|
First JohnT let me
applaud you on your excellent use of the language.
Now:
Richard II said: “Put aside for a moment
your ideas of whatever methodology is accepted to
prove or disprove a theory. That’s extraneous
to the discussion.”
JohnT responded: “That's an assertion (a
theory if you will, a concept, an idea). Why should
I accept that assertion? See the difficulty here?
In a discussion, one needs to have some common
ground, some way of appealing to a common reality.
I appreciate the tone of your post, but this line
is where the shell game starts.”
The common ground we might have had was the
reference to scientific thinking. But unfortunately
the philosophical constructs provided by the
classical use of the field have given way to
today’s use of the term to merely measure
physical phenomena. If that is how you are limited
to using the term JohnT then by all means,
“Put it aside…it is extraneous to my
discussion.”
Richard II said: The difference with physical
phenomena and, for want of a better word, spiritual
phenomena is that there is no room for objectivity
in the latter.
JohnT said: I disagree with this assertion
(theory, concept, idea) as well. Look at it more
carefully. You are making an objective claim about
the nature of (what you define to be) the spiritual
realm. You have contradicted yourself, and from a
contradiction, one can logically derive any
conclusion.
You are splitting hairs to the detriment of
meaningful dialog JohnT. Just to be clear about
what I said: The measure of spiritual validity is
strictly subjective. That is if you step back to
look at it, it turns to concrete. Also by saying
it’s not objective, I’m meaning you
cannot find common ground to prove or disprove for
mass consumption.
JohnT said: “This then, is what you define
as the spiritual. It is a realm of contadiction and
absurdity, fansasy and dream.”
No. I didn’t say that. Funny you should
translate it into that (I take that back about
using the English language). If you care to
continue having meaningful dialog, the first thing
you’ve got to do is stop thinking you’re
so much cleverer than me, and begin to discuss
honestly as equals. There is nothing contradictory,
absurd, or fantasy about my experience of self.
And, by the way, there is nothing you have
presented as proof to support your assertion that
that is what I said -- just an unsolicited opinion.
C’mon JohnT, play by your own rules if
you’re going to try and impose them on me.
JohnT said: “Nor does it correspond to my
idea of what spiritual means, for to my mind
endeavors in that realm do have an impact on the
objective world, and in that sense as as real as
anything we can talk about.”
Indeed. Please explain. And if you have
scientific proof, all the better.
JohnT said: “You continue, largely to
defend your spiritual path and to deny me the right
to comment on it.”
You are of course welcome to comment on my
spiritual path, otherwise I wouldn‘t have
shown up here. And I do not believe I said anything
to dissuade you from commenting -- if I did, my
apologies. Could you please provide examples to
prove this “assertion“.
JohnT said: “But as I've explained, what I
mean by that term spiritual is not all the realm of
dreams. I, and many pwks posting here would say the
impact of your spiritual master and the path he
preaches would seem to have been largely
malignant.”
You have not taken a good random sample upon
which to base your hypothesis JohnT. Most of the
pwks who post here come here strictly because they
are predisposed to being negative. That,
unfortunately skews your results. What kind of
scientist are you JohnT???
JohnT said: “To be fair, it was you who
started off saying I prefer to see the relationship
between belief, logic and knowing in a scientific
light. Logic opens the door to a theory or
theories. “
As I said, let’s forget about science
JohnT. Yes you’ve got me on that one, it was I
who raised it, but clearly it has distracted you
from what I was originally trying to convey, so
let‘s just drop it. ‘kay?
JohnT said: “But I do poetry as
well!”
That’s great. Let’s see what you
got.
Richard
|