Cognitive Dissonant Oxymoron: "Dictatorship of Relativi

I can't HEAR you!

Lots of people.

Minnesota Hot Dish must be really famous if they're learning the lingo in Australia.

You bet.

That's different.

Well, I'm both genuinely curious and laying a trap. Given the nature of the conversation, there's very real possibility that I have misunderstood a few things, or that the people whose position I'm critiquing have. The only way to figure it out seemed to be some direct questions to you about language and how you use it. So the trap may have been for myself, depending how things worked out. Don't worry, I'm not being dishonest, I believe in the reliability of words.

admittedly

Are you certain that a person's discussion of reality and his perception of it are the same thing? If Tom insists on promoting a vision of truth that has internal consistency (ex. logic) does that necessarily mean that his objective apprehension of reality is of a logical, rational system?

There is, in the history of the study of religion, a fairly well known discussion between Rudolph Otto and Ninian Smart on what was called the unitive core of mystical experience:

To paraphrase this discussion, Otto puts forward the idea that all mystical experiences involve the rupture of mundane experience, the revelation of 'Ultimate Reality', which is the same for everybody, but that human's perceive this reality in terms of their own traditions, cloaking the absolute in the language of their religion, thus Krisna never appears to Native Americans, the Virgin Mother never manifests herself for the Dalai Lama. Otto's position is that reality is One, but that human perception relies on socialization, on the constructions the experiencer brings to the table.

Smart's response to this idea is to reject the characterization of reality as singular, given the distance imposed by the multiple acts of interpretation. In his view, we are in no position to judge the reality of the experience, but only the reality of the claim. He accepts that the experiencer's perception relies on their existing paradigm, and recognises the same limitation on the scholars trying to interpret the mystic's expereince. For him, that's too many steps away from the experience itself to make any claims about its nature.

Now, if Ninian Smart is correct, the implication is that the discussion of the 'true' nature of mystical experience is outside the pale of academic discourse (and those of charitable nature could include usenet discussions like these within that rubric). I brought this up for two reasons:

#1 If someone is a scientist, relying on logical formulations of empirical method to ascertain the nature of reality, it suggests that they will perceive reality logically. In other words, for them, both the constructions of language and the experience of 'Ultimate Reality' are seen as internally consistent (ie. logical) phenomena despite being separate.

If this is true, how could you be sure that Tom's use of logic is deceptive or inappropriate given the nature of the experiences he may have had?

#2 Without access to the Truth, what basis is there for judging the claims people make apart from logic? apart from the application of the rules of consistency and truth your traditions and previous experiences has supplied for you? It is not as though a rationalist worldview is the only one to use logic, every worldview has its own logic, whether formalized or not.

formulate an

qualified/refuted as

personal self

I agree.

language-set

Are you being serious about this? or do you mean 'trying to be fair'... There's a world of difference between attempting to recognize and compensate for your biases, and believing that you have no biases at all. Typically, people don't consider bias something that can be detached from (since your bias prevents you from knowing if you are successful.) There's an epistemological problem there.

discipline

preferences

them... or

reflections for

Well to be honest, Tom has every right to answer questions asked about him, it was, and continues to be, mildly obnoxious of me to talk about him as if he weren't 'in the room' knowing he might read my post. I think I know what you mean, though, my original post in this thread was to Ann, and I found both your replying to it, and her silence to be meaningful.

reality will

directly... or

'experiences' of

experiences

What if people share the 'same language' to a large degree? for example, two men from the same zen monastery reading the poetry of one of their brothers, or two astrophysicists from the same grad school discussing a journal article.. Does shared experience and vocabulary increase the usefulness of 'language based investigations'?

JB

Why would anyone waste their time writing things they don't believe, knowing no one else believes them either?

Actually, this would make more sense if slider treated discourse with comtempt.

simply won't

That may be the case. I can't imagine tossing around simplistic contradicitions qualifies anyone as a guru anymore, though. A charitable soul would hope there were more to it than the kind of profundity every undergrad philosophy student assumes toward the 'ignorant masses'.

