User Tag List

First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 68

  1. #51
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    Maybe you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Instead of "God is love and light," think "Light and love are God." Then inductively work your way up to understanding what God really is...
    To work inductively is to build supposition; living by supposition means to fix your life to an ever changing lens of fashionable shadings. Life is pretty rosy when just viewed with the naked eye, I have no wish to dress it with some manic ideological occupation. Of course supposition can be a useful tool in the scenario when one is forced to make a guess; but if you live your life intelligently enough this need seldom requires one to maintain large vocabularies of invented words which hinge on other words, whose meanings are not fully understood by those using the secondary terms.
    This is the problem with scientific language, because the words are fixed to readings of certain measurements;- but measurements are not necessarily facts, and they can never shown to be, because if their subject's extant were fully understood, there would be no reason for it to be measured in the pursuit of any qualitative [intellectual] purpose.

    In short; data =/= fact.

    Faith is better appraised by the heart of understanding
    and reasoning is better served by deduction.

    What is the way of induction?
    There is no good faith! Lets just follow along with whatever instruments we manage to concoct; as we continuously propound jargon in support of yet a greater reading of something even more subtle and imperceptible: something so subtle in fact- it can never be understood! Which is why we have computers to model it all for us; who knows what the f**k is really going on- but if you want some idea, its got something to do with these super strings [or I'm not quite sure what the latest fad is according to those math geeks]...
    Last edited by Zangetshumody; 02-24-2014 at 06:31 PM. Reason: f**k: added the stars
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    An a priori is arbitary. Anything can be an a priori whether it is the Trinity or a teapot in orbit around Mars. And choosing the right a priori and applying deductive logic, we can prove almost anything.

    So arguing from a priori with deductive logic is ruse of propaganda. It can be plausible and prove almost anything, and so prove almost nothing.

    So rather than arguing from a priori with deductive logic, try arguing from evidence using inductive logic.
    a priori, is open for inspection, and requires real integrity; because it is the heart of understanding which holds it, and offers it.
    This keeps it simple, pure and clean.
    And when people operate under this modus, if they are making a mistake, a better understanding can take its place a lot faster:
    because the heart of understanding is putting itself out there, and is therefore on trial.

    When you are not operating under the force of a heart of understanding; you will just be a force of vanity (perhaps not even your own)
    but you are operating from a place of not understanding. Sure you might believe you understand something (some more important consideration which forces you to meld and work in the darkness of dealing with things that are not understood). But playing with fire in the fashion is just folly. You cannot conquer not understanding with a compromise of not understanding.
    Induction is the compromise of choosing to experiment in ignorance, presuming we already know nothing that we don't have an instrument to measure for us.
    The heart of understanding is the only true instrument that can tell us about the universe, yes it can't do things alone, experience can inform it with the energy to be able to express and explain an understanding; and what can science do? Does it truly even have the same hope? Is it capable of saying something profound about psychology that will go unchallenged after 50 years, or will the profundity wear off and that discovery just be relegated to some archaic annul, some footnote in history to the never ending quest to measure and describe, but never understand or explain?


    my test of profundity includes:
    something that is regarded as true.
    something that is acted on, yielding good fruit according to the reasonable man.
    Last edited by Zangetshumody; 02-24-2014 at 06:58 PM. Reason: added "my test..."
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    a priori, is open for inspection, and requires real integrity; because it is the heart of understanding which holds it, and offers it.
    This keeps it simple, pure and clean.
    And when people operate under this modus, if they are making a mistake, a better understanding can take its place a lot faster:
    because the heart of understanding is putting itself out there, and is therefore on trial.
    No intuitive truth is so true that all people believe and know it to be true. All things can be questioned.
    Therefore, the statement that the a priori truth cannot necessarily be proven is the a priori.
    Within this statement, conditional subjective statements that are true or false depending on the situation can still exist, because the application of this truth establishes possibility, an empty "vacuum" if you will.

    When applying this a priori, your assertion of what the a priori really is may be as true or false as my interpretation, because possibility is the only truth.
    However, when speaking solely of the self and the self's truth, this truth is true no matter what is true of the outside world.
    But if you are the only one who is proven to be correct, how can you communicate this truth to people in the outside, who operate under different truths than you?
    When speaking of "others" on the outside, how can your a priori be greater if you are speaking of people who may, under the ultimate a priori of possibility, exist under different truths than yours?
    Your truths must be explained in a way that corresponds with how they understand theirs.

  4. #54
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    No intuitive truth is so true that all people believe and know it to be true. All things can be questioned.
    Therefore, the statement that the a priori truth cannot necessarily be proven is the a priori.
    .
    I'm not going to read further than those lines because the rest presumably follows the semantic of these first two lines, which I do not understand.

    To help me understand, can please help me overcome the following concerns:

    First point:
    All things can be questioned, doesn't mean that the question is righteous (in terms of reason, this mean's that the question is not itself a result of internal confusion that is just being labored under by the questioner).

