Koyaanisqatsi

That's quite a strange methodology, John.

You state on the "home" page your philosophy (Reconciliationism):

And then in your methodology:

My first question would be, if you don't control your own mind, then how is it possible to "throw" it "into the wind?"

My second question--observation, actually--would be that you repeatedly refer to your "mind" in the third person, as if it were separate from you (aka, as if you were separate from you). Pardon the pun, but how do you reconcile that?

And third, your third tenet contradicts your overall philosophy:

How is this reconciled with the overall philosophy that "there is an explanation for everything" and another tenet, "the strongest beliefs are those that survive rigorous examination for consistency against our combined body of knowledge."

Interesting, I grant you, but ultimately contradictory, like saying the only way to measure the black of a white horse is to accept that you just can't see the black.

Koyaanisqatsi

"Believe?" No. WJ provides a concrete example .

And in mine, Walrus simply cowers away from ever stating a coherent position because he knows there is no way for him to support that position, so instead he tosses up linguistic shrapnel in the hopes he can fend off the inevitable divulsion that he has nothing to say.

You say tomato, I say tomato, and WJ says pointless gibberish in order to keep "mystic thinking" plates spinning in the pathetic circus of his christian cult controlled mind.

Agreed. Addressing WJ is like drowning a puppy. You know you can, but should you, since the only result will be a dead, wet puppy?

WJ

Mmmm, now both of you appear to know exactly the nature of reality! Ohh great masters, please share your infinite wisdom with the rest of us!

Otherwise, what does it mean to hold a belief

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

See, John?

Pointless drivel so that it appears he's posting something relevant, when in fact, nothing.

Not a goddamned thing.

Oh well.

Anyway, I'd be interested in your take on what I posted regarding your philosophy.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

WJ

Koy!

You're only making it worse by avoiding the question. Whenever you're ready , please enlighten us on your 'reality' and 'beliefs' about it?

Don't be afraid, it won't bite you.

Walrus

John Page

Koy:

Thanks, here's my attempt to clarify what I mean.

I don't completely control my own mind but I think I have conscious control of some of its faculties and (I hope) the ability to examine critically some of my thoughts. So, metaphorically throwing my mind to the wind is a personal description of abandoding my ingrained beliefs (or trying to anyway). In turn, I hope this enables me to more freely form new/replacement beliefs that more accurately accord with reality.

Very subjective, I know, but that's what it feels like I'm doing.

I'm trying to be objective by observing myself, wondering why I'm thinking what I'm thinking. Consider that the mind is made of many parts and I do believe it is possible to be self-critical. It is likely that the faculty of the imagination helps with this - it seems as though we have some inbuilt mental "mirror".

Arguably the conscious "I" exists as a localized (and maybe illusory) phenomenon of the mind/brain but it facilitates somewhat objective reflections on the mind in general. Consider that if I can consciously reflect on someone else's mind I can reflect on my own.

On the other hand, maybe I have a psychological defect (any shrinks out there care to comment?)

The third tenet is about acceptance of our own limitations and, weighed against the other quotes harks back to stuff previously in this thread refering to absolute truth and objectivity. The last tenet you quote above is along the same lines.

As for "there is an explanation for everything" I cannot prove this statement true - I don't know everything as per the third tenet. However, I can observe that all that I know is caused, indeed it must be for me to come to know it. Perhaps I should modify to "there is an explanation for everything we perceive", this would make for less of a contradiction.

Since authoring that web site I have developed a precise formal system called "Ontologic" to better quantify some of the vagueness evident in the web site with regard to reconciliationism's epistomology and ontology. Given previous postings you may be comforted to know that the system employs no synthetic a priori assumptions, only direct experience. It's not very long and I'll send you a copy if you wish.

Thanks again for taking the trouble to review.

Cheers, John

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

jenn

John took the words right out of my mouth..I second what he said!!! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />