I have Realized the Infinite

[dionysos]

This is my first post here and i haven't read all of the 8 pages of posts (on page 2) but I thought I would share my thoughts on what I think the infinite is...

First of all, i'm more of a general, holistic type thinker rather than the analytical type.
Loki's original post about the duality of the fundamental nature of reality and, specifically, the mind and the external reality or, what is in the mind and what is not, makes a lot of sense to me. I have this idea in my head that being and non-being are the essence of nature and it is somehow manifested in the mind... consciousness being shaped by the brain but it's essence being part of the non-being, the kind of blank sheet where experience is written, consciousness being understood as conscious OF something. I also agree with a lot of posts i've read that to experience the infinite is to experience the consciousness of now, the present moment being forever elusive yet infinity itself, intensity of the present moment comes and goes i suppose.

This infinite duality of nature and, specifically, consciousness is a bit trickier for me... the way i understand the infinite that comes most naturally for me is in terms of infinite time. In terms of cosmology, it's hard to imagine the universe expanding forever, that is, space being infinite, or even matter being infinite, but it's easier to imagine time being infinite. There is the totality of existence, all interconnected, with the constant change and shuffling manifested from the being and non-being (if there was nothing but matter and no space between the matter the universe would be static) and this goes on forever with no beginning or end. I don't know if this is how it really is, with time being infinite, but I can imagine it easier than time being linear. I used to like the idea of a big bang and a big crunch with infinite cycles, rather than a linear one time happening and an end, or a kind of infinite sprouting of big bangs other than our own... but it's hard to make sense of that idea when the universe is expanding faster and faster, or maybe it only seems like it's doing that.

I think maybe with life being one of many singularities that would eventually pull the universe back together again?

[Kelly Jones]

As I understand the word "emotion", it is simply feelings/intuitions/henids. A sage is not physically free from pain or pleasure, and he also has intuitions and henids. He simply does not attach himself to these things. Many mental processes occur too quickly to pass through consciousness. All these processes would be emotions. So Skipair is right in that we can't suddenly become magically free of all emotions. Emotions will be there, but they shouldn't devour our soul.

I can see what you're getting at, but I think this is subtly in error. Emotions are characterised by various intensities of agitation or dullness, experienced as impulses of a certain nature. Those impulses, when one examines the leading idea (or intuition), being an urgency about why one ought to do or think something, boil down to intuitions (about oneself in relation to the environment), that wise reasoning reveals as being fundamentally false. That last part is important: how wise reasoning reveals. It's important because the revealing process establishes new mental habits, sets up new pathways, and completely turns away from other pathways of thought.

Over time, a highly rational brain establishes those habits of reasoning very strongly, and completely grows over the old pathways. That means, the false intuitions that give rise to emotions have less and less salience and validity. Perhaps certain parts of the amygdala and hippocampus become less active (?). So having intuitions or feelings (primitive mental elements that are more developed than henids) or henids (the least clarified of the intuitions) does not necessarily include having emotions. The primitive beginnings of thought in the more rational brain are affected by the consciously rational habits, so there is no or very little recourse to the false pathways which have been rejected over and over again, and therefore overgrown. There is simply no good reason to return to them, and it would take a lot of effort to do.

.

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly, yes I am communicating with you, in one liners - I hope you get more out of them than I get out of your posts.

I know that a great deal of your reserve comes from the fact that I know you personally, and you distrust me in regards to this knowledge. But you needn't be afraid, because I honestly wish you well in your life. I wouldn't bother otherwise.

One of the classic "general stress coping options" is to withdraw. People halt activities and interactions, and retreat into a private world to nurse their wounds. But this isn't a particularly healthy option, and when it's relied on heavily while claiming to be perfectly functional, then one needs to learn to face the stresses more directly. The more one runs away from stress, the weaker one grows, and the more sensitive to the least stress.

.

[Blair]

but it's hard to make sense of that idea when the universe is expanding faster and faster, or maybe it only seems like it's doing that.

Doesn't matter what seems to be happening, it's not relevant to understanding reality.

I think maybe with life being one of many singularities that would eventually pull the universe back together again?

Time is an illusion, so is life. Matter itself has always been, and always will be "alive" in varying configurations of complexity and density.

[dionysos]

but it's hard to make sense of that idea when the universe is expanding faster and faster, or maybe it only seems like it's doing that.

