What do you believe even though you can not prove it?
after you post your answer, take a look at http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html
Full Version: What do you believe,
Do you honestly think people wont look at the link first 
Your to trusting
Your to trusting
people may look at the link first, but when they see the length is 60000 words they may not bother to read it. 
Having read the article, I'm at a place where i am not as interested in the answers as in the questions, I would agree that there seems to be a part that just knows things you don't know how or why, you just know. Namaste Sheri
Oh yes, yes, yes, Sheri!
Intuition, "gut feelings," "sixth sense," et al .... those things cannot be denied empirically, most of us have experienced them and that's all of the proof we need.
But I think what Sheri is referring to are those questions that only lead to more questions. In my rhetoric course, I have my students essay this exact topic using various types of argumentation. "What is the meaning of life?" is the most common, of course. But even that question begs further inquiry.
Please excuse the length of the following excerpt from a paper I wrote for a doctoral seminar, and also please excuse its content if ventures a bit too far into the esoteric...
In his essay entitled “Radical Thought,” Jean Baudrillard begins the sixth paragraph with the following statement: “Say: I am real, this is real, the world is real, and nobody laughs. But say: this is a simulacrum, you are only a simulacrum, this war is a simulacrum, and everybody bursts out laughing”(2). Although the war he refers to is the Gulf War and here we are years later, it certainly applies to the world as we know it right now. This new rhetoric, the Postmodernist Baudrillardian Rhetoric, seems to unravel all things we have felt familiar, recognized as the authentic, and deconstructs Reality down to a singularity: Simulation.
Fictive reality is now more real than than the real of Reality.
Our conception of reality has been modified by three revolutions. The first occurred in Renaissance Period painting. Leonardo Da Vinci and his contemporaries rendered their particular representations using three-dimensional methods such as foreshortening, linear perspective, chiaroscuro, sfumato, and the vanishing point, creating a realism never seen before. There were only originals, no copies. Simulation then existed as a truly unique representation of the artist’s imagination illustrated upon a medium. The second change happened with the invention of the camera in the early 19th-century. The original and the copy were born, and as a result, so was the distinction between reality and “real time” representation of reality. The final revolution of reality conception is a product of the 20th-century. It is the Simulacra: a copy that takes the place of the real. Think of Mickey Mouse. Copies replace originals. No originals, only copies. No corresponding objects. Image became reality. The difference between fiction and reality completely eliminated. Things don’t need to be, events don’t need to happen--our values are wholly restructured. We now experience simulation instead of reality. Today, all mediums of media are the means of simulation and Simulacra.
Question reality; question existence, the world, the universe; question everything, even the question itself. “I think, therefore I am” no longer works. Descartes is a myth. “I think that I think--therefore I am?” is Baudrillard’s assertion. The simulacrum--imagine the real and realize the imagined--the possibility that all things are not what they appear to be, that they never were, that everything we thought was real and everything we still think is real might actually be something we cannot grasp.
On his European Graduate School faculty home page, Baudrillard posts:
It is more difficult for us to imagine the real, History, the depth of time, or three-dimensional space, just as before it was difficult from our real world perspective to imagine a virtual universe or the fourth-dimension. The Simulacra will be ahead of us everywhere. The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth - it is the truth which conceals that there is none. Since the world is on a delusional course, we must adopt a delusional standpoint towards the world. (http://www.ergs.Ed/faculty/Jean Baudrillard.html)
Can we comprehend a world on a “delusional course,” and one that bears no truth? In Baudrillard’s sense, that is the ultimate question--the question that cannot be answered, for the answer--that which we aspire to, that which we quest for, that which we feel an inexhaustible conviction to possess, may very well be Simulacra. Using Baudrillard’s logic, the answer must be Simulacra. Consider Ecclesiastes 7:24, “What exists is beyond reach and unfathomable: who can master it?” It stands to reason that we must alter our perspective exponentially if we are to maintain focus upon an exponentially. And furthermore, in Ecclesiastes 8:17, “...that man is not able to discover the work which is done under the sun, for the sake of which a man labors to search but does not find it: even though a wise man thinks he knows, he shall not be able to find it.” Baudrillard’s rhetoric reflects this age-old ideology in his argument from “The Precession of Simulacra,” that “The simulacra will be ahead of us everywhere. The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth - it is the truth which conceals that there is none”(1). Baudrillard is saying, unabashedly, that what we seek more so than anything else--the Ultimate Truth, the Reality of All Things, the Meaning of Life--has been and will always remain unobtainable because its destination is an undefinable realm of Abstract Darkness and lacks any apparent and familiar semblance of onus probandi. This is a new rhetoric: Something no other rhetorician had done previously. Not new as in opposing Aristotle and Plato; Vico; Burke and Perelman; or Richards and McLuhan, but new as in asserting claims to which the burden of proof, the Traditional and Established means of evidence, are applied to what is the most extraordinary abstraction-- simulation of Reality and Existence. “This thought consists in putting into place a form, a matrix of illusion and disillusion, a strange attracting force, so that a seduced reality will be able to spontaneously feed on it”(Vital Illusion 33). This “seduced reality” is a constructed simulation of a reality, what Baudrillard calls “Hyperreality.” Baudrillard explains in Simulacra and Simulation: “Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal”(1) .
