WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? ? ?

(____________ mgb AND/OR brook26__________)

( = Jane, bare with me here. I am only asking that we maintain civilized and curtious discussions. If that qualifies as setting rules, so be it. RULE: BE nice, you dont have to agree, but dont be rude. I call it setting boundries.
Eienstein humiliated his teachers? So your saying he shouldnt have done the things he did, he should have played by the rules? Where do you think wed be without general relativity Jane?
Where would we be if people like socrates, aristotle, einstein, the american colonist.. always played by the rules and accepted their situation, surrendered to that dogma that enslaves most of the human race? Where would mankind be if we played by your rules Jane?
But regaurdless, if you feel that way its ok, as long as your polite. You can tell me im wrong its ok, as long as your not rude. I didnt set those rules, the Moderators did.
Enough said

Jason, I find it very difficult carrying the conversation with you because you keep on MISinterpreting me!

--- I said: contrary to Hitler (who simply killed some of the teachers who've failed him),
??? How do you interpret that as My saying [he shouldnt have done the things he did, he should have played by the rules]? ? ?

In fact, Einstein has always been very polite... But imagine those teachers' humiliation when he became famous? ? ? (that is what the term a "Last Laugh" means: He who gets to laugh last, laughs the best!!!

In fact, you tend to contradict yourself:
at first, YOU insisted everybody should stick to the rules...
But mow, your saying:
And that's a cheap blow below the belt:
YOU insisted everybody stop arguing and play by the rules!!!

You see, first YOU misinterpret others and humiliate them with your misinterpretions... And then -- when pointed to your misinterpretation -- you offer your appologies....
WHO NEEDS YOUR EXCUSES? ? ?

* * * And you dare asking me to be polite? ? ?
WHY DON'T YOU GET OFF MY BACK ???

By all means argue. I never said not to, I said be polite thats all. For the record I dont think Einstein humiliated anyone. He Re defined gravity and explaned why Newtons laws dont always work. In any case, this whole discusion I thought was about just being civilized but you said something about not arguing, so please, allow me to clarify. You can argue, just be polite. ( =
ps, you brought up the whole sit down and listen to your teachers thing, thats what I was refering to when I said rules.
Frankly Jane this isnt getting anywhere, so theres no use going any further. When your ready to have a civilized convo, let me know id love to pick your brain, untill than, your more than welcome to share your feelings, I may or may not respond.

You lost me here, can you elaborate please?
Here, let me clarify my posistion.
Logic is a system of reason, and reason is a system of thoughts and thinking. There is arbitrary reason, emotional reason, logical reason, ect...

Regaurdless, you have to reason if your human, or animal for that matter. And beliefe in my book is a completely seperate department from logic.

But than again I may be taking this out of context, lol id like to here more if you dont mind.

Thanx for your gracious permission. But I'd appreciate, if you ignore any "sharing of my feelings"... (until you learn the propper way of interpreting messages!!!)

oh no Jane and Jason got back together in here.
I wonder what would happen if they ever met on the street.
I'm guessing they fall in love and live happily ever after.

Its awful when someone bullies someone else,,,and sad when they dont realize that is what they are doing.

OO OO somebody asked me what i think. Cool, now I'll tell you but you have to read it, that's the beauty of it. You can read it whatever way you want. We post, so we can be heard. However, the reasons for posting in odd and varied ways are odd and varied. We post: to vent frustration, for entertainment, for clarification, for information, to enlighten, to frighten, and so on and so forth...therefore, and this is the logic part....there can be no set rules. If there were rules, the people in the political threads would drop out altogether. And then the sky would fall.

That's it! Everything is relative. If I say something really smart, it may only be smart in my corner of the world. But this whole thing of misinterpretation is key. What is communicated is also received, and this is not a perfect process. The first way to read a writing is to determine the writers INTENT. So if people are going to get emotional about responses, they are flying off the deep end completely on their own. Because if the author did intend to upset you, which I don't think he did, Jane, then he is just shooting himself in the foot. You can't control what others will think and feel. Even if you're careful. You may not think you can affect what they believe either, but Jason is wrong about one thing. Feelings and beliefs really do affect logic. And logic in return affects feelings and beliefs.

Oh they know that's what they're doing. That's the whole fun of it. They do it for a number of reasons. Could be low self-esteem, could be that's the way they naturally grew up, i.e. in a family with disfunctional communication, could be a need for attention or power.

I'm talking about...ok I give up, what am i talking about?

Alright it's rudeness not to answer your question. Here goes nothin'

When things were getting nasty, I pointed out that things were getting nasty, by saying I don't want to play this game any more. A joke, sort of, like I'm taking my ball and going home. I think it was you who responded, "good, don't PLAY!"

A better response (IMO) in my opinion, would have been to say something like, "OK, maybe I've been playing too rough with you guys." After that we'd all forgive eachother and get back into this groovy discussion.

Can you explain how it happened that jason is misinterpreting things, jane? That might actually solve the whole problem.

Well hopefully I don't sound like a bully when I say this is false, just because something is relative doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It simply means the truth can be overlooked depending on your perspective. Lets give this an example, if you and I are both looking at the same rock. That rock exists as it is, it has an absolute truth. Our personal perspectives of that rock may be different than THE TRUTH but those perspectives do not change that truth and therefore there is an absolute truth even if we don't see it.