Doesn't matter what seems to be happening, it's not relevant to understanding reality.

I think maybe with life being one of many singularities that would eventually pull the universe back together again?

Time is an illusion, so is life. Matter itself has always been, and always will be "alive" in varying configurations of complexity and density.

I agree time is an illusion in the broader sense, time being infinite, but there is an interpretation of change relative to our experience that is common to other people's experience of time. I have always wondered if matter, the environment was somehow alive, or even conscious, since we are both alive and a microcosm of the environment.. maybe ourselves being conscious of the environment makes it so

[Blair]

I agree time is an illusion in the broader sense, time being infinite, but there is an interpretation of change relative to our experience that is common to other people's experience of time.

Time is an illusion, period. It means absolutely nothing in relation to infinity, which is the true nature of reality. People experience time because they identify themselves as something separate from the rest of reality, and evolution has made this a profoundly compelling virtual-reality. The experience of time is because you are currently in a form which is defined by time, that is an organism that percieves through the senses, and therefore cannot be infinite, as perception is the opposite of the universe, which is deaf, dumb and blind.

I have always wondered if matter, the environment was somehow alive, or even conscious, since we are both alive and a microcosm of the environment.. maybe ourselves being conscious of the environment makes it so

Matter is energy, and energy must do something, that's it's nature. It can't help it, it just creates reactions. Given infinity, its inevitable that you will end up as a human at some point. Your being conscious of the environment is a mere accident.

prince.

[guest_of_logic]

David: You'll need to empty out all that bitterness and bile first, if you really want to know.

Laird: Mate, there's no bitterness and bile here, just that good old Aussie sense of "give as good as you get"

David: Well then, it looks like the first thing you're going to have to is recognize that you are full of bitterness and bile. Diagnosis is the first step towards a cure and all that. You might try to hide it, but the bile is there seeping out of all of your posts. Sometimes it is full-on, as in the case of your graceless attack on Loki.

I won't be taking psychology tips from you, David, although, granted, you do sometimes hit the mark, which is to say that I sometimes agree with your assessments. The thing is that I understand my actions well enough without your assistance. "Impatient and scathing" would be better words to describe them than "bitter and bile-filled", but I can understand why you'd use those words. Sometimes I see what passes for truth on this forum and it gets my goat, so to speak, and sometimes - just sometimes - I don't filter my reaction. That might or might not be an effective thing to do, but it is what it is. My "graceless attack on Loki" was motivated by a desire to prevent a man from falling into the clutches of a philosophy-and-social-dynamic-gone-wrong, and to point out what was happening so that those who might otherwise have been tempted to do the same could see it for what it was. It probably came across too much on the scathing side to have been effective, but that's where it was based.

As for what this care-free mode of existence is like, one could describe it as the natural flow of consciousness unrestricted by conceptual prisons. I don't particularly care if you want to call this a "feeling" or not (it depends on how we define "feeling"), but it isn't emotional in nature. Emotions only spring into life within the sprawling network of conceptual prisons, like rats scurrying around in the sewers. Offspring, as it were, of an endless violent reaction towards being trapped inside these prisons.

OK, so then, like Dan, you're distinguishing between feeling and emotion, which is not surprising, since it's the only way that your philosophy makes sense. What, then, to you, is the difference between feeling and emotion?

I know that a great deal of your reserve comes from the fact that I know you personally, and you distrust me in regards to this knowledge.

You have lost my trust online, yes, but that's not the main reason why I no longer respond to you. Mainly it's because I find our communication to be fruitless. Chalk it up to "irreconcilable differences", if you like.

I honestly wish you well in your life.

Thank you, Kelly - I feel likewise about you. Every time we've met in person I've felt warm feelings towards you, and you've always been kind and generous to me in person. I hope that if/when you next visit Kevin, you find the time to drop over and say hi. I do appreciate your physical presence, even if we don't so much click online: I guess there's something to be said for the "different personas" theory.

One of the classic "general stress coping options" is to withdraw. People halt activities and interactions, and retreat into a private world to nurse their wounds. But this isn't a particularly healthy option, and when it's relied on heavily while claiming to be perfectly functional, then one needs to learn to face the stresses more directly. The more one runs away from stress, the weaker one grows, and the more sensitive to the least stress.

Well, I won't be taking psychology tips from you, either, Kelly, but I will ask this: who's claiming to be perfectly functional? And what even is this "perfectly functional" standard?

