Shane said:
But if you don't 'side' with anyone, and the point of your post isn't directed toward anyone - what is the purpose of your 'communication'?
About taking sides, I think this is an utter waste of time. There is no reason to defend anyone or to argue with anyone - if one is seeking truth. In that sense, there is the side of being open, critical, and objective vs side of being closed, presumptuous, and subjective. The latter, entropy, is in constant competition with itself, consisting of a ton of subjective "sides" full of assumptions and arguments. But it's still all the same entropic side.
The former, creation, is all one side. Everyone who follows that path may not be "on the same page", but there are no arguments because there are no prejudices, beliefs, or assumptions that one idea or the other is right, and therefore no one is trying to argue for or against anything with the intent to prove something right or wrong. Everyone is seeking to understand objective reality without having a preconceived notion of what it is. There is evidence and constant effort to be able to correctly interpret that evidence - to read reality more and more accurately.
In light of that, Angelo seems to have a closed approach based on what I can see - he is convinced he's correct, and so everyone that disagrees is simply unable to comprehend or is simply ignorant and therefore cannot possibly offer enlightening information or suggestions that may in fact help him. He doesn't seem to be open to learn or listen to advice and read, the very thing he is telling this group to do. As he said himself after Laura suggested some material to study,
Angelo said:
In utter honesty, I'll read what I deem suits my current needs.
I wonder if he would say the same thing if while doing a research project for school someone suggested to him some reading material that they think may help his understanding of the subject matter. Is it impossible that someone may know something or understand something that you, Angelo, do not yet know? Is it possible that they've come across the ideas you currently present before, and as a result and may know reading sources that may offer evidence to suggest certain fallicies in your current views? If you think it's not possible, then your intention is not to learn but to convince us that your perspective is correct, period. If you do think it's possible, why the snide remark? Objectively speaking you are correct, everyone decides for themselves what they need. But in context, it was snide, as it expressed a certain contempt for Laura's suggestion - you declared it a waste of your time, rejected it out of hand because "you know better".
Laura says that from her research and experience, many of the things you're saying she has already been through and found that they do not adequately explain objective reality, and thus, must be discarded in favor of a better hypothesis. However, even if both, you and Laura, read every book and experience everything the other person has ever experienced, you may still come to different conclusions. And so, there's the rub, as many people can look at the exact same evidence and make different interpretations of it. Therefore, in addition to just collecting evidence and doing research, we must constantly work on being able to interpret it correctly, or in other words, sharpen our "reality reading instrument" and therefore be more critical and objective. This cannot be done in isolation and by doing only that which YOU think will help you - but just the opposite, you must be open to receive the suggestions of others who may be SEEING something that you're not seeing and therefore know what may help you even if you do not yet understand it. No, that doesn't mean that anyone can decide the needs of anyone else, but simply that some people can sometimes SEE what someone else may not be seeing, and may suggest resources that they think may help the other person understand better, if the other person is open to consider such resources.
And the purpose? Truth. Not to convince anyone, not to argue, not to debate, bicker, or to get people "on your side", not to do anything but align yourself as much as you can with objective reality. There is no judge and jury that can declare whose interpretation of reality is correct, the universe does not function as a courtroom, and the purpose of a courtroom is to convince the jury that you're right, nothing more, regardless of whether you actually are right or not. But the universe is its own judge, jury, and executioner. So please do not waste your own time and our time trying to convince us of any concept that you may have, we're not here to be convinced or convince anyone else of anything. What is the sense in it? In the end, the universe is what it is regardless of what any of us says about it, so what is the sense of wasting time arguing over it and trying to prove yourself right and convince others that they're wrong - when instead, we can spend that time trying to figure it out instead?
This is what Ark has been, sometimes rather humorously (intentionally so lol), trying to convey. In the classroom when you and another student disagree whether 2+2=4 or 2+2=5, do you spend 3 hours arguing and debating it? Or do you both join forces and try to use each other's knowledge to help one another figure it out by using every resource that both of you know? Which method seems more productive and likely to lead to the truth faster? The latter is what this group seeks to do.
Of course if your agenda was to obfuscate/confuse/lead astray in the first place, then of course I'm wasting my time appealing to reason. In the end we all go where we fit. So far, you're not fitting into this group very well. Why is that? Is it because we're wrong, because our approach to figuring out reality is somehow incorrect or distorted? Or is yours? Do you pose this question to yourself, ever? If you leave this group, do you leave convinced that we're simply "not at your level" yet? Do you think we have sacred cows or other assumptions that make our theories false and make us unable to see what you're saying? Maybe. But could you be wrong?
No doubt there are plenty of groups out there that for one reason or another do not seek objective reality, despite their claims. Are we such a group as well? And if you ever came across a group that is in line with objective reality as it is, would you even recognize it? How would you know? What indications would you look for? Would you look for how much that group matches your own notions of reality, or something else? Would you look at their fundemental approach to figuring out reality? Are there any principles, any basic fundemental concepts or actions that you consider essential to figure out the true nature of reality? What are they, and does this group meet them or not? If no, why not, and how?
I am simply asking to inspire you to think about this if you have not already. I always ask these things of myself, not just with this group, but any person or group I meet. I try to be as critical and objective as I can, but sometimes my concepts of what is required to figure out reality can themselves be wrong too. My own logic can be wrong as well. Hell, I may be insane for all I know!! So JUST IN CASE this is true, I must remain open to what others say and think and do, and consider their ideas and thoughts and evidence VERY VERY carefully. If I already have come across an idea someone presents to me before, I say that, and if I think I have evidence the indicates that those ideas are false, I show it. Did I interpret that evidence correctly? Maybe, but again, considering the possibility that I'm insane and my logic and ability to SEE and interpret is totally wrong even if I think it's not, I have to remain open. And over time and constant open interaction with others I *MAY* begin to become less insane. Maybe not though. But I have no choice - if I want to have any hope of figuring anything out, I need others to help me, and they need me to help them. It's a group effort. An insane person never knows he's insane. He needs others to tell him! Sleeping person doesn't know he's asleep until he wakes up. Same thing here - I have to consider that I may be insane/asleep, so I have no choice but to work together with others and hope that someone can spot my insanity and point it out to me, if only a little piece at a time.
Are you sane?