No....who the heck is YMO?

runs off to google


feels smarter already!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Magic_Orchestra

The chap in the middle of the album cover photo, Ryuichi Sakamoto, is a god in the world of music. I didn't know that photo was on the Wikipedia site... that is my favourite album... I have gone all flushed.

See what happens when people who don't agree work together? We've gone and made the girl blush......mmmmmmmhmmmm chil' I'll jump on that boy like a big dog! Simon Lebon can go back to aquanet and be done with it....

He didn't say it was truth Son, you assumed since it wasn't explicitly stated that it was opinion.

Yes what I wrote was opinion, based on my knowledge and experience. The problem here is what I stated before, you can only interpret what I say in the framework of your own opinion (which unfortunately is black and white, true and false). So of course you are going to see what I speak as being fallacious in your interpretation.

Can you see that Western logic is of no concern to me?


Are we having fun yet?

You are an inigma!

Western logic? Logic is not Eastern or Western, rev, but let's come back to that later. It's also not about black and white, it's about rationality and irrationality. This is not my opinion, I am simply utilizing logic to insure this conversation is actually rational. If you choose to "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" like BNW when I try to insure we are being rational, that will be fine too, but it will not stop rational thinking from being the diametrical opposite of irrational thinking.

Eastern logic by it's very definition is not logic at all. According to Easter logic reality can be logical and illogical, which is a contradiction and, therefore meaningless. Also, according to Eastern logic, everything is ultimately meaningless, right? Well, if everything is ultimately meaningless, then the distinction between Eastern and Western logic is meaningless, right? So, if there is no basis for judging between correct and incorrect thinking, there would be no way to say that Western logic is inaccurate. Also, there would be no way to conclude that the Eastern view of reality is more accurate than the Western view. The only way anyone could make such an assertion would be to assume reality does not essentially embrace contradictions and that it exists completely independent of our opinions. However, if this is true, then the principles of logic must be universal. Therefore, there is no such thing as Eastern or Western logic. Where thinking is happening or what culture it's happening in has no impact, logic is the same.

I'm having fun!

Well now IamsSon hold on a sec there. Can contradiction really be "meaningless?"

In fact contradiction can be rejuvenating in my opinion.

But that said, its like mistaking the spice for the meal. The meal can't be what it is without the spice. The meal would be bland and boring. But it still would be a meal. The spice however can not be a meal.

But then some people will try to convince themselves that in eating spice, if their brain is "open" enough they will be able to convince their body that it is a meal.

Why am I suddenly wanting to watch DUNE???

Contradiction that comes from irrational thinking, is worthless. Rational contradiction, now THAT is most definitely rejuvenating. I'm tired of worthless "meals." Be contradictory! Be challenging! But be rational!!

The truth is we are all part of God, really everything is part of God so called. When your shell of a body dies your soul lives on in its pure state of energy which includes all your cells energy in your body. It may go to another dimension when you die (when your shell dies), some say in the string theory there is 10 dimensions and maybe 11. Some call it ascension so I assume you (your soul) ascend to another dimension. Some think they can astral travel in a half wake state where your soul can travel anywhere, anyplace, anytime you wish once you master it. Ever wonder why Buddhist monks always smile? Evidently they can master this. It can be done if you know how to do it and practice a lot. Its an opinion, but the bottom line I think is we are all in a collective soul (God?) which includes every visible and invisible thing in the universe. I think I am right but I am not sure of this absolutely. Good luck...

Sucks when your rules don't fit, doesn't it? (I just could not resist after all the "god is beyond understanding" responses).

Seriously, what I am saying says that you can not be certian the Law of Non Contradiction is valid.

This is why it is an age old conundrum. For anything you deduce, you are relying on premises that you can only ASSUME true, but can not KNOW to be true.

Sorry, I'm not biting. We can discuss this at another time, but let's stick to insuring we're actually using rational thought in this instance.


Hyper, what you have been saying is irrational thinking, you can try to hide that fact by trying to put doubt on the Law of Non Contradiction (LNC), but since LNC has been around as the basis of rational thinking in some way or another since man has attempted to insure their thinking is rational and since so far it has withstood the test of time, I think it's significantly more likely that LNC is correct and your argument is irrational, than that LNC is invalid and your argument is rational.