[guest_of_logic]

David Quinn: "Weasel", "suspicious", "agenda" - such nice friendly words from a kindred spirit.

Jason: What's the problem exactly David? Don't you think I was being nice and friendly enough?

Perhaps David momentarily forgot the ethos of the forum - spiritual allies causing pain to one another's egos and all that. We all slip up from time to time.

[Jason]

David Quinn: "Weasel", "suspicious", "agenda" - such nice friendly words from a kindred spirit.

Jason: What's the problem exactly David? Don't you think I was being nice and friendly enough?

Perhaps David momentarily forgot the ethos of the forum - spiritual allies causing pain to one another's egos and all that. We all slip up from time to time.

That's what I thought too, but since he evaded giving a response to my questions above we'll never know for sure.

[Nick]

You ask a question with an obvious answer and then castigate me for returning the favour. That's hardly reasonable. I figured we were clarifying each other's positions: turns out you just wanted to get in a jab before the ref blew the starting whistle.

What do you think this is? A game of tennis? I'm seriously trying to get you to see the fatal contradictions within your philosophy and induce some self-reflection. No game playing here.

As for, "You have been given more than enough instruction and teaching on how to do this" - if you don't see the presumptuousness in that, well...

Just letting you know that you've been given all the tools to uncover the truth. It's all on you now.

Dude, not only have I been participating on this forum for years, but for even longer than I've been posting here I've lived next door to (and conversed frequently with) the guy who kicked off this whole house philosophy: so yes, I've seen and heard all of the "logic" that you and your superiors have to offer, and my lack of commitment to it has less to do with failure to grasp it after exposure than with the impoverishment of that so-called "logic".

There you go again with that "house philosophy". I think David already responded to this extraordinary claim in the most succinct manner.

Is it arrogant to reject another person's so-called "logic"? If so then you're guilty of arrogance a thousand times over, Nick.

No, it's arrogant to run your mouth about something which you admittedly don't understand. Remember?

[Tomas]

Mate, there's no bitterness and bile here, just that good old Aussie sense of "give as good as you get" - you wanted to tease me for my prediliction for alcohol: why, then, I'll give you a bit of a serving for your prediliction for psilocybin.

So, go on then, now that we've established that both of us appreciate the odd drug-induced high:

Laird,

Why would you begin to compare alcohol(s) with mushroom(s)?

One is a man-made substance (accident of nature) whereas the other is found in nature (an absolute).

-Laird writes-
* the odd drug-induced high:

-tomas-
Very strange word composition :-/

[Nick]

Tomas,

Why is anything man-made an accident of nature? Do you believe there is a fundamental difference between the actions of man, and the actions of things "non-man"?

[David Quinn]

If he(the sage) is having emotions, then he is already being deluded. Emotions, of whatever kind, always spring from a misapprehension of reality - a misapprehension shaped by a belief in self and other, and a belief in objective existence.

As I understand the word "emotion", it is simply feelings/intuitions/henids. A sage is not physically free from pain or pleasure, and he also has intuitions and henids. He simply does not attach himself to these things. Many mental processes occur too quickly to pass through consciousness. All these processes would be emotions. So Skipair is right in that we can't suddenly become magically free of all emotions. Emotions will be there, but they shouldn't devour our soul.

Sure, if we define "emotion" broadly enough to refer to all elements of consciousness, then a sage cannot be both conscious and free of emotion. But in this discussion, I have been using the traditional meaning of the term, referring to things like joy, anger, fear, envy, etc.

In other words, the limited set of violent, preprogrammed reactions, involving processes from different parts of the body and brain working together as a unit, which are triggered by the perception of certain kinds of events that seem to affect the self and which usually cause one to think and behave in a short-sighted, narcissistic fashion. It is these kinds of overwhelming reactions which no longer occur within the selflessness of the sage, as well as their longer-term counterparts such as depression, bitterness and contentment.

...the direct experience of emotion (i.e. as an instinctive defensive mechanism for the protection of the "self")

l equate this with fear, which is the struggling associated with the illusion of separation. This may be the only emotion, of which all others are an expression and reaction to or against. Fear being the most energetic (and overwhelming) expression of the defensive mechanism of self.

I can see why you would say that, as fear is very primal and probably evolved first.