Assuming things actually do exist, there has to be absolute truths about that existence, a certain way things just ARE. These truths exist even though people may interpret them differently. Argument is a tool that can help uncover the absolute truth from behind the perspectives. Thank God it's not the only tool for this.

Argue against everything, even the truth. Only the truth has nothing to fear from argument.

I most definatly agree with your views on "its all relative"(if im interpreting it right). I agree, it is all relative, but its also all distinct. Distinction is the missing peice of the puzzle. That rock may be made up information just as we are,(info in terms of physics) but it is still a rock and we are still human. There is a clear distinction. To make any conclusion on this topic based soley on relativity is most definatly a hasty generalization.
As far as logic goes, if we use the expository definition which is inference, I dont think feelings have anything to do with it. Someone can reason based on emotions sure, but if your reason is logical, than you are using logic as your operating system for your reason. I know thats kinda hazy bare with me ( = That does not mean you should abandone your emotions, I think thats a mistake. This is a personal perspective, but I always give my emotions and intuition an audiance, I never ignore them. But they do not govern my reason, only logic governs my reason. That I believe creates a system of checks and balances, Its all a matter of ballance.

As far as arguments go, I definatly encourage them. Think of it like were all in a room, face to face... If we were all civilized and respectful, our argument would get somewhere, or adleast we hear some new perspectives and have a chance to have ours challanged. If we acted like we do on this forum (myself included I admit) we would all go to jail haha. Or adleast Jane and I would. (Joke)

( IE IM arguing against MyGenerations comment on feelings and logic, but Im doing it respectfully and either way I still hold her perspective in high regaurd because she has always respected me, that is the most efficient way to argue and learn I think)

mygenerationbaby:
Thanx, MGB, for trying to settle the argument, even though I've already given up and have no desire of reliving the painful experience again. However, if your interested, you might start with my last post at page 11...

Seems like some people are comming in here with the hidden agenda:
- they start out by saying one thing, but in the process, it appears, they're here for completely different reasons -- for example: a member claimed "he's here to learn...", but actually, he's here "for correcting the "mistaken notions" of some pathetic ladies who (according to that member) don't know what they're talking about and, therefore, should be respectful... (not exactly in such terms, but that's how I tend to interpret the member's posts).
(Actually, the member has erroneously assumed those notions are mistaken because he's MISINTERPRETTED the message, and argued against the misperceived point!!!)
Such a chauvenistic atitude is enough for ignoring the member altogether, though, after his appologies, I gave him a benefit of a doubt. And yet, he turns around and does it again -- first, humiliating me, and then offering me an olive brunch of peace!

Frankly, I'm fed up:
I'm here for pleasant discussions, not for educating foolish kids, and definitely not for being humiliated by some of those kids -- chauvenistic adolescent losers!!! Why waste time educating anybody who's resisting any attempts???

*******Therefore, I decided to put an END to this abuse by filing a complaint against that member, IFF he will address me (OR MY POSTS) in any manner again !!!

I wasn't saying what the absolute truth was, just that there was one. There IS an objective truth that exists outside of our perspective. In the case of the rock it may be that the objective truth of the matter is that there is information being interpreted by another set of information (information in the sense you meant it), it may go even further than that. We can say that SOMETHING is going on and therefore there is an objective truth out there, though granted we may not ever be able to see it for what it actually is. Arguing can, if used properly, help us to shed our own misconceptions and see more truth.

Daniel0021:

-->> An Absolute Truth: REALITY is nothing more than a CONSESUS!!!... i.e. based upon the way we define things (that, in turn, depend upon the degree of our sophistication...)

Obviously, I'm not referring to anything physical (like a rock)! But all of our psychological notions (i.e. matters that depend upon the way we define them -- Good/Evil, Love/Hate, etc.) MOST DEFINITELY ARE RELATIVE!!!

.................... REMEMBER:

PERCEPTION OF REALITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN REALITY ITSELF!!!

hmmm, well I understand what you are getting at. I have a slight problem with it though and that is that reality IS, no matter how we perceive it, even if only on the physical plane. That is still an absolute truth, assuming it is actually real and not a figment of my imagination, or yours. Consider this; If, God forbid, all of the beings that make up your consensus of reality are wiped out what is reality then? Is it any more or less real? Is its simple truth any different?




This depends I guess on what you mean by "important". Lets shrink it, is what I mean more important than what you interpret? What I mean is the objective truth or reality since it is perfectly what it is, that is its exactly what I mean. What you interpret, obviously is your perception. Which is more important? Well the interaction does not exist without either end and so I think I would argue that they are equally important. I think this applies to reality as well. It would seem the closer the perception is to actual reality the better.

Without the observer there's nothing to observe!!!
But an observer (i.e. Humanity) with limited faculties of observation/perception is no better than a deaf/mute/blind person. * * *

The objective truth or reality is real or objective enough only relative our ability of perceiving it -- which, in turn, depends upon our level of sofistication.
In the past, most of people believed in God.
Nowadays, scientists who study Quantum Physics, admite they don't know where the particles are comming from!!!

Tomorrow, it might be discovered there is God after all!!! WHAT will happen to your objective truth or actual reality? ? ? And you cannot discard such a possibility because Humanity just entered the path of discovery -- anything might happen (i.e. discovered!)
... Goodnight!