I prefer content over fluff. Just my personal preference, I guess. But seeing that it appears I have chased away Brock and SM, maybe we're going to be restricted to a lot more fluff.
I'll try, though, to continue to hold up my end of the conversation. In my ideal world, everyone would know the truth, whatever it may be. I said that, "whatever it may be." I know I said it originally, but apparently both you and RB missed it, because RB immediately asked me about my own presumptions of the truth, calling the desire for everyone to know "the truth, whatever it may be" dangerous if one is attached to one's own presumptions, which is the opposite of what I said. And then you began asking me more about what you also assume are my presumptions. We are never going to make any progress at all along these lines. We may satisfy our curiosity about what the other believes, but we are never going to make any real progress in any discussion where anyone learns anything substantial. That's what I'd rather do. I'm really not interested in carrying on these internet discussions as some sort of s social club. It is tedious for my to type rather than to converse. If I want to socialize, I'll do it with people I meet in real life. You may categorize me any way you like, as is your propensity. You seem very keen on placing me in a neat little box, so that you can be unsurprised at anything I say. You seem to want to have an intellectual handle on the whole thing. That's a symptom of the sin of pride in you, I think. But immediately, you will not take my statement to heart, but rather you will analyze it as more of me attempting to inflict "my" paradigm and "my" prejudice on you. I don't do that. I only seek the truth WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. You seem to always ignore the second half of that statement of mine, the part I put if all capitals. That may be fine for you to continue reinforcing your own prejudice about me, but it doesn't do anything to get you any closer to the truth about me, whatever that may be. I can't force you to love the truth whatever it may be, but I sure can inform you that that's what I'm about, and hope you will see the wisdom in it. I can't make you believe the truth about me that I know about myself. You might be content to stay within your little mental box where everyone behaves and does just what you expect them to do. I can't make you prefer the truth whatever it may be to your own limited mental constructs. I can only say to you, come on in, the water's fine, and hope you will find the courage, somehow, somewhere, to break out of your box. On Feb 15, 9:47 am, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > discussions are much more fun when they are not entirely restricted, > as you want them to be ... tributaries are wonderful from my outlook, > and to be avoided from yours ... so i guess we have a different > outlook on conversation structures, but that could be said about a lot > of our outlooks, couldnt it? > > a prime example of the rigid constraints of your "debating" style is > the circular arguments you were having with brock ... without a > tributary, your conversations are ultra repetitive and not fun to > read ... you feel the need to create a new thread every time a slight > veer is taken from the subject matter ... even to the point where you > create new threads about seemingly the same topic ... > > i will take my flexibility over your rigidity any day, but hey, thats > just my outlook ;-^) > > On Feb 14, 10:23 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Non-sequiturs are so much more fun than discussions, don't you agree? > > > On Feb 14, 2:51 pm, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > and? > > > > On Feb 14, 1:49 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > And the sword can't cut itself. And you can't step on the same piece > > > > of water twice. And up is down and sideways is straight ahead! > > > > > On Feb 14, 7:04 am, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > a river that has no tributaries often becomes stagnant and > > > > > restrictive ... > > > > > > On Feb 12, 8:49 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > We were discussing an ideal this world, and RB brought up the idea > > > > > > of > > > > > > the next world. I don't think we were discussing an ideal next > > > > > > world. I'm not sure it's a relevant discussion. Is that what you'd > > > > > > like to discuss? > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 7:39 am, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > regarding your "Yes" response to RB's comment "But it may be, > > > > > > > then, > > > > > > > that the ideal world you envision is what you hope to find as an > > > > > > > afterlife?" ... are you indicating that in your ideal afterlife, > > > > > > > there are individuals, physicality? > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 3:03 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:> On Feb 7, > > > > > > > 4:41 am, Redshirt Bluejacket <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is some risk, I think, in wishing everyone to know "the > > > > > > > > > truth" > > > > > > > > > while operating under the presumption that your own theology > > > > > > > > > represents that truth -- > > > > > > > > > I didn't stipulate that as a necessary presumption. > > > > > > > > > >I conversely would probably wish everyone to > > > > > > > > > "know" the "truth" of pandeism, though I at the same time > > > > > > > > > acknowledge > > > > > > > > > an inability to prove the efficacy of this model in any sort > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > absolute sense.... but, naturally, it ought to be expected as > > > > > > > > > well > > > > > > > > > that your ideal world is one wherein the ideology which you > > > > > > > > > attest as > > > > > > > > > "truth" is, in fact, truth.... > > > > > > > > > The truth would be known in an ideal world, whatever it may be. > > > > > > > > > > And there is something of a paradox in this conception, for > > > > > > > > > if your > > > > > > > > > theology is correct, then our real world is the produce of an > > > > > > > > > ideal > > > > > > > > > Creator, and so is exactly as its Creator has determined it is > > > > > > > > > intended to be, and yet is filled with people who indeed > > > > > > > > > harbour > > > > > > > > > "conflicting beliefs," filled with shameful intolerance (and > > > > > > > > > outright > > > > > > > > > violence).... > > > > > > > > > Temporarily. > > > > > > > > > >so in some sense, ours is an ideal world precisely > > > > > > > > > because it contains all of these things, for whether yours is > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > theistic or a pandeistic model, it must be confessed that > > > > > > > > > ours is not > > > > > > > > > a world from which any of these things are excluded, whether > > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > > happenstance or as a matter of a fully realized plan.... and > > > > > > > > > so it > > > > > > > > > must be necessary for these things to exist, toward some > > > > > > > > > purpose. It > > > > > > > > > is an interesting exercise to contemplate what purpose such > > > > > > > > > may be, > > > > > > > > > and what end it may serve. > > > > > > > > > Suppose it were up to you to determine. What would you then > > > > > > > > determine? > > > > > > > > > > But it may be, then, that the ideal world you envision is > > > > > > > > > what you > > > > > > > > > hope to find as an afterlife? > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > >Or do you believe such things might be > > > > > > > > > achieved in this, our current life's experience of our world? > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 3:22 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:> On Feb 6, > > > > > > > > > 1:42 am, Redshirt Bluejacket <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This is something of a thought experiment -- the question > > > > > > > > > > > is, what > > > > > > > > > > > would the world be like if it were, in your view, an > > > > > > > > > > > "ideal" world.... > > > > > > > > > > > to what degree would people be free to engage in > > > > > > > > > > > diversity of thought? > > > > > > > > > > > In an ideal world, every person would think the truth. The > > > > > > > > > > truth has > > > > > > > > > > great diversity, so in that sense there would appear to be > > > > > > > > > > "freedom of > > > > > > > > > > thought," but people would not be free to think bad things > > > > > > > > > > or false > > > > > > > > > > things. The freedom would be creative and artistic freedom. > > > > > > > > > > > > to disagree with your own beliefs? > > > > > > > > > > > In an ideal world there wouldn't be conflicting beliefs. > > > > > > > > > > > >to what degree would people in > > > > > > > > > > > practice conform to your own beliefs? > > > > > > > > > > > It wouldn't be "my" belief vs "his" belief. All would > > > > > > > > > > believe the > > > > > > > > > > truth. > > > > > > > > > > > >and more deeply, how would > > > > > > > > > > > justice be effected, how would economics and education > > > > > > > > > > > and agriculture > > > > > > > > > > > and recreation and civic life factor in? > > > > > > > > > > > Once Love finds its rightful place as Ruler of the world, > > > > > > > > > > everything > > > > > > > > > > else will fall into place. > > > > > > > > > > > >what would be the sort of > > > > > > > > > > > treatment to be afforded by majorities to minorities > > > > > > > > > > > (including > > > > > > > > > > > minorities by sexual orientation), or would there be any? > > > > > > > > > > > None of the people in the ideal world would put anyone else > > > > > > > > > > down. > > > > > > > > > > > >How > > > > > > > > > > > homogeneous would we be, how populous, how globally > > > > > > > > > > > distributed? How > > > > > > > > > > > technological? What sort of a world would you envision if > > > > > > > > > > > told you'd > > > > > > > > > > > be dropped in an "ideal" world? > > > > > > > > > > > Ha! That is anybody's guess. If I were told that, I'd > > > > > > > > > > have to expect > > > > > > > > > > that it would "ideal" according to the ideals of the one > > > > > > > > > > doing the > > > > > > > > > > dropping. Who knows what I'd find? > > > > > > > > > > > It is interesting that dom said in her ideal world she'd be > > > > > > > > > > dictator. > > > > > > > > > > That is honest. The whole problem in this world is the > > > > > > > > > > conflict of > > > > > > > > > > wills. The question is, is there, or is there not, a > > > > > > > > > > potential > > > > > > > > > > universal harmony? In my ideal world, all would live in > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > harmony. Of course I believe such a thing exists, and I > > > > > > > > > > call that > > > > > > > > > > harmony the Will of God.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