We can break down all the emotions into their mechanics for self-protection:

Fear - a prompting to react decisively in the face of a perceived threat to the self.
Anger - a proactive response to that prompting.
Joy - a reaction to overcoming a perceived threat.
Frustration - a reaction to being unable, despite trying one's hardest, to overcome a perceived threat.
Sadness - a reaction to one's impotency in the face of threat.
Envy - a reaction to another person's superior ability to ward off perceived threats.
Love - a reaction to bonding with an ally in the fight against perceived threats.
Jealousy - a reaction to the ally breaking the bond and becoming a threat him/herself.

And so on.

Even though l understand that...

...one can discern that a junkie is off his face with heroin without having to be high on heroin oneself.

... l'm not sure how to do that in the case of emotion. A more accurate analogy may be that in order for one to see emotion, whilst not experiencing same, it requires having recovered from having been an addict.

Well, we're all either addicts or recovering addicts in that regard.

-

[David Quinn]

OK, so then, like Dan, you're distinguishing between feeling and emotion, which is not surprising, since it's the only way that your philosophy makes sense. What, then, to you, is the difference between feeling and emotion?

If we define "feeling" to be any kind of awareness or movement of consciousness, then "emotion" is a subset of feeling, referring to the set of preprogrammed reactions that I talked about with jupiviv in the post above.

-

[Steven Coyle]

the deli is fine

[jupiviv]

Sure, if we define "emotion" broadly enough to refer to all elements of consciousness, then a sage cannot be both conscious and free of emotion. But in this discussion, I have been using the traditional meaning of the term, referring to things like joy, anger, fear, envy, etc.

In other words, the limited set of violent, preprogrammed reactions, involving processes from different parts of the body and brain working together as a unit, which are triggered by the perception of certain kinds of events that seem to affect the self and which usually cause one to think and behave in a short-sighted, narcissistic fashion. It is these kinds of overwhelming reactions which no longer occur within the selflessness of the sage, as well as their longer-term counterparts such as depression, bitterness and contentment.

You're right. Emotions are essentially an irrational response to feelings - a sort of advanced feeling. I didn't clearly know the difference between the words emotion and feeling when I said that.

I think the origin of all emotions is the valuing of pleasure(merging/creation) above pain(destruction). All emotions(and feelings) can be distinguished between a feeling of creating/being created, and a feeling of destroying/being destroyed. The sage transcends time and space, and therefore doesn't get bothered by these feelings.

[dionysos]

People experience time because they identify themselves as something separate from the rest of reality and evolution has made this a profoundly compelling virtual-reality. The experience of time is because you are currently in a form which is defined by time, that is an organism that percieves through the senses, and therefore cannot be infinite, as perception is the opposite of the universe, which is deaf, dumb and blind.

I experience time as being a part of reality, that is, my perceptions and the world around me are always changing, nature in its totality I think would be without this illusion of time, it would just be. In my opinion, most people DON'T experience time because they view themselves as being separate from the rest of the universe, when in reality we are constantly changing and exchanging with the environment, i agree that this experience of change we call time is only an illusion because of our experience as finite beings.

Matter is energy, and energy must do something, that's it's nature. It can't help it, it just creates reactions. Given infinity, its inevitable that you will end up as a human at some point. Your being conscious of the environment is a mere accident.

Given infinity, it's inevitable that i will experience myself as you, but would i know i was you? My being conscious of the environment is a mere certainty

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: I know that a great deal of your reserve comes from the fact that I know you personally, and you distrust me in regards to this knowledge.

Laird: You have lost my trust online, yes, but that's not the main reason why I no longer respond to you. Mainly it's because I find our communication to be fruitless. Chalk it up to "irreconcilable differences", if you like.

Those being that I promote rationality to the nth degree, including entering deeply into psychology, and you find this extremism very threatening.

Every time we've met in person I've felt warm feelings towards you, and you've always been kind and generous to me in person. I hope that if/when you next visit Kevin, you find the time to drop over and say hi. I do appreciate your physical presence, even if we don't so much click online: I guess there's something to be said for the "different personas" theory.

I'm the same person. I've backed off a lot since visiting while you were ill.

Kelly: One of the classic "general stress coping options" is to withdraw. People halt activities and interactions, and retreat into a private world to nurse their wounds. But this isn't a particularly healthy option, and when it's relied on heavily while claiming to be perfectly functional, then one needs to learn to face the stresses more directly. The more one runs away from stress, the weaker one grows, and the more sensitive to the least stress.

