quote:

I am talking
about the Chinese journalist who was locked in a coffin size cell for 17 years and
lost his mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saraheli

are you suggesting DD isn't very highly evolved?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolfie648

I tend to be consise and pithy.

D(owner of j)

quote:

Hey. Is that a sword in your pants or just what happens when you read my posts?

quote:

I have no standing to dispute your tendentious claim.

quote:

 Tendencies by their nature admit of exceptions, as we all know.

quote:

But as to the current case:

quote:

I tend to be consise and pithy.

Since "pithy" implies "concise," to predicate them both of the same object is redundant (and superfluous; maybe even pleonastic.) Redundancy is seldom seen as the soul of pithyness (though it might sometimes appear in the extremities.)

But then again maybe I've taken you wrong from the start, Wolfie.

Maybe you have a lithp?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Homestead

In fantasies one has control. In reality, we have the unsettling lack of total control.

In fact, reality often points to our fantasies being foolish and unworkable.

So it is hardly surprising that fantasy has been gloried at the expense of it's dreary mundane counterpart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saraheli
are you suggesting DD isn't very highly evolved?

I thnk everything is highly evolved.  What is "DD"?  If I were given the creative power
to create Hell, I don't think I could create a world as evil as this one.  It's not the
average person's life is so bad, and the average life on Earth is pretty bad.  But
I don't think any of us can imagine the horror that exists in this world.  I am talking
about the Chinese journalist who was locked in a coffin size cell for 17 years and
lost his mind. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

So you're extra submissive to the dead white male philosophical types? Cause I mean that cranial gun fantasy is pretty edgey.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Has anyone else heard of that Matrix-like theory of reality, where the people and places, all the "reality" in your life -  is really a constuct of your own imagination, and that the people in your life, well - they might have people in their life, and also places, that you don't even know about, even if you know them really well, for example, simply because your respective universes don't intersect like you think they do?

The theory goes that... someone else (anyone else) may well perceive what they experience in a completely different way than you do, and also (here is the freaky part) - some things they perceive might just be completely absent from your world  - even if you are both standing, for example, in the same place at the same time - they just might not see what you see - literally, there could be objects and people in the room they'd see that you might not perceive at all  - because in their (or your) world, these things are simply absent (or present, as the case may be).

So -you may think you know their world, and who and what it consists of, but, so the theroy goes - nobody else really does know this about anyone else's world - because everything in everyone's world is really a figment of their imaginations, and it only seems real...it was really interesting to read about this theory.

It's like people are walking around as characters in their own stories, and nobody else knows if they are a main character in someone else's story, or just a cameo part, despite all apparent evidence that might make it seem determinate as either one. It has to do with perception of reality and how it's all relative for individual people. This article made it seem plausible that it can't be proved this isn't the case, so it could be true. 

I was reading about this theory in Scientific American. I wish I could explain it better, and too much thinking about it could probably drive someone insane, he - but that's the gist of the theory anyway. This theory has a name, and it was a physical theroetical theory, not a psychological theory. I forget the name of it just now. But - it sounded to me to be as plausible as anything else I've heard that seems like it might be true.

- Susan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kedicat
And also...If it feels good. Do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

quote:

ORIGINAL: amayos

...

As for images of fruit or silken nudes, I find them fleetingly pleasant to look at, but banal intellectually once past admiring the technique of the artist's work. Similarly, I can find the trappings of stage play, or the elaborate motif of a world woven to offer the semblance of an experience quite impressive from a technical perspective, but draw away from it spiritually and emotionally untouched.

Thanks for posting, amayos.

I find nothing to take issue with in your post but the part above leaves me wondering about something.

I take you to say that the experience of visual art, theiter and literature (one kind of "... world woven to offer the semblance of an experience") leaves you spiritually and emotionally untouched. Don't imagine for a minute that I'm disputing this or calling it into question. I'm not. I take you at your word as I understand it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah


I guess I'm just not clear on what people mean to say when they talk about things like this: in her reality it is X but it is really Y.

I think we can agree that the bag is a "real" object in a sense (almost) no one will have trouble with. That it is an imitation of a Gucci (not a real Gucci.) That it is a "real" imitation and not a Gucci modified to fool us into thinking it is an unauthorized copy.

I agree that the bag is a sort of imposter and that the person carrying it is mistaken about that fact. I just don't see how getting into talk about "personal realities" and the natures of this or that personal reality is helpful. The same stuff can be laid out to see with some plain familiar words without bringing in this "personal reality" idea which seems highly metaphysical to me.

The bag is real in the sense of being a tangible object available for anyone to touch who comes near it. The bag is a copy of a Gucci rather than a Gucci-authorized product. The owner is mistaken about where it came from. I think this says most of the things that the "personal reality" talk wants to say but without troublesome terms like "personal reality." Am I wrong in this case?

Well, Ok.....Maybe personal "belief" works better for you.  But in my mind, what a person thinks or believes to be true, becomes their truth...even if they're wrong.  Yeah, I think saying personal belief is less confusing...cuz I kinda gotta stick to my idea about only one truth existing.


I'm not criticising anyone by the way. And for fuck's sake I'm not in particular criticising anyone's intellect.
 
I know that.

