Drawing the Line Between Truth and Lie

[Leyla Shen]

Finally, you said something truthful--yet, you didn't actually mean it as truth. It wasn't even irony, which is quite open about itself. It's just plain, covert violence without rhyme or reason.

Sue's sense of violence is clearly much, much more refined than yours will ever be.

[sue hindmarsh]

Leyla wrote:

Sue: but I can’t agree with your idea that failure to impart a truth is necessarily evidence of hitting a mental block of “your own”.

Your position puts truth at the mercy of lies;

Looking at this world, lies do appear to have the upper hand.

that is, lies have more potential than truth itself.

Depends on what “potential” you believe truth has? Looking at the way the vast majority of people on this planet embrace lies, truth hardly registers as existing, let alone having any potential.

I think wisdom is precisely the ability to execute truth in such a way as it destroys lies. It's a simple, logical proposition.

Like I said above, lies seem to have the upper hand. Their potential is steadily growing as our age does everything it its power to foster ever more attractive lies. For example, in the past, superstition was a leading opponent of truth. It still is, but now, adding to that insanity is the idea that everyone’s superstitions are equally valid. And that no person has a higher spiritual knowledge - unless that is, the superstition-fueled mob pick someone from amongst themselves whom they tag as “wise” and raise up above them as proof of their individual wisdom. And with one lie backing up the other one, truth has great difficulty piercing through such a tightly wound pack of lies.

[brokenhead]

Finally, you said something truthful--yet, you didn't actually mean it as truth. It wasn't even irony, which is quite open about itself. It's just plain, covert violence without rhyme or reason.

Sue's sense of violence is clearly much, much more refined than yours will ever be.

Much, much, much more. Oh, ever so very, very much. Clearly.

[Matt Gregory]

MG: What do you think is difficult about mulling things over? This is what I naturally do.

BH: It is what I naturally do as well. It takes effort. Look, people with OCD wash their hands fifty times a day. It is what they naturally do. Doesn't that take effort? Is the effort as wisely spent as it could be?

I wouldn't call compulsive hand washing an effort, no.

BH: No, I openly reject the act of trying to "understand" this thing better. I challenge you to find the theme "do not be contemplative" very often in my posts. Don't waste your time. You won't find it.

No effort is necessary, I found one before I quit reading that paragraph. It's not hard to find at all in your posts. Anything you declare to be off-limits for whatever reason is a candidate. You don't encourage people to think for themselves, you try to discourage them from thinking about things that don't happen to agree with you. Any reasonably intelligent person can see through that trick.

MG: It's not second-guessing. It's taking a specific situation and using it to consider a general principle. And yes, considering the principles by which one lives leads to greater intellectual integrity.

BH: As I see it, I am merely trying to be supportive of what I view as an admirable action on your part. (BTW, ignore Sue Hindmarsh. )

Here's another example.

MG: Intellectual integrity is intellectual consistency.

BH: It can be. Unless you consistently reject intellectual integrity.

Rejecting intellectual integrity is not an intellectual feat.

BH: There are plenty of people who have no integrity and who are quite aware of the fact. Such people assiduously avoid it, that is, they do so consistently, as they may find avoiding all self-reflection helps them get and stay ahead. It would be disingenuous to claim Hitler or Stalin had integrity merely because they were consistent in eradicating people they believed to be their enemies.

I said intellectual consistency. Consistency is not sufficient to give someone intellectual consistency. One needs to be consistent in an intelligent way in order to have intellectual integrity.

MG: Incidentally, the idea of overhauling one's entire conceptual framework at a moment's notice is romantic. It's like overhauling one's entire state of physical health at a moment's notice. It's that kind of task.

BH: It is anything but romantic, as anyone who has ever had an epiphany will tell you. I am being practical when I say integrity requires one to be like a warrior, not romantic, because it is that kind of task: overwhelming and seemingly impossible if you are not prepared.

