered via science. They understand that on the most fundamental level all ideas and concepts rest upon indeterminate and ill-defined premises.

Creative is building a cathedral of logical constructs that he feels are irrefutable. What he doesn't seem to realize is that his entire cathedral is build upon sand and illusion. It has no ultimate solid 'grounds'. He only thinks it does because he refuses to recognize that it's built upon sand. He thinks it's built upon a rock.

And let's face it, he is the one who wants a rule to be introduced that there be no "groundless thoughts'.

But in truth, he could never even show irrefutable logical grounds for his very own thoughts. That's ultimately impossible. All he can do is give relative logic based on previous premises that he has personally accepted but other people may have rejected.

To take the stance that he wants to take will ultimately end up just as Richard Feynman suggests:

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on." - Richard Feynman

This is exactly what Creative does.

He demands that there can be an absolute truth value to every assertion he makes. And then it deteriorates into these wild and crazy arguments of semantics in an attempt to somehow prove that his idea cannot be refuted. But what it truly amounts to is nothing more than 'groundless' semantic evasion to the fact that he can't prove anytyhing in an *absolulte* sense. All ideas ultimately reduce to fundamental premises that cannot be proven at their most primal level.

That just comes across to other people like he has a desperate need to always be right.

But it may not be that way at all. He genuinely believes that he can prove that his ideas are logically irrefutable.

But it can't be done. All he can do, like everyone else, is just offer his ideas and give the best possible argument for them. But if people aren't buying it he needs to learn to back off and accept that 'their grounds' for not buying his ideas are just as valid as 'his grounds' for thinking he can prove his ideas in *absolute* terms.

If he could actually do that he should be submitting his ideas to philosophy institutions for professional evaluation. I can pretty much assure him that all of his papers would be return with red marks all over them pointing out the flaws in what he believes to be irrefutable logic.

What's he going to do then. Demand a rule that those people aren't allowed to make 'groundless claims'.

So this is my perception. He either needs to accept that the Newtonian and Spinozian views are no longer valid. Or at the very least, he needs to accept that his ideas can't be proven to be true in *absolute terms* and quit demanding that everyone else be required to accept that they can be.

I mean he's entitled to his own views. But demanding that the entire forum think like he does is a bit radical IMHO.

That just comes across as arrogance. (i.e. self-importance. He seems to think that his way of doing philosophy is superior to the way other people prefer to view philosophy.)

Is that ego? Or is he just lost in a desperate need to revive absolute determinism? Perhaps it's just a personal obcession with a particular view.

Either way, all I'm saying is that he has no right to try to force his view of philosophy onto everyone else.

Nothing personally implied.

The only thing that appears to make it personal is because he's an individual person trying to force his view of philosophy onto the rest of the world. That's what makes it personal for him.

I simply reject his thesis of absolute deterministic truth values, especially when it come down to fundamental premises. Once it hits that level it becomes nothing more than an opinion. And this is true for everyone including him.

Its when the shoe is thrown at a person and not the idea that is the problem, and what should be the core of this threads particular discussion.


There should be NO judgments of character in these forums whatsoever, its against the rules, and its rude.

This post was made because of the way creative responded to AB, who made a post in a very general way.
And I'll stick by it.