Laird: Well, I won't be taking psychology tips from you, either, Kelly, but I will ask this: who's claiming to be perfectly functional?

Well, that was an exaggeration. But I would claim to be a lot more functional than you. Not boasting, this is just a fact (see below).

And what even is this "perfectly functional" standard?

Well, dysfunctionality includes making preventable mistakes and suffering unnecessarily, creating issues that one has later to re-address, behaving inefficiently, and the like.

Being perfectly functional - within the context of being an biochemically fluctuating organism - is about being resilient and stable, psychologically. It includes such basics as fulfilling bodily needs, like sleeping, eating, exercising, etc., so as to maintain a steady and sustainable level of clear-headedness, stability of mood, and bioenergy to fulfil the tasks that one sets oneself. It excludes psychological affects such as depression, not wanting to nourish the body because of self-hatred, fluctuating moods that impede reasoning thought-processes, addictive behaviours opted-for in order to cope with stress which have their own side effects and can often lead to a vicious cycle of addiction, and other choices or involuntary actions that diminish consciousnesss unnecessarily.

.

[Pincho Paxton]

People experience time because they identify themselves as something separate from the rest of reality and evolution has made this a profoundly compelling virtual-reality. The experience of time is because you are currently in a form which is defined by time, that is an organism that percieves through the senses, and therefore cannot be infinite, as perception is the opposite of the universe, which is deaf, dumb and blind.

I experience time as being a part of reality, that is, my perceptions and the world around me are always changing, nature in its totality I think would be without this illusion of time, it would just be. In my opinion, most people DON'T experience time because they view themselves as being separate from the rest of the universe, when in reality we are constantly changing and exchanging with the environment, i agree that this experience of change we call time is only an illusion because of our experience as finite beings.

Matter is energy, and energy must do something, that's it's nature. It can't help it, it just creates reactions. Given infinity, its inevitable that you will end up as a human at some point. Your being conscious of the environment is a mere accident.

Given infinity, it's inevitable that i will experience myself as you, but would i know i was you? My being conscious of the environment is a mere certainty

How is infinity inevitable to be experienced? Nobody will ever experience it will they? It's not possible surely to experience infinity.

[guest_of_logic]

I'm seriously trying to get you to see the fatal contradictions within your philosophy and induce some self-reflection.

Where have you been trying to do that, specifically? What "fatal contradictions" have you pointed out, specifically?

[You] run your mouth about something which you admittedly don't understand. Remember?

No, I don't remember, because I haven't admitted to not understanding the house philosophy, at least so far as it's cogent: I've simply denied that the house philosophy is worthy of the title of Ultimate (or Absolute) Truth.

Why would you begin to compare alcohol(s) with mushroom(s)?

I compare them on the basis that they're both drugs that significantly (in sufficient doses) alter one's mental state.

Laird: the odd drug-induced high:

Tomas: Very strange word composition :-/

Yup, too weird, man, like drunk tripping.

If we define "feeling" to be any kind of awareness or movement of consciousness, then "emotion" is a subset of feeling, referring to the set of preprogrammed reactions that I talked about with jupiviv in the post above.

Your assertion that boundaries are arbitrary seems to apply very well here, so where exactly do you draw the line between non-emotional feelings, and emotions, and how do you justify the line that you draw - aren't you simply drawing an arbitrary line in the sand? Given then the arbitrariness of this distinction that you're making between non-emotional feelings, and emotions, isn't the most sensible interpretation of your philosophy of non-arising emotions simply that the sage doesn't experience more intense feelings even though s/he still experiences less intense feelings?

You write that a sage is neither joyful nor content, yet you also write that the nearest comparison for a sage's feeling is "certain high-level, care-free modes of existence in which clarity of mind is accentuated and the normal concerns and worries are completely absent". How are those modes of existence different from joy and contentment?

[Nick]

I'm seriously trying to get you to see the fatal contradictions within your philosophy and induce some self-reflection.

Where have you been trying to do that, specifically? What "fatal contradictions" have you pointed out, specifically?

[You] run your mouth about something which you admittedly don't understand. Remember?

No, I don't remember, because I haven't admitted to not understanding the house philosophy, at least so far as it's cogent: I've simply denied that the house philosophy is worthy of the title of Ultimate (or Absolute) Truth.