You cannot overhaul your entire physical state in the same way as it does not respond immediately to your will. You can, with tremendous effort, overhaul your contributions to your physical state: You can stop overeating, stop drinking and smoking and doing drugs, start exercising, make all these changes at once with colossal effort. The next day, you will still be fat, hypertensive, out of shape with black lungs. It takes time for the actual "shape" of you body to improve. I know, because I have done all of these things, but always failed when I attempted them all at once (against medical advice, I should mention.) What I did do all at once, using the tools I obtained in rehab, was to set my mind unwaveringly to accomplish them one at a time no matter how long it took. It took about three years. The only thing that remains is for my body to fully repair my lungs, which I am told it will do if I live long enough.

This story illustrates my point. It takes about one second to realize that something is a bad habit, so the epiphany is pretty easy. But think about why the ramifications of that epiphany took three years to soak in. You even had to receive some training at rehab. So why didn't you "overhaul your entire conceptual framework at a moment's notice" when the proper moment presented itself? Were you just lacking in intellectual integrity?

Getting an idea is one thing, but putting it into action is quite another. Overhauling one's conceptual framework is not a simple task because it's not at all different from a physical change that you're trying to induce in yourself. The same goes for any kind of learning. You can memorize a fact pretty easily, but if you haven't incorporated it into your world view so that it relates with all the other things you know, then you don't fully know it. This type of learning takes time and meditation. It's not something that can be done by watching the Discovery Channel.

brokenhead: Your comment to the waitress could not have harmed her in any imaginable way. To even entertain the idea is rather grandiose. Nor could it have harmed you.

Matt: Like Sue said, you can't know that. Do you think that the waitress' daily yearning for her dead son is a good idea? Does it benefit anyone? I mean, every time I go in that restaurant, I hear her say something to someone about her son. But actually, he died a heroic death saving someone else's life, so I think a lot of her is about pride rather than just mourning.

BH: I told you, don't listen to Sue. She is a human tape loop.

(BTW, another example of devaluing contemplation) Sue is one of the most insightful people on this board. I'm just waiting for her to release her book. Her only problem is one of trying to hand out huge hunks of meat to birds.

BH: Well, I am just going by the scenario you gave as I understood it to be. If she has been yearning for 19 years about the death of an adult son, she is probably no spring chicken. It may not benefit you or her other regulars, but can it be harmful? Annoying, yes, but if it were harmful, you would eat somewhere else. Memories may be all she has going for her beside Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune. Memories are all most of us have waiting for us at the end of the Long Day that is our life.

But you are right. Now that I have this bit of information that her son died a hero, she is clearly fishing for some emotional reinforcement. That is annoying. After all, she wasn't the hero, was she?

I don't know why you think the situation has changed all of a sudden. It's very telling that you think of some old woman feeling sorry for herself to be more credible than if she were trying bring some notoriety to someone who did something selfless and noble. But to clear this up, she didn't divulge his heroism until I asked her how he died. She actually acted tragic rather than proud about it.

I am just saying, if it was compassion that led you to make the remark to her, it's not worth another second of your time. You clearly do not need adjustment.

Adjustment towards what? What exactly are you trying to accomplish in life? You know cats comfort old people perfectly well.

If it was to keep getting good service, then the next time you are in there and she brings up her dead hero, just say to her that it makes you uncomfortable to hear her mentioning him all the time when you are trying to eat. Then if the soup starts tasting funny, start eating somewhere else.

I was just kidding about the good service. I rarely eat out. The only reason I ate there is because I was in the process of moving.

[brokenhead]

I wouldn't call compulsive hand washing an effort, no.

Then you'd be wrong. Go ask a psychiatrist if OCD is draining for a person who suffers from it.

I don't know why you think the situation has changed all of a sudden. It's very telling that you think of some old woman feeling sorry for herself to be more credible than if she were trying bring some notoriety to someone who did something selfless and noble. But to clear this up, she didn't divulge his heroism until I asked her how he died. She actually acted tragic rather than proud about it.

I have so lost interest in this.

I wasn't there. All right? Is that what you need to hear to get a clue?