It is this hyperreality which has become the new and terrible American Dream. And it is a lucid dream, subject to selective mutation by the dreamer(s). As long as we remain in it, trust in our sensory reception eludes us. Therefore, we must go beyond the traditional and established modes of evidence and proofs if we are to comprehend and accept simulation and simulacra as the the fundamental premise of all Postmodern Rhetoric.
Intuition, "gut feelings," "sixth sense," et al .... those things cannot be denied empirically, most of us have experienced them and that's all of the proof we need.
But I think what Sheri is referring to are those questions that only lead to more questions. In my rhetoric course, I have my students essay this exact topic using various types of argumentation. "What is the meaning of life?" is the most common, of course. But even that question begs further inquiry.
Please excuse the length of the following excerpt from a paper I wrote for a doctoral seminar, and also please excuse its content if ventures a bit too far into the esoteric...
In his essay entitled “Radical Thought,” Jean Baudrillard begins the sixth paragraph with the following statement: “Say: I am real, this is real, the world is real, and nobody laughs. But say: this is a simulacrum, you are only a simulacrum, this war is a simulacrum, and everybody bursts out laughing”(2). Although the war he refers to is the Gulf War and here we are years later, it certainly applies to the world as we know it right now. This new rhetoric, the Postmodernist Baudrillardian Rhetoric, seems to unravel all things we have felt familiar, recognized as the authentic, and deconstructs Reality down to a singularity: Simulation.
Fictive reality is now more real than than the real of Reality.
Our conception of reality has been modified by three revolutions. The first occurred in Renaissance Period painting. Leonardo Da Vinci and his contemporaries rendered their particular representations using three-dimensional methods such as foreshortening, linear perspective, chiaroscuro, sfumato, and the vanishing point, creating a realism never seen before. There were only originals, no copies. Simulation then existed as a truly unique representation of the artist’s imagination illustrated upon a medium. The second change happened with the invention of the camera in the early 19th-century. The original and the copy were born, and as a result, so was the distinction between reality and “real time” representation of reality. The final revolution of reality conception is a product of the 20th-century. It is the Simulacra: a copy that takes the place of the real. Think of Mickey Mouse. Copies replace originals. No originals, only copies. No corresponding objects. Image became reality. The difference between fiction and reality completely eliminated. Things don’t need to be, events don’t need to happen--our values are wholly restructured. We now experience simulation instead of reality. Today, all mediums of media are the means of simulation and Simulacra.
Question reality; question existence, the world, the universe; question everything, even the question itself. “I think, therefore I am” no longer works. Descartes is a myth. “I think that I think--therefore I am?” is Baudrillard’s assertion. The simulacrum--imagine the real and realize the imagined--the possibility that all things are not what they appear to be, that they never were, that everything we thought was real and everything we still think is real might actually be something we cannot grasp.
On his European Graduate School faculty home page, Baudrillard posts:
It is more difficult for us to imagine the real, History, the depth of time, or three-dimensional space, just as before it was difficult from our real world perspective to imagine a virtual universe or the fourth-dimension. The Simulacra will be ahead of us everywhere. The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth - it is the truth which conceals that there is none. Since the world is on a delusional course, we must adopt a delusional standpoint towards the world. (http://www.ergs.Ed/faculty/Jean Baudrillard.html)
Can we comprehend a world on a “delusional course,” and one that bears no truth? In Baudrillard’s sense, that is the ultimate question--the question that cannot be answered, for the answer--that which we aspire to, that which we quest for, that which we feel an inexhaustible conviction to possess, may very well be Simulacra. Using Baudrillard’s logic, the answer must be Simulacra. Consider Ecclesiastes 7:24, “What exists is beyond reach and unfathomable: who can master it?” It stands to reason that we must alter our perspective exponentially if we are to maintain focus upon an exponentially. And furthermore, in Ecclesiastes 8:17, “...that man is not able to discover the work which is done under the sun, for the sake of which a man labors to search but does not find it: even though a wise man thinks he knows, he shall not be able to find it.” Baudrillard’s rhetoric reflects this age-old ideology in his argument from “The Precession of Simulacra,” that “The simulacra will be ahead of us everywhere. The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth - it is the truth which conceals that there is none”(1). Baudrillard is saying, unabashedly, that what we seek more so than anything else--the Ultimate Truth, the Reality of All Things, the Meaning of Life--has been and will always remain unobtainable because its destination is an undefinable realm of Abstract Darkness and lacks any apparent and familiar semblance of onus probandi. This is a new rhetoric: Something no other rhetorician had done previously. Not new as in opposing Aristotle and Plato; Vico; Burke and Perelman; or Richards and McLuhan, but new as in asserting claims to which the burden of proof, the Traditional and Established means of evidence, are applied to what is the most extraordinary abstraction-- simulation of Reality and Existence. “This thought consists in putting into place a form, a matrix of illusion and disillusion, a strange attracting force, so that a seduced reality will be able to spontaneously feed on it”(Vital Illusion 33). This “seduced reality” is a constructed simulation of a reality, what Baudrillard calls “Hyperreality.” Baudrillard explains in Simulacra and Simulation: “Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal”(1) .
