A=A

[Tord]

Reading Mr. Quinn's posting, is kinda like that picture puzzle they have in magazines; find 10 mistakes here. Unfortunately Mr. Quinn doesn't make that very hard for us.

So, I'm sitting here thinking (yes, I actually do that sometimes), am I going to sit here and carefully go through the list one by one, or read a bit more of the Thomas Ligotti book I started on recently. Simple choice really, as everyone can easily see for themselves what errors he made.

Have I given up? Resigned? Not on your life sir, but sometimes I just can't deal with more idiocy.

Instead I leave you with this nugget of wisdom I phrased in one of my more inspired moments: I belive in what I know. Agree or not, but at least think it through before running for your keyboards.

[David Quinn]

What mistakes are these? Please point them out, so that I can learn from your guiding wisdom. Or if you think that I am a lost cause, please consider the many others on this forum who could benefit from your input.

Instead I leave you with this nugget of wisdom I phrased in one of my more inspired moments: I belive in what I know. Agree or not, but at least think it through before running for your keyboards.

Everyone believes in what they know - both sages, who know the truth, and ignorant people, who are spellbound by fantasy. So I don't really know what you are trying to say here. It's a bit like saying, "Everyone breathes air".

Perhaps you could be more specifc and explain more fully what you mean.


-

[sevens]

David,

Could you clarify what "the truth" is?

[David Quinn]

<twirls flower>

-

[sevens]

<smiles>

[Tord]

so that I can learn from your guiding wisdom

You are not getting a bit defensive here?

please consider the many others on this forum who could benefit from your input.

Do you think they learn something simply by me pointing out your mistakes? But if you feel that way, I can take the first one in your posting, and if someone learns anything by that we can go through them more thoroughly.

Tord (getting a bit frustrated):

To you who claim that science and logic is bullshit

Mr. Solway:

I don't remember anyone saying that science is bullshit

Tord:

No, no one used that particular word

Mr. Quinn:

You did indeed use the world "bullshit".

Does this protest makes sense when I spell it out for you?

Now, did anyone learn from that? I guess not. I'm not sure what you aim for in a discussion Mr. Quinn, but to me it seems too much of a contest where the aim is to win, and not to learn and understand. If someone can learn from what I say, that would be great for them, but that is completely uninteresting for me. I have no need to be right, so I do not fear to admit my mistakes when I'm wrong.

About that I belive in what I know bit, there isn't any original ideas in it, it just says something about both belief and knowledge, and how "true" either of them are. I like it when I'm able to explain something with a simple statement, containing many layers of interpretation. So for me at least it do indeed say a bit more than "everyone breathes air".

[David Quinn]

Tord wrote:

DQ: You did indeed use the world "bullshit".

Tord: Does this protest makes sense when I spell it out for you?

Now, did anyone learn from that?

I'm trying to prod you into an actual discussion. But you keep backing away. You seem content instead to make generic remarks and empty boasts. You give the impression of being full of hot air.

About that I belive in what I know bit, there isn't any original ideas in it, it just says something about both belief and knowledge, and how "true" either of them are. I like it when I'm able to explain something with a simple statement, containing many layers of interpretation. So for me at least it do indeed say a bit more than "everyone breathes air".

Well, I'm happy for you, but unfortunately, no one else is in a position to appreciate your insight. It's too obscure, at the moment. We can't read your mind. So for the benefit of everyone here, can you expand on it?

-

[Tord]

Mr. Quinn:

What mistakes are these? Please point them out

And after I've pointed out one:

I'm trying to prod you into an actual discussion.

I think this speaks for itself.

[David Quinn]

Okay, forget it.

-

[Tord]

Fear of not-knowing does not lead towards knowing.

[Tord]

Just another funny thing:

no one else is in a position to appreciate your insight.

Obviously, what Mr. Quinn doesn't understand, no one understands.

[David Quinn]

Does anyone else understand it?

I mean, it's obvious that he is trying to undermine the concept of truth, but the statement, "I believe that I know", doesn't seem every effective, for the reasons I have already given.

Is it possible for the person who believes that Reality is not nothing whatsoever to be mistaken in this belief? No, it isn't. So Tord's statement doesn't actually work as an underminer of truth.

Fear of not-knowing does not lead towards knowing.

No, but it's a start. Combine it with a deep hunger for ultimate understading, a skilled intellect which questions utterly everything, and an intuitive insight into the nature of the philosophic path which transcends science and religion, and you will be getting very close.

-

[Matt Gregory]

Everyone thinks they believe in what they know, but it would be closer to the truth to say that most people think they know whatever it is they believe.

What is knowledge, anyway? How does anyone know that a particular fact is knowledge and not something else?

[sevens]

Sometimes, you have to understand the context of a social situation, in order to appreciate the meaning of someone's comment.

[Tord]

Slippery little bugger aren't you? Ok, Mr. Quinn, I'll give it one more shot just because I sometimes enjoy an exercise in futility.

Does anyone else understand it?