Dude - I was just going on what you said to begin with. If this is going to turn out to be an argument or ad hominem as it appears from this post, I'll give. You win. I'll FedEx you a cookie.

You don't encourage people to think for themselves, you try to discourage them from thinking about things that don't happen to agree with you. Any reasonably intelligent person can see through that trick.

A reasonably intelligent person would understand that I am not trying to "trick" anybody.

You run along now, Matthew, and you just go ahead and think about anything you want to.

Have a super day.

[sue hindmarsh]

Brokenhead wrote:

You run along now, Matthew, and you just go ahead and think about anything you want to.

You really are a gutless wonder, Broke. The moment you are asked to back up your words you run for the hills.

I have so lost interest in this.

That's impossible, as you were never interested in the first place. Not that that is at all surprising, for you haven't a clue what is being discussed here, or even why anyone is discussing anything on this forum. That's why you can't back up your words, for not only do you not have an intellectual proposition to work from, you also haven't a clue what an intellectual proposition is.

In an earlier post Matt wrote about you, saying:

You don't encourage people to think for themselves, you try to discourage them from thinking about things that don't happen to agree with you.

Matt's being far too generous with his judgment. You’re not trying to discourage, or encourage people to think anyway at all. Thinking is not something you know anything about - safely tucked away in your seamless bubble with your broken head.

[brokenhead]

Feel better now, Sue?

I have lost interest in this thread because it is based on a short episode of Matt's life which he describes early on. I responded based on this description, then Matt tells me I'm wrong because this is what really happened, then he adds more decription to the episode. I responded to that, then he says I don't know what I am talking about because the waitress only said this because he had asked her that.

Matt is saying, in effect, stop interrupting my thread because you weren't there. And you know what, Sue? I wasn't. I made the mistake of disagreeing with Matt and that irritated him. He is telling me I cannot possibly "back up my words" because it is his story.

That's impossible, as you were never interested in the first place.

I guess that's why I bothered posting.

That's why you can't back up your words, for not only do you not have an intellectual proposition to work from, you also haven't a clue what an intellectual proposition is.

Ad hominem. Now there's a useful debate.

Matt's being far too generous with his judgment. You’re not trying to discourage, or encourage people to think anyway at all. Thinking is not something you know anything about - safely tucked away in your seamless bubble with your broken head.

While you apparently soar to intellectual heights.

Yeah. This is exactly why I lost interest in this thread. Because you were blundering into it and rendering it meaningless to me.

[Leyla Shen]

Looking at this world, lies do appear to have the upper hand.

I appreciate that. It’s far from a foreign thought to me.

Depends on what “potential” you believe truth has?

Plenty, in the hands and hearts of the wise:

I think wisdom is precisely the ability to execute truth in such a way as it destroys lies.

Looking at the way the vast majority of people on this planet embrace lies, truth hardly registers as existing, let alone having any potential.

Yes, but I am saying that this is as much the responsibility of those who assume to be wise (relatively) as it might be supposed to be that the ignorant embrace lies. Thus the statement, “when you hit someone else’s mental block, you have effectively hit one of your own.”

Like I said above, lies seem to have the upper hand.

Yes, it does seem that way. But to whom, exactly?

Their potential is steadily growing as our age does everything it its power to foster ever more attractive lies.

Now, I know it isn’t possible that you would think “our age” is consciously fostering the growth of lies, or that, say, the feminine is consciously unconscious?

[Leyla Shen]

Yeah. This is exactly why I lost interest in this thread. Because you were blundering into it and rendering it meaningless to me.

No, brokenhead. The truth is, your own mind lacks life-giving vitality, wishing to draw it from others. Yes, your constant protestations, whining and moaning notwithstanding; these things are among the ranks of dead men.

[Matt Gregory]

I have lost interest in this thread because it is based on a short episode of Matt's life which he describes early on. I responded based on this description, then Matt tells me I'm wrong because this is what really happened, then he adds more decription to the episode. I responded to that, then he says I don't know what I am talking about because the waitress only said this because he had asked her that.

Matt is saying, in effect, stop interrupting my thread because you weren't there. And you know what, Sue? I wasn't. I made the mistake of disagreeing with Matt and that irritated him. He is telling me I cannot possibly "back up my words" because it is his story.

Nice try, but what I was talking about had nothing to do with the specific details with the waitress and everything to do with your anti-intellectual attitude. I don't really care if you don't value intelligence, but just be honest and admit it. It will probably be the first honest thing you've ever done in your life.

[guest_of_logic]

No, brokenhead. The truth is, your own mind lacks life-giving vitality, wishing to draw it from others.

Utter drivel. Broke brings plenty to the table. You just have a prejudice against theists.

[Leyla Shen]

Utter drivel.

Er, yes---well, you know who you are, don't you.

Broke brings plenty to the table. You just have a prejudice against theists.

Indeed. He brings plenty of unsubstantiated crap to the sewer on the matter. Much like yourself, obviously. Hence, I have judged him to be deluded. There is no more reason to believe in his God than to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, you idiot.

[brokenhead]

No, brokenhead. The truth is, your own mind lacks life-giving vitality, wishing to draw it from others. Yes, your constant protestations, whining and moaning notwithstanding; these things are among the ranks of dead men.

You have all the charm of an ill-trained lap dog nipping at my heels. And all the effect.

But as a human being, you are one pompous, pseudo-intellectual ass.

[Leyla Shen]

Thank you, darling.

Coming from you, that is definitely a compliment. :)

[brokenhead]

Indeed. He brings plenty of unsubstantiated crap to the sewer on the matter. Much like yourself, obviously. Hence, I have judged him to be deluded. There is no more reason to believe in his God than to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, you idiot.

You are a shrill, fixated fool, Leyla. No one asked you to believe in anything. You are utterly incapable of honest intellectual rigor, so no one expects you to entertain the truth, because it is something fools like yourself cannot handle.

I just thought, being a female, you would enjoy more compliments.

[brokenhead]

Nice try, but what I was talking about had nothing to do with the specific details with the waitress and everything to do with your anti-intellectual attitude. I don't really care if you don't value intelligence, but just be honest and admit it. It will probably be the first honest thing you've ever done in your life

Act like a man.

This thread was about you, and because I have dared to shed some light on it that wasn't following the script you had in mind, you have made it into "everything to do with my anti-inyellectual attitude."

Matt, I am the one who is honestly admitting that I can make no contribution to this thread if the basis for the scenario you are discussing keeps changing to suit your purpose.

Why is it you feel comfortable attacking me and saying that I have never done an honest thing in my life? Because you are hiding behind Leyla's and Sue's skirts?

I wasn't attacking your character. In fact, I believe I was saying you had done nothing to question. I do not have an anti-intellectual attitude, but pseudo-intellectualism I can spot halfway around the world. This forum is rife with it. You should be more alert to it. You would be less a victim of it.

[Leyla Shen]

[rolls up her sleeves]

I'm going to keep it very simple since you tend project your own confusion onto others. Let's see what you can make of this:

1. I neither said nor implied you asked me to believe in anything. Did you have an actual point?
2. There's more truth in one of my dead skin cells than in your entire body.
3. A lover of truth is necessarily complimented by an insult from a "woman." (You should note, I do not hold females in general in any more contempt than I do males, myself. That is, you carry no seed for wisdom by virtue of your penis, my dear "man."*)

*Literalists all have the same problem; Christian and misogynist alike.

[Jason]

anti-inyellectual

Pfffft! LOL.

[brokenhead]

anti-inyellectual

Pfffft! LOL.

Yeah, I noticed that too.

I'm not even going to fix it. Whaddaya think about that?

[Jason]

I love it!

[brokenhead]

[rolls up her sleeves]

Aaaak! Cellulite! Roll 'em back down!

[Leyla Shen]

Now, Jason. It's clear that brokenhead's vision is far from 20/20:

Why is it you feel comfortable attacking me and saying that I have never done an honest thing in my life? Because you are hiding behind Leyla's and Sue's skirts?