You ask me to point out where you fall into contradiction, and you provide me with a a perfect example in your second statement here. Ignoring for a moment your straw man idea of some non-existent "house philosophy". You are essentially telling me, and others, that we don't know what is ultimately true about the fundamental nature of reality. Being that you already admitted you don't know what is absolutely true, it is logically impossible for you to speak with any authority about who does and does not know the truth without immediately falling into contradiction. What's worse is that even though your ignorance about the subject prevents you from raising your argument above the level of smoke and mirrors; in your arrogance you go a step further and tell others and myself how this wisdom (which you admittedly do not posses) should affect the way we think and act.

It is absolutely preposterous, and if you can't recognize this fatal contradiction lying at the heart or your philosophy, then there is no reason to ever take you seriously. In fact, the only purpose you serve is to be made an example of. Other than that, there is no reason for you to continue hanging around here. I mean, why are you here? Is this fun for you? Are you that bored or bitter about life, (life which you claim to know more about than the rest of us) that you need to come here and spit in our faces? If you think you know more about life and reality than the rest of us, go start up your own forum on the subject. Or just go live your life christ's sake! There's certainly no good reason for you to hang around here doing what you do, distracting people, and wasting our time.

[guest_of_logic]

Ignoring for a moment your straw man idea of some non-existent "house philosophy".

The three admins of this forum share a relatively homogenous philosophy which several of the participants (including yourself) support, going so far as to refer to the findings of this philosophy as Absolute (or Ultimate) Truth. "House philosophy" is a perfectly reasonable and sensible phrase in that context. Credit to Pye for coming up with it.

Being that you already admitted you don't know what is absolutely true, it is logically impossible for you to speak with any authority about who does and does not know the truth without immediately falling into contradiction.

Oh dear, Nick. How faulty can your "logic" get? One doesn't have to know the answer to a question to be able to know that certain answers are insufficient or plain wrong. For example, I don't know the answer to the question, "What is the square root of 39574.187?" but I do know that "5000" and "a red rose" are wrong answers, and that "sqrt(39574.187)" is an insufficient answer. That analogy applies to the question, "What is Absolute (or Ultimate) Truth?"

[Y]ou go a step further and tell others and myself how this wisdom (which you admittedly do not posses) should affect the way we think and act.

You keep on asserting your answer to be the answer, and so long as you do that you're simply talking past me, because I don't recognise that your answer is THE answer. When you talk about "this wisdom" you're making an implicit claim to possess a certain type of wisdom, and I don't recognise that claim - in the same way that I don't recognise as valid the answers that I gave as examples for the square root question.

Caveat: as I try to make clear when it seems appropriate, I do find parts of the house philosophy to be useful, and I do appreciate and agree with parts of it to some extent.

life which you claim to know more about than the rest of us

I have made no claim to know more about life than anybody else on this forum. I don't have to know more about life than you do to pick problems with your philosophical positions.

you need to come here and spit in our faces

I'm pointing out problematic dynamics and presenting criticisms - to characterise that as "spitting in your faces" is an over-emotional reaction.

[Kelly Jones]

Nick's previous argument was correct, in two ways, Laird. Your definition of absolute truth is missing, and therefore your rebuttal is sheer arrogance; secondly, because it is missing, your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Unless you present a clear definition of what absolute truth is, there's no way you can coherently argue against anyone's definition of absolute truth. It's just pooh-poohing. Speculating on what it might be is not a "warrant", and you shouldn't pretend it is. If you're going to speculate, then your comments should be presented as your own incomplete investigation, instead of as a rebuttal.

.

[Robert]

Oh dear, Nick. How faulty can your "logic" get? One doesn't have to know the answer to a question to be able to know that certain answers are insufficient or plain wrong. For example, I don't know the answer to the question, "What is the square root of 39574.187?" but I do know that "5000" and "a red rose" are wrong answers, and that "sqrt(39574.187)" is an insufficient answer. That analogy applies to the question, "What is Absolute (or Ultimate) Truth?"

That's pretty dumb Laird, really. For your analogy to make any sense, it would require that no one can ever know what the square root of 39574.187 is. That someone offers a wrong answer doesn't mean anything other than the answer is wrong. A correct answer is available.

[David Quinn]

Laird: What is the square root of 4?

Rational person: 2

Laird: Wrong. There is no mention of a personal God, it doesn't feed my emotions, it doesn't give my life any meaning, it doesn't affirm my messiah-complex.....

-