Yes Michael, but that's up to you do to personally.

You don't demand that everyone on the forums must supply irrefutable logical grounds to your satisfaction.

I never did that to you. I didn't ask you to prove your position to me. All I was doing was trying to offer you an explantion of why I feel differently than you do.

You kept rejecting my 'grounds' as being 'groundless'.

If you disagree with my reasoning just say so. There's no need to tell me that I can't think that way or that I'm just kidding myself if I think that way.

That's just downright rude.

Awe but Jeannie, you have such great ideas and insight into the human condition.

I understand almost everything you say. Except perhaps when you're taking about those Draconian fellows.

I don't respond to a lot of your posts because most of the time all I would need to say is "ditto" anyway.

Philosophy is not approached like an absolute science, like Creative would like it to be. If it were, it would be science instead of philosophy.

In fact, even when people do approach philosophy from a structured scientific view they begin with arbitrary premises. And then work up from there.

So a philosophy that begins with a pantheistic premise, say, is already on track to accept pantheistic type views, etc.

You often talk about a thought-created unviverse and you state, as your premise, that conciousness is the basis of all being.

Well, that's a perfectly valid premise that can neither be proved nor disproved via logic.

So your on as solid ground as anyone.

Micheal wants to start out with some sort of Newtonian world view and build from there. But that doesn't hold any more merit as fundamental premise.

In fact, the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics supports you're thought-created universe as well as anything.

You have totally sound philosophy. It's as logically sound as any other philosophy. It's fit into the Quantum Picture. How could it be denied on a logical basis? It can't be.

Hells bells, Quantum Mechanics itself defies logic and it's science.

James...

Quote me and show me what you mean. We are far removed from that language thread, and it would help this conversation and my understanding of what you are referring to if you show me where I have supposedly done the things which you are claiming.

I certainly do not remember thinking like that.

P.S.

Take it slowly so we can stay focused...



One aspect and quote or set of quotes at a time. This is a misunderstanding, and it can be shown as such, in a peaceful manner.

So you are saying that my personal world view is a philosophy? Then that must make me a philosopher.

Ok Michael,

I will be as sincere as I possibly can be in this post and truly try to make a genuine effort at understanding.

First off, allow me to apologize for all of the wisecrack remarks I've made. They were out of line. I allowed myself to go overboard because I felt that you were being completely unreasonable. And it was wrong of me to do that. I shouldn't have gone there. I said things that should have never been said. I hope you can forgive me for my own lack of self-discipline.

However, with that said, let's just get to the meat of the problem and not drag this out into a 'who was at fault' here, or who misunderstood whom. I'm not going to go there.

It seems to me that the bottom line should be seen from the following information without any need to be dredging out quotes from past conversations trying to determine who misunderstood whom.

The first point is the mere fact that you started an entire thread requesting a forum rule that no 'groundless thoughts' be permitted in philosophy discussions.

The second point comes from your quote just from the previous page of this thread.



My point is that you appear to have a very deep need to resolve people's philosophy 'claims' as you call them.

First off. I would like to request that you do everyone a favor and simply quit thinking of philosophical 'views' as 'claims'.

When people state their views they aren't stating them as philosophical assertions that need to be verified or proven in any way. They are simply sharing their views. Often they will offer reasons to support their views. That is offered for the purpose of helping others to understand where they are coming from. It's not intended to be an argument that their view is irrefutable. It's simply meant to be an offer of 'grounds' why they feel justified in holding their view.

What you seem to be demanding by your thread demanding that no 'groundless thoughts' be permitted and by your quote saying, "If a claim makes logical sense then let us show how, if not then let us show why..."

These clearly show your desire to resolve 'claims' or 'views' as being absolutely logically sound, or not.

And this is what you do when people are trying to share their views with you, you are attempting to show that their 'view' ('claim' as you call it) doesn't stand up to your idea of logic.

To go back and demonstrate that you do this by trying to dredge up quotes out of context would be a nightmare and irresolvable.

The mere fact that you started a thread requesting a rule that no 'groundless thoughts' be permitted in the philosophy forums, and by your quote above saying, "If a claim makes logical sense then let us show how, if not then let us show why...", it's clear that you are out to butt heads until views have been resolved to be either logically valid or logically flawed.