But you're a young man, you shouldn't be having such problems! Or are you just begging for a picture of my biceps?

[brokenhead]

But you're a young man, you shouldn't be having such problems! Or are you just begging for a picture of my biceps?

No need. I'll just Google Popeye.

And what's with the "young man" nonsense? It shows that you don't know the first thing about me.

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: Broke brings plenty to the table. You just have a prejudice against theists.

Leyla: Indeed. He brings plenty of unsubstantiated crap to the sewer on the matter. [emphasis mine]

I wasn't referring to his theism when I wrote that he brings plenty to the table. He contributes constructively on a range of topics. You, however, judge him primarily based on one of his beliefs: your rabid anti-theism colours your reaction to him.

Much like yourself, obviously.

I'm not a one-issue poster either.

Hence, I have judged him to be deluded.

More than that, you assert a sense of superiority over him. Your condescending attitude does you no credit, not that you care - you don your insulting demeanour with pride.

There is no more reason to believe in his God than to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, you idiot.

Two ways to get Leyla foaming at the mouth and hurling obscenities at you:
* indicate that you take the possibility of God seriously
* describe muslims in anything but glowing terms.

One way to get Leyla offended and up in arms:
* criticise Marx.

Then wait for her to call you emotional.

[brokenhead]

Two ways to get Leyla foaming at the mouth and hurling obscenities at you:
* indicate that you take the possibility of God seriously
* describe muslims in anything but glowing terms.

Thanks for the info, guest.

Though I seem to fare well in this area using other tactics.

Hey Leyla, is this true? You are a Muslim groupie? You would be typically inconsistent if you were. There is not a group of people on earth who practice their religion so much and preach it so relatively little. It's only infidels like you who are stuck with the "Christian God is different from Allah" idiocy. Somehow, you feel free to scoff at Christians because you equate the Christian God with Santa Claus. And you know what? You wouldn't even be doing that if you had received more of the things on your Christmas list when you were little.

What do you think of Islam, Leyla? Not Muslims, but Islam itself. My guess is that you have not read much of the Koran. I have read most of it - or an "interpretation" of it, as Muslims believe that any translation must also be an interpretation, which makes sense to me. It is almost painfully beautiful in parts. It is beyond me how someone could read the Koran and not be spritually moved. If you haven't read it, I suggest you give it a try. I dare you to remain unmoved. You might even gain a little respect for other people, especially the ones who do not think as you do.

If you are a Muslim groupie, here's a hint: when you are around them, keep your views about religion to yourself. A woman spouting off that Allah does not exist to Arabs is like carrying a sign that reads "Please slit my throat."

I'll just bet you have prayed in your lifetime, Leyla. I bet you have prayed for something and did not receive it. Deny it if you want, but that would be like denying you masturbate. No one would believe you.

One way to get Leyla offended and up in arms:
* criticise Marx.

Then wait for her to call you emotional.

Really...? Hmmm...

Hey, Leyla! Moe Howard is funnier than Groucho!

There is no more reason to believe in his God than to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, you idiot.

See? There you go.

And I suppose Charles Schultz just made up the Great Pumpkin.

You wear your ignorance like a badge of honor.

BTW, Leyla: you say "his" God like I think he is mine, and that it's all the same to you because you want no part of him. You are so childish. God is no more mine than he is anyone else's. I didn't make him up. I don't make up anything. If I did, then that would necessarily mean that I am original in some way. And I'm not. Which I have gone out of my way to repeat again and again at GF.

So let me ask you: is there somebody else's god you do not dismiss so blithely?

Guest keeps an open mind, Leyla. That takes work and dedication to comprehending the truth. When he states a position, he backs it up and doesn't resort to personal attacks when someone disagrees with him.

And by the way, neither do I. I'll descend to ad hominem if someone else does it first. My logic is that when someone starts calling me names and insulting my intelligence, there is no point in remaining rational. It's time to wave my arms at the swine to chase them away from my pearls so I can scoop them up to cast another day.