So you suddenly decided to modify your statement I see, that's nice.

it's obvious

Again you go with all that is obvious. You take this concept much to lightly Mr. Quinn. If you also take that approach when using logic, you will never learn anything.

"I believe that I know"

But this is to too much! It's kind of funny really, as I said that, agree or not, you should at least think through it before voicing objections. But you didn't even bother to read it closely enough to see what I said. There is a WORLD of difference between these two statements.

So Tord's statement doesn't actually work as an underminer of truth

So you did actually try to understand it? Notice the difference and give it another go.

intuitive insight into the nature of the philosophic path which transcends science and religion

I'm not dismissing intuition totally, but I think it should be used with great caution.

Fear of not-knowing does not lead towards knowing.

No, but it's a start.

Fear is never a start, it's a weakness.

[Kevin Solway]

Fear is never a start, it's a weakness.

It is a delusion to think you can start without weakness.

When asked what he feared most, Socrates would answer "being in error".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Tord, could you try again? You really have to take more time to understand what is being said to you, since my impression is that you do not read carefully and interpret way to eagerly. Just like you'd like for people on this forum to take time in trying to decode your meaning and perhaps prevend misreading your intention.

Why do you use the word "belive"? Is it a made-up word forging being and living together? Like "you are what you believe"? A matter of character perhaps which could be a base to continue a discussion on.

Anyway, if your goal is to communicate clearly, it doesn't seem wise to use such clever cryptic phrases without explanding on it. Could you expand on it?

[Dan Rowden]

Just on a small technical point: what Tord actually said was "I belive in what I know". At one point David turns that into "I believe that I know". Do these two statements really have different meanings as Tord asserted? I don't see how. Anyway, the original statement I find largely meaningless. How is it not a redundacy to state that one believes what one apparently already knows? Why does one require belief in that context? Wouldn't "I know what I know" make more sense?


Dan Rowden

[Tord]

I'm sorry if I seem not to give others opinions due attention, but this has mostly to to with my growing impatience with Mr. Quinn's antics. I have met far too many ignorants through the years, so when somebody shows total unwillingness to at least try to understand, I tend to abandon a constructive way of arguing. BUT, I'm more than willing to respect and listen to arguments presented with a relative open mind.

I use the word "belive" because I think that's probably all we can do when trying to figure out reality. I'm not dismissing "knowledge" altogether, but I don't think I will ever know that I know. So if being a sceptic is saying that it's impossible to know, I do not quite shear that view. That is what I mean with "I belive in what I know". But at the same time it implies that what I might belive (i.e. not know) is a lie. By belief I here mean gods, the importance of man as a race, love etc, that is; all things that can't be proved. Whereas the things I can prove, is the things I belive, which follows from the first argument.

But this is difficult. I see that I'm nowhere near explaining this concept in a easy to understand way. This is the reason why explanations are dangerous, as the more specific you try to be the easier it is to become unclear. The advantage with metaphors and that which can be interpreted in many ways, is that they say so much, that anyone can find a meaning according to his own point of view. Someone once said that to define is to limit, so that the more specific you are the fewer things can fit that which you are describing.

But all this has probably only made things more unclear than ever.

Onion-Peelings in The Book of Lies by Crowley ends:
"But though FRATER PERDURABO laughed openly, He also at the same time wept secretly; and in Himself He neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what He said."
Paradoxes.

[Kevin Solway]

I use the word "belive" because I think that's probably all we can do when trying to figure out reality.

That's fine, so long as you keep an open mind, and are open to the possibility that we can know things for certain.

I'm not dismissing "knowledge" altogether, but I don't think I will ever know that I know.

In other words, you are not sure you will ever know anything for certain, and you currently have to be content with merely believing things that you don't know for sure.

So if being a sceptic is saying that it's impossible to know, I do not quite share that view.

That's fine, but you will have to be careful about how you word things. You should always qualify what you say with words like "I currently believe . . . ", or "I think it is possible . . . ", or "Maybe . . . ". Otherwise it can sound like you are claiming to actually know something for certain.

So you should say "I am currently of the belief there are no gods", or "I have not seen any evidence of the existence of gods", or "It is possible there are no gods", etc. If you said "I am certain there are no gods" you would be contradicting your own position.

[David Quinn]

Tord wrote:

I use the word "belive" because I think that's probably all we can do when trying to figure out reality. I'm not dismissing "knowledge" altogether, but I don't think I will ever know that I know. So if being a sceptic is saying that it's impossible to know, I do not quite shear that view. That is what I mean with "I belive in what I know". But at the same time it implies that what I might belive (i.e. not know) is a lie. By belief I here mean gods, the importance of man as a race, love etc, that is; all things that can't be proved. Whereas the things I can prove, is the things I belive, which follows from the first argument.

This passage doesn't make any sense. In the first sentence, you are saying that we only have belief because we can probably never know or prove anything. Yet by the time you get to the last sentence, you're saying that you believe in what can be proven.

Which is it to be?

Are you speaking against the possibility of knowing truth or not? You seem to dancing around this issue, and hedging your bets.