Why go back dredging up quotes?

It's crystal clear by the very fact of what you are demanding about 'groundless thoughts' that this is your goal.

If you can't understand or see that just from the information in this post alone, then you'll never see it.

You are demanding that people's philosophical 'views' ('claims' as you call them) be proven.

And that's your problem. It such a problem for you that you actually started a thread demanding that a new forum rule be put into place that there be no 'groundless thoughts' permitted in the philosophy forum.

And you just stated a page ago that you feel, "If a claim makes logical sense then let us show how, if not then let us show why..."

You require people to logically defend their views until some final resolution can be made. But that ain't gonna happen. You're going to have to give up that attitude entirely. That's all there is to it.

If that's what you need, then this is not the forum for you. It's that simple. This is just a dating site were people share views. We're not out to prove our views to anyone.

JB...



That is only one facet of the issue... No.



Correct.



No. The most important and relevant part of that response was not duly noted. I said IF an assessment wrong based upon the meaning of words, THEN I know that that assessment is being made through reasons other than my intent and/or meaning.

Truly, I do not know what is in another's conscious and/or unconscious based only on a wrongful character assessment of me. However, I do not need to know all of that in order to know that the assessment stemming from those thoughts is wrong, especially when it concerns a character assessment of me.



It is not a matter of who's fault it is.

To this statement of mine...



You wrote...



There is no grounds for presupposing that. Ambiguity serves other purposes as well. Ambiguity does not necessarily mean that one's comments are 'veiled'. That implies that the words are deliberately misleading. One cannot know that from ambiguity alone, therefore that assessment is based upon something else as well.

So everyone who writes with any ambiguity is deliberately deceptive or misleading... those ambiguous terms must be secretly veiled?



Grounds are everything.




If this is true then everyone who is private, quiet, and/or reclusive in nature is untrue and fearful of personal interaction?



Feelings are interpreted by the mind.

I disagree. No, they are not "everything."




I disagree. Feelings are felt. The mind does not feel. It thinks.

Perhaps you interpret your feelings, but not everyone does.

James...

I can see how that could be viewed as such.

It could also be viewed as though I am asking for other's views in an attempt to add as many facets of understanding possible. If I dissect the logical grounds, it is not at all meant as a personal slight in any way. That is how I weigh information, including my own.

I do not equate the logical validity of another's view with the value of the person.

I should quit thinking out loud.

1. Your choice to be ambiguous is the grounds for presupposing that.
2. What other purpose does your ambiguity serve?
3. To me, ambiguity is vague and veiled and does not speak the whole truth.
4. I did not imply (and my statement does not imply) that the words are deliberately misleading. THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS AND YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.

Ambiguity just leaves too much room for misunderstanding.

My assessment is that your ambiguity is purposely vague and your agenda is veiled. (Hidden)

Now if I am wrong, then tell me your purpose for ambiguity so that I may understand.

What is the difference between "deliberately misleading" and "hidden"(purposefully being secretive)?

Honestly I don't even know what 'character assessment' you are talking about here.

You really don't know?

2. What other purpose does your ambiguity serve?

"....tell me your purpose for ambiguity so that I may understand. "

What is the difference between "deliberately misleading" and "hidden"(purposefully being secretive)?

It serves as a starting point and covers a wide range of thought, which serves the purpose of acquiring as many ideas as possible.

You ignore my questions and you ask me questions in return. I asked my questions first. You have said that if I don't understand somthing that I should ASK FOR AN EXPLAINATION.

I AM ASKING.

2. What other purpose does your ambiguity serve?

Do not reply with a question for me. Answer my question please, so that I may understand. You do want me to understand don't you?

If you don't want me to understand then tell me why.

So you say. But I am saying that instead, it leaves a lot of room for misunderstanding, assumptions, and the wrong assessment of which you complain.

She's a natural philosopher
a intellectual officer
despite the fact that without tact
Creative often scoffs at her

She has an underlying knowledge
that goes far beyond a college
sharing all the secrets of her soul

Her valid thoughts are anchored
in the wisdom of her life
Her awesome psychic power's on a roll

She's a dreamer of reality
with exceptional morality
and she makes potentiality come true

She's knows the secrets of creation
through emotional vibration
that she shares without restraint with me and you