    Ergo, although a question can be asked, the basis of the question can be examined and uncovered to be specious; although this is only possible if the interlocutor is open enough to explain his position, so that the particular ordering of the individual's a priori is shown (this doesn't need to be explicitly done through express treatise, merely offering grounding based on certainties--- for if someone is not willing to share what he is being certain about, he is in fact just being certain of the fact that s/he is wasting your time building some tower of babel).

    Second point:
    A priori cannot be proven through experience, that does not mean it cannot be proven; it just means you cannot compel someone to expressly accept it as being proven;- and this truth is sadly inescapable, because people can knowingly speak a lie even though it offends their own sense of truth- you might even hear it in their voice that they know they don't believe their own words that they are speaking: and what can one do about it? The answer is nothing. This doesn't make a priori unprovable, it just makes truth exclusive: so whose gospel are you prepared to swallow? The neuro-scientists? the anthropologists? which school of pyschology? Some people's gospel is even post-modernism (poor souls).

    As a side note:
    I would be afraid of any gospel that starts off as: We deny something exists, so we are seeking refuge under this >>>fancy object of intellectual idolization<<<.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    I'm not going to read further than those lines because the rest presumably follows the semantic of these first two lines, which I do not understand.

    To help me understand, can please help me overcome the following concerns:

    First point:
    All things can be questioned, doesn't mean that the question is righteous (in terms of reason, this mean's that the question is not itself a result of internal confusion that is just being labored under by the questioner).

    Ergo, although a question can be asked, the basis of the question can be examined and uncovered to be specious; although this is only possible if the interlocutor is open enough to explain his position, so that the particular ordering of the individual's a priori is shown (this doesn't need to be explicitly done through express treatise, merely offering grounding based on certainties--- for if someone is not willing to share what he is being certain about, he is in fact just being certain of the fact that s/he is wasting your time building some tower of babel).

    Second point:
    A priori cannot be proven through experience, that does not mean it cannot be proven; it just means you cannot compel someone to expressly accept it as being proven;- and this truth is sadly inescapable, because people can knowingly speak a lie even though it offends their own sense of truth- you might even hear it in their voice that they know they don't believe their own words that they are speaking: and what can one do about it? The answer is nothing. This doesn't make a priori unprovable, it just makes truth exclusive: so whose gospel are you prepared to swallow? The neuro-scientists? the anthropologists? which school of pyschology? Some people's gospel is even post-modernism (poor souls).

    As a side note:
    I would be afraid of any gospel that starts off as: We deny something exists, so we are seeking refuge under this >>>fancy object of intellectual idolization<<<.
    If you will fully give yourself to an a priori, all other information, even if significant to disprove the priori, can be denied, because if the priori is true, it's true, period.
    Even if it is true, the outside can be denied, perhaps as an illusion or fabrication.

    The point being, if you accept any priori, you take the internal point of view.
    If you seek external objective data to disprove the priori, no prioris exist.
    There is no "information" in the environment because information is just a construct of our subjective perception, no matter how "objective" the environs may be.

    Your priori may be true to you, however if you can't explain it in a way provable or understandable outside your own understanding of the truth you can't expect anyone else to be able to swallow it.

  6. #56
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    Your truths must be explained in a way that corresponds with how they understand theirs.
    Having read your whole post now; let me add the following---

    I'm not so sure I see the need to labor under considerations of possibility;- from what I understand about physics, the basic nature of the universe is probabilistic while mere possibility is not extant (which means it could be said to just exists as some mental construct, much like mathematics).

    And now to deal with your last sentence: I do not believe anything "must" be explained... what will be explained will be explained.
    I think everything I believe in can be explained, but often people with a certain philosophical or intellectual disposition will not invest the time toward having their own system of thought challenged, which can often only be proven to someone with more energetic exchange than mere forum postings: for these people we can only hope that the Scientologists will come up with a good enough movie for them to watch (to start feeding the worm of doubt enough that they are impelled to sacrifice their old ego's for truth).
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    If you will fully give yourself to an a priori, all other information, even if significant to disprove the priori, can be denied, because if the priori is true, it's true, period.
    Even if it is true, the outside can be denied, perhaps as an illusion or fabrication.

    The point being, if you accept any priori, you take the internal point of view.
    If you seek external objective data to disprove the priori, no prioris exist.
    There is no "information" in the environment because information is just a construct of our subjective perception, no matter how "objective" the environs may be.

    Your priori may be true to you, however if you can't explain it in a way provable or understandable outside your own understanding of the truth you can't expect anyone else to be able to swallow it.
    External objective data isn't capable of proving or disproving a priori.

    I will try find a the youtube video of a professor explaining Plato's divided line as assessed by Jung for you;

    In it he explained the difference between opinion and belief (which deals with things in the natural world); and the realm of the intellect (or that of the intelligible).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odK4hnGIRMM


    ----------------A second crack at your comments:
    I think you might be attaching a bit of the wrong weight to certain terms:
    information is not fact. It's based on a perspective, which is based on a particular foundation. The FBI I'm sure get information all the time; whether its reliable or not it pretty much always a question worth asking!

    So what are the factors that determine the reliability of information?
    I could answer in one general rule: how closely that information corresponds to the truth.
    which in this world (because it is fallen) is subject to the follow up question of: truth according to who?
    which is why I brought up the point: which Gospel are you prepared to swallow (or which have you swallowed already?)