That is a great thought. Can you go and put that into the Annunaki thread??? lol

Great thread True. I actually read through the whole thing. A lot has been discussed, and I think those that have replied are all doing their best to be understanding, or tolerant, due to the engaging nature of the posts. One of the reasons we are all here is to explore different viewpoints to get a more balanced outlook.

But, I do believe though, in this politically correct world we've created for ourselves- the term 'tolerant' has been tossed around quite a bit to excuse some awful behavior. There comes a point when you have to stand for something and inevitably fight for it... not just sit on the fence and say --"Well, who am I to judge? We must all be tolerant of differing view points." I think that line of thinking is potentially deadly, in many cases.

The term 'respect' was also brought up, and in its simplest form it means-- that other person can be a potential friend or potential enemy, so I must choose my interactions with this individual very carefully. We are not bound to respect anyone, but the potential consequences of this action should be weighed carefully... and the responsibility for, taken. Often times we want someone to respect us, yet we pay no respect to them. It must be a partnership based on mutual respect for it to be viable.

Hyper touched on some things that I agree with, as well as True and most everyone else. But, his literalist mentality is something I share, although our delivery of such, is different. And, often times most of us aren't that far off from each other in our thinking, but it is the expression of those ideas that is singular, unique to the individual.

As far as truth goes, the only things that I hold as absolute truths are-- I must eat and drink to survive, and forming relationships can lengthen my survival... and the only guarantee in life, is death.

Great post Artmoon and I absolutely agree with your last sentence above. Everything else is up for grabs....

First, I'm glad you are enjoying yourself Son. I wouldn't want to continue this discussion if it was not enjoyable to you. For the record I am laughing when I read your responses (I too am having fun) but I don't feel the need to type it out.

Before we continue the discussion at hand let me drag this back on topic for a bit with something that should be addressed, then I will lay down what I've actually been saying through the whole thread and we can pick up from there.

Our discussion is exactly what True was talking about when she started this thread. The difference is that the focus of the discussion is not the norm for this particular arena. We are not debating anything but the believability of the concept that Hyper and I presented. As for the "why" that True was wondering, we've established in our case (meaning you and I) it's just for giggles. Unfortunately, good natured fun is not always the case.

Now...en garde!

How is rational thinking being the diametric opposite of irrational thinking not thinking in Black and White? To me it seems pretty simple. You read what I am typing and it doesn't fit with your logic so you conclude, "I don't find this rational, so it must be irrational." To a degree you would be correct.

As you are aware my mode of thought is based in Buddhism and Taoism. Rational thought is not abandoned but one cannot cultivate insight through it alone. I'm sure you have heard of the koan, those seemingly nosensical questions and statements like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" These are tools that are used to train the mind to let go of the constraints of logic. Logic catergorizes and separates, like adding more clay to form a statue. Insight is a reduction method, it strips away categories and concepts until essence is revealed, much like forming said statue by removing clay from a block. But this is getting way off topic. We can talk about this more privately if you like.

The jist of what I've been saying throughout the thread: Conceptually we deal with two kinds of truth, Absolute Truth (for example how you know God) and Relative Truth (how you talk about God).

*Warning: I'm about to get abstract again* I can give you an honest response concerning any concept. For example, I can say that I don't believe in the God of Abraham. It is a true statement, but it is a relative truth because it only applies to me. Just like if you say "I believe in God," it applies only to you. Absolute Truth cannot be spoken of or expressed in any form, you can only experience it. The rest is just word games. I think you have said in the past that God cannot be understood by the minds of humans. Take what I've said earlier and substitute the word God for the word Truth and the essence of the statement will be the same.



Thanks Essene. This is a fine example of relative truth, but Buddhist monks don't always smile. When I attended the Dalai Lama's lecture at Rutgers there were many monks in attendance and they weren't all smiling, they weren't frowning either.

Exactly it is an opinion. You are relaying to me how you interpret your experience of the world. The important thing is not whether you convince me, but rather if it works. Your way works for you, Son's way works for him, Hyper's works for him, True's works for her, on and on and on.

Peace

When you go to the mall, there are escalators, lifts, and stairs all leading to the same upper level, and generally they're all in use... because no two people will choose the same route to get up there. We each choose whichever path is right for us depending on our needs.

If we consider the word "true" to mean "in accord with reality", then my path is in accord with my reality, the next man's is in accord with his. Each person's reality is based in their own personal experience. How, in my reality, where the Abrahamic god does not exist, could my true path be to follow him?

And once we get to the 'upper level' we don't all find the same thing...different shops, etc....and we all go to the upper level for different reasons. Good analogy.

Great example!

I think that Shadow's post brilliantly touches exactly what I mean. And SMACK hey you guys stop DEBATING what is believable. Its entirely inappropriate in this thread.

What I see in here are two flaws.

One is that people are "scoffing" at Iams for saying that he believes in the truth.

The other is that Iams is scoffing at others for saying there in no truth.

Now we can ALL SEE that you all feel very strongly about your beliefs.

But going back to my original posts, I ask you all to answer this.

Why are you even debating it? What is it about the statements being made that bugs you? You know what I mean? You're slightly annoyed though you all pretend to be above an internet forum getting to you?

Yet quite obviously it does. Revr why post that you are laughing at Iams? Hyper way are you saying "sucks when ....." stuff? Iams why are you rejecting their belief?

Why are you all being a little persnickity? I know why Iams is, because he thinks he's right.

But revr and hyper you two keep saying you don't buy into Western ideologies and yet you are both acting like a bunch of cowboys where someone said "SAM!" and the beer bottle gets smacked on the edge of the bar and the jig is ON!

So let me all ask you this. You all seem to be saying we can't always know what is the RIGHT answer. But can we know what is the "wrong" answer?

Aw come on mum. It's just a little sparring match.


How can you tell I'm annoyed? I really don't feel annoyed.


To be open. I laugh when I read his responses for the exact same reason I laugh when I get smacked in the head with a shinai. Because I'm having a good time.


I think you might be reading way too much into it True.


You better smile when you say that city slicker. Once again reading way to deeply into my actions. Sorry if the horseplay offended you.


Easy. The one that doesn't work for us. Lot's of wrong answers being tossed about.

A case of 'everyone wanting to be the smartest person in the room'? Ego. My answer is more right than yours because, well, I'm smarter than you are. Ego. My belief system is better than yours because it is 'my' belief system. My perception is better than yours because...well...I am smarter than you are.

I think that about sums it up.

That's true but I don't think that's all it is. I think what it might be is along the lines of what I asked about being "wrong"

For example, we all say we believe in the freedom of speech. But we all also (I hope) would agree that a KKK member doesn't have "Freedom of speech" in a Black Sunday School classroom.

Do you know what I mean?

I don't think these arguments are really about who is right, but more about who is wrong. For example hyper, if you don't mind I'm going to use you for a second.

I don't think you operate from ego, I think even though you really think there is a possibility that everyone is "right" you also think some things are wrong.

I see this a lot in what people are saying. Like Shadow's examples with the Crazy Christians, my own with the domineering non believers.

What I see is a lot of hurt floating around where people speak up and say "HEY this is not OK" and maybe in real life we can't always do that so we do it in here.

So if you all don't mind humoring me for a sec, what is WRONG with the way others believe?


And I know someone will say "Nothing is wrong with it.....but....."

Two quick points to close this - Since you are applying rational thought to this, then you should not apply the fallacy that the length that something has been around makes it valid. Remember that models are not as detailed as that which they are made to represent.

Anyway, bat to true's intent for this thread....



Good quetion. The debate on it is just an exploration of ideas. Nothing about the statements bug me.



I only said that because it was rather humorous to me - Iams says his god is beyond human comprehension so at best we can see the shadow of him. This is a limitation of man. I provided the old conumdrum of the uncertianty of what we percieve and thus the uncertianty of what we believe. This is a limitation of man (the same limitation). What is funny is that Iams is fighting against the very concept he holds as a defense of his position on his god.



"wrong" is limited to our data, which is limited by our perceptual capabilities. There are degrees of wrong. The quest is perhaps to be as least wrong as possible.

If we are defining belief as another persons personal belief system concerning God, Deity, Etc...nothing. There is nothing IMO 'wrong' with Christian Belief, Muslim Belief, Wiccan Belief, Satanism Belief, any Belief. If one finds their Truth in a Ham Sandwich and wants to start The First Church of the HamSandwich ...nothing wrong with that. What is WRONG is when we start tearing apart each other's beliefs. I think that is where Ego comes into play.

truethat!

Nothing is wrong with anyone's beliefs unless of course that belief is actively being used to enable harm to be caused to another either physically or emotionally.

But this is not the case between Son and myself (at least in my perspective, Son will have to speak for himself). I don't have to win, there is nothing gained by "winning". This is about understanding where a POV is coming from, getting to know each other through conflict. You might be able to say "it's a guy thing." *shrug*

That's an interesting turn of phrase.

My first impression was two different ideas. First was "WHY?" and the other One was "least" wrong comes across as competitive. So (I don't think this is what you mean) but in a way someone who feels they are as least wrong as possible means they are MORE RIGHT.

When the truth is ..........they are still wrong. They are both wrong.


As someone who is open to "both" being right, take for example you and IamsSon. I truly thing that either of you might be right. But right now, I know you are both wrong. Which is why I can treat you both the same in my mind.

That's what I mean about self deceiving. The truth is that both of you are wrong. Even if you are more right than the other, you still are both WRONG.

This is exactly how I look at things.

the old wise words on this are that there is nothing in the debate to be gained by winning, for in winning all you have done is re-inforce your same hold on a position, but the loser of the debate, he has had the chance to see the weakness of his argument, to perhaps see the error of his data or conclusions. It is the loser that stands to gain the most from the debate.



i meant it as a personal drive, not competative. Being least wrong provides the better likelihood for survival. Imagine yourself a hermit and you went out to collect your dinner. You decided to have mushrooms - some are harmless, some cause mild illness, and some kill. Being least wrong in your assessments of the mushrooms would result in not eating any that would kill you.

When it comes to groups, we find quite often that belonging to the group (holding status) becomes a greater driving force than "right or wrong".


You see why what I posted is such a conundrum.

On top of that, There are things within these holy books that inspire people to hate other people, or to hurt other people. That's one reason people don't like the religions, because there is a message of hate intertwined with the message of peace. Peace for followers of Allah, death to the infidels. Whether this is what a God would really want(Doubtful.), I can't say for sure, but I think that each holy book is tainted by man, even if the original message came from a God. Man has taken God's message and shaped it the way they wanted it to be, instead of the way it should be. And unfortunately, God is silent on the matter, and those who wrote the books are dead now, so all we can do now is interpret. And it hurts us to have religious leaders who embrace everything written in a holy book, because that trickles down onto the followers of the religion, and a message of hate and intolerance takes the place of the message of peace and love.

Good point KD3

Hyper if there is more to be gained by losing the debate then why are you always trying to win it?


I thought of something else. Thanks for all the posts here guys you've really made me figure something out.

The reason I can respect the believer or whatnot is that I think all of the answers that we come up with are most likely wrong wrong wrong.

I think that we are incapable of understanding how we came into existence and everything we've come up with so far is a bunch of nonsense that will eventually be overturned. Including a lot of the science stuff as well.

I think that this is why I think humanity is poignant. As I've posted before, we are adrift alone out here in the universe and whatever we come up with to help ourselves get through it is fine. As long as its not hurting others.

People try to win the debate because that is how the idea is tested. (but sometimes the point of the debate is not the content brouht in, but the new content produced)

That and it's just plain disrespectful to give your opponent any less than everything you have.

Not really. I disagree with this. Part of "winning" a debate is unnerving your opponent. That's why sarcasm and rudeness often comes along with someone trying to WIN a debate.

Take someone like Sunni who usually doesn't try to "win" the debate but rather to contribute to conversation. Well those ideas scootch the debate along in a good way.

But when you post sarcastic things (I'm no angel don't get me wrong!) you really derail the point of the debate doncha think?

I mean if its about gleaning the knowledge how does "Sucks when your God....." fit in to that.

I'm not trying to attack you btw. I am truly curious about the way these things go down. I know when I get pissed off its usually because the other person in the debate makes a statement and doesn't back it up and then doesn't answer my direct question because they want to "win" the debate and if they can't win it each and every post, they won't participate.

Do you know what I mean?

So what I'm curious about is why this is so?