It is this hyperreality which has become the new and terrible American Dream. And it is a lucid dream, subject to selective mutation by the dreamer(s). As long as we remain in it, trust in our sensory reception eludes us. Therefore, we must go beyond the traditional and established modes of evidence and proofs if we are to comprehend and accept simulation and simulacra as the the fundamental premise of all Postmodern Rhetoric.
Excellent post my friend As always I walk away richer after reading your posts mikey. Namaste Sheri
I believe you can tell how deluded someone is by assessing the strength of their beliefs. The stronger someone's beliefs are the better they are at fooling themselves. Ironically, the better they are at fooling themselves the more they see others as being foolish.
I agree with Sherri with no proof that it's true. =) Sometimes, you just know. How boring and miserable would your life be if you can't believe ANYTHING without looking into it first? You'd have no time to live!
I believe there is an ultimate, singular truth that is reality, and individual perception does not alter that reality.
Perfect logic, based on a false premise, leads to perfectly logical fallacy.
We don't know, what we don't know.
Perfect logic, based on a false premise, leads to perfectly logical fallacy.
We don't know, what we don't know.
Just to branch off of the main issue for a moment... how would you interpret the following:
"The more I learn, the less I know." (If it reads familiar, that's because it's a line from the Beatles' "All Too Much")
"The more I learn, the less I know." (If it reads familiar, that's because it's a line from the Beatles' "All Too Much")
That we're all a part of the universe and we can tap into it and our "Higher Selves". That and reincarnation. Too bad I can't prove it. 
Back on topic...
I believe in being "in love" but I cannot prove it quantifiably, scientifically, or through any empirical manner.
I believe in being "in love" but I cannot prove it quantifiably, scientifically, or through any empirical manner.
QUOTE(mklsgl @ Dec 22 2005, 06:28 PM) [snapback]988649[/snapback]
Just to branch off of the main issue for a moment... how would you interpret the following:
"The more I learn, the less I know." (If it reads familiar, that's because it's a line from the Beatles' "All Too Much")
I say that to myself all the time. Learning one thing leads to more questions.
I say it to myself also something like this:
The more I learn, the more I understand that I don't "Know". And it continues on that way.
Searching for more truth, you learn more about what you didn't know, and realize there is so much more you don't know.
I believe there is no end to it while confined to limited experience. Limited experience encourages false perception, which when used with perfect logic leads to perfectly logical fallacy.
Well I will not read first. Because hyper did have rules. lol
I believe in the Christian God, angels, ghosts, aliens, and the flying spagetti monstor ( well the last once is not true I do not believe in this god or his garlicy smell)
Now I will read the link.
Then I will post back if I get angry with Hyper.
EDIT: after reading some- definately not all. I got the baby at the moment. With the little I read I think it is a little funny. We all do look for answers via google. These answers are often tainted. The reason is it is because we are often to lazy to see if the points made were valid. This is when a person has to go "what"
When I read what I find on the net I am skeptical. The reason being is because when they refer to the Bible in some sights- even Christian it says women shouldn't dress in a way that is appealing to men. Well doesn't that seem odd that a women could not try and attract the opposite sex? The way it seems is that with even animals-
Deer will go to a place where the female- digs a hole. He then shoves his hoof into the ground and then he makes an indention. Of course the doe comes back- looks at the size of the hoof print- if it is appealling she then urinates in the hole. They then will mate.
Isn't it funny how animals can act on what is appealling and the women are told not to dress tautry? Maybe in the Bible times it was odd to dress in a way with adornments or beautiful beaded clothing? Does this mean it is wrong. Now I know this is a silly question. But I think it is fine- if animals can go on what attracts them - why not the human.
I believe in the Christian God, angels, ghosts, aliens, and the flying spagetti monstor ( well the last once is not true I do not believe in this god or his garlicy smell)
Now I will read the link.
Then I will post back if I get angry with Hyper.
EDIT: after reading some- definately not all. I got the baby at the moment. With the little I read I think it is a little funny. We all do look for answers via google. These answers are often tainted. The reason is it is because we are often to lazy to see if the points made were valid. This is when a person has to go "what"
When I read what I find on the net I am skeptical. The reason being is because when they refer to the Bible in some sights- even Christian it says women shouldn't dress in a way that is appealing to men. Well doesn't that seem odd that a women could not try and attract the opposite sex? The way it seems is that with even animals-
Deer will go to a place where the female- digs a hole. He then shoves his hoof into the ground and then he makes an indention. Of course the doe comes back- looks at the size of the hoof print- if it is appealling she then urinates in the hole. They then will mate.
Isn't it funny how animals can act on what is appealling and the women are told not to dress tautry? Maybe in the Bible times it was odd to dress in a way with adornments or beautiful beaded clothing? Does this mean it is wrong. Now I know this is a silly question. But I think it is fine- if animals can go on what attracts them - why not the human.
I believe that a person's religious affiliation is far less important than their activities in day to day life.
I believe that homosexuality is natural even though it is not the norm.
I believe that one day I may drive my boyfriend over the edge and he will become a monk.
I believe I can smell the rain coming.
QUOTE(laughing tanuki @ Jun 4 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]1708224[/snapback]
I believe I can smell the rain coming.
Me too.
QUOTE(laughing tanuki @ Jun 4 2007, 09:55 AM) [snapback]1708224[/snapback]
I believe that one day I may drive my boyfriend over the edge and he will become a monk.
I haven't been your boyfriend for years, dearie.
Say hello to my "better" half everyone.
Hello Rev's better half!
There are a few things that I believe that can only be proven by myself to myself such as:
Intuition, gut instinct, a feeling, a hunch, deja vu, the phones gonna ring then it does, thinking of an old friend then run into them, running into things when I'm not looking, knowing the time without looking, foreboding, intuitivism, prescience, discernment,logical reasoning,providence, serendipity, fate and fortune.
Intuition, gut instinct, a feeling, a hunch, deja vu, the phones gonna ring then it does, thinking of an old friend then run into them, running into things when I'm not looking, knowing the time without looking, foreboding, intuitivism, prescience, discernment,logical reasoning,providence, serendipity, fate and fortune.
How can anyone prove their own personal experience of God?
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ Jun 4 2007, 06:38 PM) [snapback]1708580[/snapback]
How can anyone prove their own personal experience of God?
What are these experiences? Almost every Christian appears to have had one, but never seem to say what they are.
Are they 'feelings'? Events which seem impossible to explain without there being a God (e.g. surviving a near death experience)?
QUOTE(Chaøs @ Jun 4 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]1708630[/snapback]
What are these experiences? Almost every Christian appears to have had one, but never seem to say what they are.
Are they 'feelings'? Events which seem impossible to explain without there being a God (e.g. surviving a near death experience)?
Are they 'feelings'? Events which seem impossible to explain without there being a God (e.g. surviving a near death experience)?
Why just christians that have experiences??
Didn't you know that other have ways to follow God?? eh??
I've never had an NDE either
Personal experiences are well this is a shot in the dark ---> PERSONAL
I believe there's a Creator, but I wouldn't even think of trying to prove it. That would be a tad absurd me thinks.
I think about my mother just before she 'phones... I just know the 'phone's going to ring.
I think about my mother just before she 'phones... I just know the 'phone's going to ring.
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ Jun 4 2007, 07:01 PM) [snapback]1708638[/snapback]
Why just christians that have experiences??
Didn't you know that other have ways to follow God?? eh??
I've never had an NDE either
Personal experiences are well this is a shot in the dark ---> PERSONAL
Didn't you know that other have ways to follow God?? eh??
I've never had an NDE either
Personal experiences are well this is a shot in the dark ---> PERSONAL
I guess that means you're not willing to answer...
Thanks.
QUOTE(Chaøs @ Jun 4 2007, 07:04 PM) [snapback]1708646[/snapback]
I guess that means you're not willing to answer...
Thanks.
Thanks.
Only because there are so so so many
I prayed to be granted my child...got her...
when someone prays for something, and it happens to them, how do you expect to use that as proof of God??
To prove God exists is impossible..........
I hate it when someone uses a cop out and say - look around you...............im looking around me, I still dont see proof of God.........only because proof is through personal experience
QUOTE(hyperactive @ Dec 23 2005, 01:40 AM) [snapback]987924[/snapback]
What do you believe even though you can not prove it?
after you post your answer, take a look at http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html
after you post your answer, take a look at http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html
I didn't look at the link first. I appreciate the suspense.
I believe there is no such thing as a god, made in the image and likeness of it's believers. And I believe that means nothing at all, to anyone else, but me. And I accept, that is how it should be, when living a personal life, wherein one is only responsible for being who they can live with and at the end of my days, believe I was a good person, that served a purpose in the time I had to call, my life.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.