What about the belief that Reality is not nothing whatsoever? Do you doubt the truth of this belief? Or do you acknowledge that it is an irrefutable fact?

-

[Blair]

Tord's a fraud. He is trying to create a mystique that he knows something, but he's just full of hot air. Seen it all before.

[Tord]

Yes, Prince, when I claim not to know anything, I'm trying to make the impression that I do know something. If you are not willing to accept what I'm saying, why do you put meaning into my words at all?

As for the more serious arguments, I said I'm fully aware that I didn't make things very clear in the first place, but I'll try to answers the questions raised hopefully cutting some loose threads in the process.

Mr. Quinn:

This passage doesn't make any sense. In the first sentence, you are saying that we only have belief because we can probably never know or prove anything. Yet by the time you get to the last sentence, you're saying that you believe in what can be proven.

If I have understood you correctly I think that maybe this is partly the point you have stated earlier actually. Science has limits that makes it impossible as a tool for achieving ultimate knowledge. Where we seemingly differ is that I use it as one of the ways towards that knowledge. I think this is possible despite its inherent limitations. So, the point is; I can use science to "prove" many things, but that doesn't mean I regard those things as true, but for me that can be a starting point. Remember; different paths may lead to the same goal.

Are you speaking against the possibility of knowing truth or not? You seem to dancing around this issue, and hedging your bets.

I thought I made that clear when I said:

I don't think I will ever know that I know

How can I speak against it when I'm not sure? Perhaps someday I will get an epiphany that reveals some ultimate truth, but this doesn't seem likely. And if by "hedging your bets" you mean that I do not say things are certain, you are quite correct. Until I know I'll be very cautious to dismiss any possibility.
That perhaps answers Mr. Solway's point that I should keep an open mind as well. This is something I'm aware of and strive to do, but my human mind does like to think it knows things, so every day I ought to remind myself of my ignorance.

Mr. Solway:

That's fine, but you will have to be careful about how you word things. You should always qualify what you say with words like "I currently believe . . . ", or "I think it is possible . . . ", or "Maybe . . . ". Otherwise it can sound like you are claiming to actually know something for certain.

So you should say "I am currently of the belief there are no gods", or "I have not seen any evidence of the existence of gods", or "It is possible there are no gods", etc. If you said "I am certain there are no gods" you would be contradicting your own position.

This is a valid point, but it does get a bit cumbersome if I have to start each sentence with: "I do not know this for sure, but..." If I've first established the fact that I'm not sure about anything, you should keep that in mind regarding any statements that doesn't claim otherwise. Otherwise it would mean a hell of alot typing for the real sceptics here! As for the non-existance of gods, that is something I do know! Just to forestall any protest, I'm well aware of the contradictions of that statement.

As for being

open to the possibility that we can know things for certain

do you mean any human, or you specifically Mr. Solway? I'm sceptical of anyone who claims this knowledge, but I'll never dismiss it before I've heard what they have to say.

[bert]

Tord wrote:

I use the word "belive" because I think that's probably all we can do when trying to figure out reality. I'm not dismissing "knowledge" altogether, but I don't think I will ever know that I know. So if being a sceptic is saying that it's impossible to know, I do not quite shear that view. That is what I mean with "I belive in what I know". But at the same time it implies that what I might belive (i.e. not know) is a lie. By belief I here mean gods, the importance of man as a race, love etc, that is; all things that can't be proved. Whereas the things I can prove, is the things I belive, which follows from the first argument.

reaction Quinn:
This passage doesn't make any sense. In the first sentence, you are saying that we only have belief because we can probably never know or prove anything. Yet by the time you get to the last sentence, you're saying that you believe in what can be proven.

Which is it to be?


-bert:
In the first sentence tord used the word reality.Which might point to the reality of the absolute.If this is so,then he doesn't speak against himself as I will point out.
In the last sentence he says that he can prove things.This proving of things do not have to be things of reality(thruth of the absolute).The prove as a fact can exist within the human reasoning system .He says "I belive in what I know",but also says "I don't think I will ever know what I know".
As I said before to you quinn:
ONE CAN KNOW THAT HE CAN NOT KNOW.And many did.

ultimately,as I get it right within HIS WORDS,he says:

I believe to know that I can never know my knowing.

And then I see a really good point in his statement.He can point towards the gross of his knowing intermeshed.Which of course can never be expressed in articulate sounds or immediate concepts.

[DHodges]

As for the non-existance of gods, that is something I do know! Just to forestall any protest, I'm well aware of the contradictions of that statement.

I've been trying to stay out of this... but this is just too confusing. You are saying you know something for sure, AND you know that statement is contradictory?

I know that I can hold the position "I have no gods" without contradiction, because there is nothing I hold to be a god - and I don't even claim to have a good definition of what a god is.

But to state the non-existence of gods as a fact, implies that you have a valid definition of what a god is. In my experience, the word is used in a variety of senses (some of which are self-contradictory, and some of which are not). I don't think the word, as generally understood, is coherent and specific enough to allow for a discussion of existence.