### - yeah well it wouldn't be the first, or even the 'second' time *you've* ended up on the wrong side of the fence & in the shit would it heh (scientology AND castaneda??? sheesh :) - so what exactly is it you feel that makes 'you' suddenly the master of truth in any of these matters? - i mean, gimmie one good reason why anyone should ever consider 'anything' you think as being even 'remotely' correct! heh heh :)

### - obvious case of pot-kettle-black :)

### - possibly... but what we're *actually* interested in/more concerned with instead of hanging about going: look there's another fake, and another one! and this one's fake as well!! etc etc, IS 'precisely' that tiny percentage your "HIGH probability" (as opposed to a guaranteed total) allows for as being the more 'genuine' article... (after all, plus as i'm sure you'll agree by now: there's no more time to be wasted on 'fakes' hehe:)

### - uh-huh, uh-huh... well maybe... i dunno :) :) :)

Is not(!)

Strong, rubbery, incredibly thick, magical wall of jello. Throw chopped nuts, sprinkles, chocolate chips, any diced or sliced fruit of your choosing (except kiwi or pineapple) .... and you have an unlimited supply of Dream Whip.

Quick! Pedal back! Pedal back!

This "cloud" person chose to change the words and then pretend they were mine.

Being unable to address any of my arguments, this "cloud" guy thinks it's a good idea for him to make up his own lame arguments and attribute them to me. He's been fighting his own straw men since he started. What's even more ludicrous, he thinks he's been clever by doing so.

Penny-ante- guru poseurs often have this "straw man" problem, which is one reason why they became penny-ante guru poseurs in the first place.

And for all his claims that he's not going to waste his time on me, I see that he can't keep from continuing. That's karma, the feeling of obligation to cling to a futile course of action out of misplaced pride.

Is too!

Not with rubbery jello. Then you get these disgusting chunks of congealed pectin. Yuck.

### - unfortunately tom, your 'good' argument has already descended into mere name-calling (which isn't even very logical :)

and no-one's much interested in that kind of thing here...

-------------------------

have a good Saturn-day folks, it's Sun-day tomorrow and then Moon-day after that...

(i mean, sheesh... what a planet! :) :) :)

"Tom" wrote

### - lol no one who speaks can avoid lying... and that includes everything

why? because 'all' words are lies :) :)

Is not(!)

The wall of jello is not for eating. You asked me about the wall of jello, trying to logically assess the feasibility of throwing stuff at it.

You must be thinking of jams or jellies. Pectin is extracted from plant material. There is no pectin in the wall of jello. It's made of gelatin, which is derived from animal collagen, mostly beef and pork. So if there are lumps in the jello, it's likely to be gelatin. You can make jello extra firm by reducing the fluid portion. The less fluid, the more rubbery the jello.

But it doesn't matter if the wall of jello is full of lumpy clumps of collagen derivative, because it's not for eating. It's for just standing there and jiggling a bit. That's what jello does. It all boils down to the stuff it's made of, which is microscopic strands of protein that stick together to form jello's characteristically wobbly structure. The less fluid in the jello, the more rubbery it is.

But back to the original question of "What happens when one throws things at a wall of jello?" The answer is that due to the nature of jello, anything hurled at a wall of the stuff either bounces, or slides, right off. Nothing sticks to a wall of jello.

Ether

Exactly. Individual words are neither truthful nor deceptive. But when they're strung together to convey meaning, the person who is the source of the words can skew their statements to reflect what they perceive to be the truth, or lies, or anything in between.

The problem is not in the words themselves, which have certain learned connotations in any given culture. Just as in 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', interpretation of the raw data is in the mind of the perceptor. We can all see/hear/read the same thing and come away with completely different impressions. Everything we perceive is coloured by our personality, cultural upbringing, beliefs, education etc.

That is why some people choose them carefully.

This is evident to, at least, some of us. But some people don't seem to be able to cut to the heart of that simple concept. It's like blaming science for the world's ills instead of blaming the people using it badly.

Good ol' Asimov, both a scientist and an artist.

Not(!)

Rotten tomatoes? They make a nice splat before they slide off.

Betcha the Chinese could build an impressive wall of jello.

Have you ever tried to build a wall of jello?

The Wall of Jello is a magical inner construct. It can be of massive proportions and permanently installed, or it can appear out of nowhere as needed.

I was drawing a cartoon.

Yes, but they're the hypothetical projectiles.

Hooves, bones and skin, rendered until the collagen breaks down and floats to the top. Wonder what else floats to the top along with that stuff? The more you know, the scarier it gets.

Jellied fruit salad is a whole other recipe.

The results of that particular study have not yet been released.

Yes. You should be writing for Ren and Stimpy ... or Itchy and Scratchy.

Very clever. But there is no way to scale a wall of jello. It's huge! And slippery! Lean a ladder against it, and it slides right off! Nothing sticks, I tell you. Nothing! It's freakish!

The wall of jello won't let you stick anything to it. It 'sweats' ever so slightly, and that forms an extremely thin layer of slippery lubrication.

I doubt they're reading it. They're looking for hot tips.

Very considerate of you.

They don't need your stinkin' jello. They've got the Euro version of Kraft fine foods, Dr. Oetker, for their artificial food needs.

### - (no it isn't ;-)

### - liar, liar, pants on fire! (hehe :)

### - round and round the rugged rocks the ragged rascal ran :)

### - hi guy... the 'froth & bubble' is about tom taking his medicine like a man and resisting the urge to throw up hehehe :)

### - the problem is to imagine that Truth could ever be 'contained' in words instead of being 'conveyed' by them (carried to us, literally) - perhaps by a more artistic application of them?

"There was a young man from Kentucket..." :) :) :)

"Tom" wrote to carmen...

### - heh heh heh... a word of warning to tom... if you like his company and don't want to end up in jeremy's (carmens:) killfile, then it's probably better not to 'contradict' him too much (lol:) he really doesn't like that... he's just like you :) :) :)

### - exactly... it's only when words (and the concepts they create when strung together) are then paraded in front of unwitting people as being either false OR true, that they become lies, and this whether a lie was intended or not...

so please don't tell me that the earth moves around the Sun because that's a 'lie' whether you realise it or not, and even though i know what you mean, it still wont make it true :)

### - not if a person doesn't *consciously* realise the limiting nature of language there isn't... for example if they've never personally experienced reality directly, and/or as in having never experienced anything else but a 'described' reality filtered through to them via a distorting matrix of invented terms that are not (and never can be) the measure of the very thing they are attempting to limit in order to thus describe...

i.e. a 'description' of reality is not the same as reality itself... plus most people don't know (are not educated) to relate to reality per se, en-mass they only know/relate-to the varying descriptions (perforce all wrong) of it... which kinda suggests that our whole world (our current civilisation) is flying IN the face of reality even though we think it IS reality...

thus when a person finally 'does' stand face to face with Reality the world seemingly stands still, plus it comes-in then like a revelation as to what they've 'actually' been doing with themselves up until that very moment hehe... added to which the former (apprehension of) reality (the one that was a lie) is never the same again after that (i.e. how could it be, it only actually 'functioned' on the basis of being totally unrealised, and because stuff like that only works in the dark :)

just one flash of overhead light and all the shadows disappeared somewhere a noon-day sun is bright one's feeling then those wasted years

so turn about you fallen man and climb that laddered, spiral stair an adventurers heart is thus required better late than never is all we care

If you make a big jello in small layers, scattering dried un-cooked pasta shells in each layer before it sets, you get a kind of composite jello which is stronger than pure jello. As a bonus, the raw pasta discourages people from eating the jello.

As far as I can tell, you just get an inexpensive hobby.

With composite jello being researched as a building material now would be the time to buy, buy, buy.

C.