I guess I want to ask if whatever was meant by the "personal reality" talk (yours, Marie, and elsewhere in the thread) was gotten across by my attempt at a non-metaphysical, plain language account or if I've missed something there which someone would like me to see.

I think maybe some of the posters (including myself) lost your point along the way and forgot the title of the thread.  Something you said apparently caused a few to go on a slightly spiritual train of thought.   For myself, your OP was a confusing read.

quote:

 Truth vs Belief.

Person A says, "I did not lie to you"  and person B says "I think you're fulla shit".  Person A may be able to change person B's belief.  But theres still only one truth. Person A either told a lie or he didnt, regardless of what Person B believes to be fact.    

In my experience life is more complex than this. If I ask a friend a question he may take it to be focused upon the adjective rather than the verb, so to speak.

Oh, hell yeah. I agree.  This was just an example of me trying to come up with an example of one particular thing to make a point.  Let me expand on the above thought a little bit....Person A says, "Im being sincere.  I really want to know what you think about this" and Person B says "Bullshit, I think you are trying to make a fool out of me"..  In a case such as this, really, Person A was either genuinely being sincere, and is telling the truth about it,  or he wasnt being sincere and is lying to Person B..  If he was telling the truth, then its all good, but if he wasnt, but says he was, then its a lie.  That, to me, couldnt be more b and w.  This isnt a mini metaphor of life itself for me.  Its just an example of me trying to make the point:  a lie is a lie is a lie.  Im not saying that all lies are equal.  But all lies, are...well...lies.

If I say, "I heard you hurried down to the liqour store rigtht after you heard that you were getting fired. Is that true?" He may think I'm challenging a claim he made previously that he is still a sober alcoholic. He may say: "That's bullshit, man." Meaning that he is still indeed sober. But maybe I was actually really impressed that in a time of stress he had remembered his promise to pick up a bottle of wine for me, as a favor.

This to me would be classified as a misunderstanding.  I dont see dishonesty or a lie here

Let's say he was so upset by his news that he forgot all about his promise. I sure wouldn't mind. But the question I asked as a sort of prelude to a compliment was taken instead as a sort of insult or challenge or something. No one attempted to do anything but communicate clearly but a small mess might ensue until we untangle it. I think it is an untangling of a bunch of truths. The truth that he is sober. The truth that I never meant to challenge him on that. The truth that he mistook my question. The truth that my question could and probably should have been put a whole different way if only I had been more sensitive, etc.

Well anywhere you look there can be a 'bunch of truths'.  The sky is blue, my ass is big, that guy is bald, etc etc.  But the "truth" when we are talking about how someone meant something is still kind of absolute in my  world.  Like...you either meant it the way the guy is taking it, or you didnt.  (It has to do with intent.)  Regardless of how its interpreted or misinterpreted.

Sure there is one truth about what frequencies of sound came out of my mouth and his. But given background noise and bad dentures and how much attention is being paid there might be an "opposing" truth about what the words sounded like, what inflection was intended, etc. At the end of the day the issues that matter seem to importantly include those bare facts about what sounds were uttered and what sounds were percieved but mere knowledge of that particular "truth" doesn't move us vary far toward understanding.

Yeah, I agree, but I wouldnt call this 'truth'.  I would refer to this as personal interpretations.  I think Im repeating myself.  And maybe Im missing your point as I do sometimes. I dont know.

This example is contrived but I don't think it is far-fetched. People mis-understand one another all the time and sometimes over-invest in the mistaken idea, and avoidable heartache results. It seems to me that acknowledging that there can be between people multiple, relevant and opposing truths is a crucial step toward peace in the valley.

 I agree with the first part of this completely,  but then you lose me when you say there are opposing truths.  I think there can be opposing interpretations, which still only reach the level of evolving into 'beliefs', but not truths.  Truth is simply truth.  Its either an authentic Gucci or its not.  Its either an edible apple or its wax.   Maybe I need an example to get me past this, but Im not catching on to there being more than one truth in existance.  Either you lied or you didnt.  Either you meant that comment how your buddy took it,  or you didnt.  Either you care about Joe Blow or you dont.  Either you ate that apple or you didnt.  I dont know.  Help me if Im missing something here.
 
I'm also real big on denying bullshit claims of multiple truths when the matter really does come down to one thing but someone is busy promoting another agenda. It definitely cuts both ways and I see lots of value in your view, Marie, in terms of that other important way of cutting.



Now of course your further comments, quoted below, show that you take this sort of thing into account in some sorts of cases. What I'm suggesting is that the sort of interpretation you give below can sometimes be applied to a case like the one above. It might not be fair to say that a person "either lied or he didn't." There might be more to the story that such a black and white claim can't catch.

Again, this would be in reference to an understanding or an interpretation.  Sure, not everyone is lying when something is simply taken in a way that it wasnt meant.

She might have made a mistake, said "Ellen" when she was picturing and meaning to say the name of someone named "Helen", or "Beula" for that matter. She might honestly be relying on faulty information.

No lie there.  Someone simply heard wrong, or someone used the wrong name.

In certain contexts, mistakes, jokes, and even very plain and simple statements intended other than you may imagine can be arbitrarily called lies.

Anything can be called anything.  It doesnt make it fact.  Sure someone can call something a lie, but calling it so, doesnt make it so. 
 
 

(in reply to Noah)