    I believe it is healthy to be open about such things.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Let me rephrase. It does not have to "correspond" with their ways of understanding, however if you want to explain it to people who, to you, exist only in experience as far as you can tell, then your points must be put into the context of experience.

    When understanding your prioris yourself, experience is not necessary. But your information of others' existence comes from experience, so to explain your prioris to them you must put it in the context of experience.


    That was worded wrong. Their beliefs are irrelevant.

  9. #59
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    Let me rephrase. It does not have to "correspond" with their ways of understanding, however if you want to explain it to people who, to you, exist only in experience as far as you can tell, then your points must be put into the context of experience.

    When understanding your prioris yourself, experience is not necessary. But your information of others' existence comes from experience, so to explain your prioris to them you must put it in the context of experience.


    That was worded wrong. Their beliefs are irrelevant.
    Other people's a priori can never be believed IN (only your own can be believed in). The evidence of the a priori of another as manifest by their actions (deeds) in reality can be believed ON (and seen as reflective of your own).

    As to the specifics of explanation: I can explain something to you through language, I can word the a priori plainly: and you can show you apriori through illustration (through someone's words or actions (my own even)). In this way, a priori doesn't have to be put into the context of experience, although after there is express agreement over the contextual illustration of the a priori there is proof of a shared belief on another person. This type of proof is often not constructive in the long term: because experience will often only preserve the a priori while illustrations don't weather the passage of time so well---

    that is to say: certain things that are done righteously will not always seem so, unless the full context is fully appraised (i.e. cultural practices of various people's (or particular persons), social climate and habits specific to kinds of groupings (or particular persons)--- awareness of certain historical tendencies (which play a big role in certain political decisions)). I'm not prepared to discuss or defend certain historical events in the bible (because I have not studied the morality of these events)- but certain stories can often sound horrendous when you only hear the blunt recounting of the bare facts (without the context of the all the factors that explain the decisions of the side your reviewing: I do believe Jehova's Witnessnes are quite useful in exploring such topics).

    To restate my last point more plainly:

    when you turn a priori into what it "seems" like. That idol you have manifested should not be lived under, it must only be lived ON. stand on it and let it hold you in a higher place; but don't live underneath it tending to its support; for: as all illustrations, it is of the world: and laboring for it, will diminish your true spirit (which will only be burdened by strict adherence that is not coupled with the understanding of your a priori [because this unchanging understanding might be forced to endorse action that doesn't correspond to the illustration that one formed at some prior point]).

    In this way, illustration of an a priori is just a platform, a structure that can be useful with regard to social order and regulation- I don't know about where you live, but in my system there is very little strict liability (except with the law regarding certain professional duties). My point is that, there is no fixed wrong or right. Descriptions of actions cannot themselves amount to a wrong, or equate to lawfulness: the other side will always need to be heard.

    All these points I have raised and stated, I see clearly in scripture, I wonder if you can discern them the same as I can:
    1Jn 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
    1Jn 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
    1Jn 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
    Last edited by Zangetshumody; 03-01-2014 at 05:36 PM. Reason: added the: (or particular persons) so that what I wrote also applies to individual peoples lives more obviously
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zangetshumody View Post
    External objective data isn't capable of proving or disproving a priori.

    I will try find a the youtube video of a professor explaining Plato's divided line as assessed by Jung for you;

    In it he explained the difference between opinion and belief (which deals with things in the natural world); and the realm of the intellect (or that of the intelligible).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odK4hnGIRMM


    ----------------A second crack at your comments:
    I think you might be attaching a bit of the wrong weight to certain terms:
    information is not fact. It's based on a perspective, which is based on a particular foundation. The FBI I'm sure get information all the time; whether its reliable or not it pretty much always a question worth asking!

    So what are the factors that determine the reliability of information?
    I could answer in one general rule: how closely that information corresponds to the truth.
    which in this world (because it is fallen) is subject to the follow up question of: truth according to who?
    which is why I brought up the point: which Gospel are you prepared to swallow (or which have you swallowed already?)

    I believe it is healthy to be open about such things.
    Perhaps, but it would stand to reason then that an unproven priori would be even less reliable than unproven information.

    Working on an unproven priori is like working on an assumption, an internalized assumption with greater complexity than information around us.

    If a priori turns out to be false, it is a complex set of beliefs that pertains to oneself and not the environment, making it hard to analyze exactly what went wrong.

    Though information is not fact, it is easier to connect to the environment than internalized prioris. Information may be false, but there is a greater likelihood that people will understand how certain information, however false, was extracted from the environment.

    More diverse facts, while taking the changing environments into account, give more opportunity for understanding how to get truer information from the environment more effectively.

Similar Threads

  1. What is the best thing someone ever said to you?
    By fidelia in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-14-2016, 01:03 AM
  2. [INFP] What is the best way to tell an INFP you love them?
    By demaugustus in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 05-05-2016, 03:20 PM
  3. What is the best part of an Oreo cookie?
    By The Ü™ in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-14-2014, 11:22 AM
  4. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  5. What is the best country to live in?
    By JAVO in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 05:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO