Koyaanisqatsi

I was confused because your question was unclear (i.e., vague). "Sold" in what regard? Colloquially; literally; metaphorically; based on evidence?

What do you mean by "product?"

My confusion was in response to the vague nature of your question.

Yes, it is a problem, if I don't see a point to your questions, don't you agree? I'm not in the habit of answering pointless questions (all evidence to the contrary )

Yes, that's true, which is why I responded by telling you that I didn't see a point to your questions and asked you a qualifying question, hoping that you would then provide a point to them in this, your next post; to whit:

Ok. Then what are you trying to argue? If you're just going to ask me pointless, vague questions, I should warn you again, I'm not in the habit of answering them. If, however, there is a point to them, then please skip ahead to the point so we can discuss it.

Maybe the moon is hollow. Maybe trees scream when you cut them. Maybe coffee is an evil, Brazillian borne conspiracy.

Maybe when people post vaguaries, further clarification is warranted.

I posted a "confused" smiley in regard to the vagueness of your question: "Isn't every idea and every concept just a product, waiting to be sold?"

I then answered it with, "No," meaning, that every idea and every concept is not "just a product, waiting to be sold." To which you humbly disagreed.

See how pointless this interchange has been so far? I don't mean that as any kind of insult; I mean it literally. If you are arguing that "every idea and every concept is just a product, waiting to be sold," then you should clarify what you mean by this, yes? That's what is meant by applying the most basic critical analysis in order to determine what is "true" about such a claim.

As to asking you what you mean, that, too would be an example of applying the most basic critical analysis.

You mean, wouldn't it be smarter to apply the most basic critical analysis in order to determine what is "true" about such a claim? Yes, I agree as I already posted.

Are you familiar with the fallacy of the complex question? You should read up on it, if not, since this is a good example of one.

You should also re-read what I posted: All one need do is apply even the most basic of critical analysis to the claim. It is to the claim that critical analysis is to be applied in order to determine the truth state of the claim, not whether or not people think they are "correct in what they say."

See the qualitative difference?

Is it?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

One would certainly think so, wouldn't one?

Yes, I did:

See? Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "telling the truth." Maybe that's what caused the initial confusion? Replace "telling the truth" with, "speaking the Truth" (with a capital "T"), meaning that the claim is, in fact, "true." My mistake that I thought was clarified by my following sentence.

You are wrong.

Consider yourself (and myself) corrected.

Devilnaut

I am sorry Koy but I am not here to fight.

Koyaanisqatsi

Neither am I. In fact, I thought I went to great lengths to explain what it was about your response that confused me and what might have led to the confusion from my end.

Devilnaut

Fair enough Koy, my apologies.


My point I guess is that you really can't tell anybody anything that they don't already know or have experienced for themselves in some way. Using JUST consciousness (which has literally no connection to reality, only a correspondance, our true connection to reality is our feelings, sensations and inspirations which our conscious world makes symbols for and proceeds to manipulate them) we can never really arrive at anything new. Without some kind of "anti-symbol" symbols in our conscious world it is sometimes difficult for us to even see that this is the case.

In my opinion God is supposed to represent the ultimate anti-symbol. He is not definable because that's the whole point. He is "mysterious". Any attempt to attach characteristics to him is supposed to be folly... right? The point is that he is the "perfect" anti-symbol and people who say they serve him, mean that they are trying to remember that men's conscious thoughts and ideals and numbers and symbols are not really real; they're only representations of something that (may be) real.

You might notice how well all of us got along (well some of us) when we were little kids and how happy we were to discover new things. Nowadays (for most of us) new information is not always such a treat. As kids we got along really well because we felt we had so much in common, I think. Well, to be clear, we certainly didn't think we had much in common, because we probably didn't think about it very much at all. The more symbols and ideas that get placed in our heads, the less we begin to see ourselves in others (and therefore identify with them). You might think that an idea like "the sky is blue" or "the earth is round" is a darn straightforward idea that everybody should have in their head. But ideas are not reality and the perception that the sky is blue is not the same as me saying that it is blue. There is always an error margin involved and once you get to the outer layers of ideas (politics anyone?) it is very easy to get lost in that jungle. And what are we to do if we get lost and have no big dumb beacon shining us in the right direction?

Anyway part of the point here is that everybody really is correct in what they say because people say things for a reason. You might not agree with what they say but really that's just a problem with your perception. I understand that if someone says "hey that car is red" while to you it is clearly blue, they most certainly are wrong in the clearest way possible, to you. But outside the world of ideas (some people like to call it the realm of "supernatural"), if we can approach things from that angle, we can see that everything does happen for a reason and whatever made that guy say the car was red did indeed occur, and it doesn't really make sense to call it "false".

All I really mean is that people can miss a lot, especially metaphors and imagery and such, when they have specific expectations placed on their imput. Metaphors are great because they remind us that our images are not really real and that's why I think they're beautiful. But I digress!

scumble

How is this relevant to the thread though?

sophie

Feature this ;


What was lost was the reliance on omniGOD as sole provider and having to experience no pain and suffering. What it seems to me is, Original Sin which is handed down from generation to generation is human pain and human suffering as a result of having to give and take from each other.