Thanks rev, I tend to agree with most of what your write except one regarding the God of Abraham and other Gods. The ancients way back in the day had many gods and I guess its what god do you want to follow at that time of history as well as now it seems with many people all over the world following their god what they are TOLD who is God and are forced to follow this god or its heresy and the punishment could be banishment or worse. I my self am what some call a spiritualist and I believe there is good and evil in the world. If one runs across an evil person, basically just acknowledge the person in your thoughts and move on. Of course, if the evil person try's to harm you that is another story but good will over come evil so there is no need to fear evil. Manifestation may come into play in many things and if you fear evil and continue to fear evil, then evil will continue to come to you as you manifest it and it becomes reality. You are I believe absolutely right of "if it works for you" is what I believe the mentality should be for all. Follow what you feel is right and you will probably never go wrong. Here is a quote from a respected member of society I learned years ago "If you think it might be wrong, it is wrong" and this has to do with dealing with anything as you live you life. I am not saying I am absolutely right in what I believe but as you stated "It works for me". And about the monks smiling, I really mean you can feel the happiness in most monks, some need to practice more to obtain the knowledge of the spirit of love, the true and most powerful God.

in some sense, in some cases for some people this is true. (their interest is protecting their beliefs only)

for me, the "great debates" on here have not been like that, and key to their success is that we were debating over perhaps 20% of the conclusions, while agreeing on a vast majority (including agreeing that we do not have enough knowledge or data to make strong conclusions).

here is a great way of seeing the these debates from different perspectives - a creationist walks into a room of scientists hotly debating topics on evolution. The creationist errantly takes this as proof that evolution is invalid (if it was valid, why all the disagreement?). the scientists on the other hand all support evolution, but are debating specifics within that framework ("a" led to "b", but one says via path 1, the other via path 2).

So there's someone else out there who thinks it's fun to be hit on the head with a shinai. I am not alone in this world after all

The reason I began to stress logic and rationality is because the only chance at figuring out what is RIGHT. And obviously, anything which is irrational will not lead to truth.

When it comes to all things religious/spiritual I don't honestly see the point in even trying to be right or wrong. Unless someone comes up with a way of proving there's a Creator, or disproving it, or proving there's an afterlife, or disproving it, we're all just muddling along.

Shadow, you do indeed have a way with words. I love reading your posts.

Truethat, this is a very illuminating thread, IMO. Kudos to you for starting this.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree there, but we still dig the same kind of hat so it's not a total loss.

perhaps we should have a thread on rationality? maybe some other day?

not to go off topic but take a look at bounded rationality.

back on topic "why debate the believable?" We should most strenuously debate that which is so easily believable. When something is just "taken for granted" because it is so naturally believable by "the population"(whether it really is or is just perceived as such) is when the we are at most risk of errant concepts taking root (and note this is exactly the same process by which people are conned). "It is amazing how much you can say that is patently false and have people believe it so long as you act like you know what your talking about." (see logical fallacies)

Exactly a look at the theory being presented , I like that testing it out, i do this all the time to great reward.....its incredible the insights that are gained for one and for two contrast this great tool, the more the better i say....

Rev great posts all of them, you don't talk much but when you do wow...

we do not need the social structures we have created, they are tools to be used for our convience not the other way around...

they are tools indeed. To use a tool you need to know its purpose, limits, effectiveness, etc.

Buf if I may ask, if we don't need the social structures we have created, why did we create them?

Doc, that would better be answered by you, I would say to better understand the material, ourselves to decide and define who we are who we will be next.....
i agree one must thoroughly look at the tools they use know them inside and out....

Sheri this is completely off topic. Please don't derail the thread. It's been going along quite nicely.

I wonder why people can't take this attitude when it comes to beliefs. Ok you believe in God and God exists for you, just like that Ghost. But God doesn't exist for me. I don't believe.

On the other hand the atheists and Deists and Agnostics will try to disprove the God that people believe in. Why is that? Why does it bother you that people believe what they believe?

isn't this your original question asking why the NB has the perspective they do and how that has came to be... i am contributing saying IMO POV we do not even need the systems we have created, they are tools really bringing in a n element a layer one may not of considered........ it was going with the flow IMO.... just to clarify..

We are all just muddling along...I think that's a great way to put it SH! One can look at a tree and say..There is a tree. Some will still disagree with you but you can actually Prove that the tree is there. In matters of Religion which are unprovable...we seek to understand what we can...everyone seeking there own way...everyone 'muddling' along. Why mess with someone else's muddling?

the answer - for some, sometimes feeling they are right is not enough for them (thinking showing you wrong strengthens that they are right). Some also feel the need to show you are wrong - see ego - its not about what is right, it is about being right. [bold](based on the premise that there is only one correct answer, of course)[/bold].

I agree with you. The My Light is the best Light because it's MY Light syndrome.