[FairfieldLife] Opinions and Truth
Some opinions are are pure speculation, and some opinions can be about: i) facts that aren't true that they believe are true, i) facts that aren't true that they know are not true, but express them as opinions. Perhaps there is not a meaningful distinction here. but I wanted to explore it. If one holds that opinions do not equal truth, and there is merit to that, there seems to be something more that a dichotomous is/isn't situation. For example, if one holds the above (truth <> opinion), and one holds that the holocaust happened, then it implies that they are also quite open to the holocaust not happening. I choose this example because there appears to be so much evidence of the holocaust that not having an opinion that it happened seems odd to me. Yet holding that ones opinion is equivalent with truth is frought with problems. In thinking abut it, a bit more, I guess a framework I use in parallel things is also applicable here. For me, opinions are working hypotheses, of which I am willing to reject any and all if better information or insight appears. That doesn't imply that one hypotheses is as good ad its alternative. Some working hypotheses may have a very high probability of being true (in my opinion -- a bit of a recursive loop). Others afe 50/50. Others 10% probability, with nine other hypotheses with similar weights. [for those on email, disregard my adjacent prior post. I deleted it and rewrote it here.]
[FairfieldLife] Opinions and Truth
Bronte posts snipped: When another person's belief is so out of line with our own opinions and assumptions, it's almost impossible to bend the mind to form an opening large enough to consider the radical possibility. I try to bend mine as much as possible. It's let me find a lot of interesting stuff. But I wonder how much of what may be real my assumptions still manage to block out. New Morning's questions make me wonder. Tom T: That is the exact point that Byron Katie is continually pointing out. When one finds oneself getting all wound up by opinions/truths of others there has to be an underlying belief hidden away in us that is causing the flames to rise and the smoke to come out our ears. Like the old joke goes if the barn is full of manure there must be a horse/cow/mule in here somewhere. Examine all beliefs and see what is left. Tom
[FairfieldLife] Opinions and Truth
Marek writes snipped: And he wasn't talking about giving up your individuality or slavishly following a guru; only that some have experienced that blasting away of the individual and the realization that I/It -- *Is* -- not even One but beyond the concepts of 'One' and 'other'. And, if I follow what Turq was referring to correctly, the catalyst to that realization (whether temporary or permanent) may come from a guru, but it can just as easily come from any other source. Once is all it takes to change everything and as Turq said, after that the desires and the individualities just don't have as firm a hold as they did prior. Tom T: As one lady so apply noted. All things are for evermore Teflon coated. Nothing to hang onto and it is just fine that way. Tom
Re: [FairfieldLife] Opinions and Truth
Hi, New Morning - You're getting pretty deep here, fella. Interesting point about the holocaust "opinion." I see myself as pretty open-minded, a respecter of opinions not my own. But I see red when somebody starts telling me they believe the holocaust never happened. So I guess I do take my own opinion here as truth. Am I being narrow-minded for not saying "I respect your right to believe as you do"? Taking it further, what if I met a member of the Ku Klux Klan who was expounding racist beliefs. Would I still say, "I respect your right to believe as you do"? Do we respect the right to hold any opinion, even if it's hurtful of others? Do we respect that Hitler had a right to believe Jews were bums? Maybe we should respect the right to hold hateful or racist ideas but not acknowledge a right to act on them. I don't know. You've challenged me to think about this. One thing along similar lines I do have a clear "opinion" about. That is, how hard it is to hear another's opinion and even CONSIDER its possible legitimacy when it is 180 degrees antithetical to one's own. We give them the same reaction we'd give the holocaust denier or the Ku Klux Klan dogmatist. But sometimes, that antithetical opinion has merit, with facts to support it. It's very hard to listen to "supporting evidence" when the mind's made up. But not to listen keeps the mind within its own confines, unable to grow beyond certain perimeters. I know a guy who actually does believe there was no holocaust. He would like to explain to me all his reasons. I absolutely go livid when he asks to, and pounce on him about all the hell the Jews went through in the Second World War and that if it were left to people like him, all that would be forgotten. I tell him I have friends who lost family in the concentration camps, and it's a personal affront to me that he tells people their suffering never occurred. In this case, I KNOW that he's wrong. But how many other issues do I KNOW about, and could I be wrong on some on them? Can my assurance that I'm right keep new light from entering my mind? David Icke is a British guy (former national spokesperson for The Green Party) who is very brilliant and original but who writes books that most people think are plumb crazy. I've read some of them. He backs up his wild premises with countless amounts of evidence. He may or may not be right. Maybe right about some of it, wrong about other parts. But all you have to do is mention the guy's name to most people and they go, "oh my god, that crazy guy." When another person's belief is so out of line with our own opinions and assumptions, it's almost impossible to bend the mind to form an opening large enough to consider the radical possibility. I try to bend mine as much as possible. It's let me find a lot of interesting stuff. But I wonder how much of what may be real my assumptions still manage to block out. New Morning's questions make me wonder. Bronte "new.morning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Some opinions are are pure speculation, and some opinions can be about: i) facts that aren't true that they believe are true, i) facts that aren't true that they know are not true, but express them as opinions. Perhaps there is not a meaningful distinction here. but I wanted to explore it. If one holds that opinions do not equal truth, and there is merit to that, there seems to be something more that a dichotomous is/isn't situation. For example, if one holds the above (truth <> opinion), and one holds that the holocaust happened, then it implies that they are also quite open to the holocaust not happening. I choose this example because there appears to be so much evidence of the holocaust that not having an opinion that it happened seems odd to me. Yet holding that ones opinion is equivalent with truth is frought with problems. In thinking abut it, a bit more, I guess a framework I use in parallel things is also applicable here. For me, opinions are working hypotheses, of which I am willing to reject any and all if better information or insight appears. That doesn't imply that one hypotheses is as good ad its alternative. Some working hypotheses may have a very high probability of being true (in my opinion -- a bit of a recursive loop). Others afe 50/50. Others 10% probability, with nine other hypotheses with similar weights. [for those on email, disregard my adjacent prior post. I deleted it and rewrote it here.] - Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Opinions and Truth
I remember that joke the way my dad used to tell it. "When the little optimist woke up on his birthday and found a cartload of manure, what did he say? Answer: 'There's GOT to be a pony here somewhere!'" I think that joke was the 1950's version of "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade." Bronte tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bronte posts snipped: When another person's belief is so out of line with our own opinions and assumptions, it's almost impossible to bend the mind to form an opening large enough to consider the radical possibility. I try to bend mine as much as possible. It's let me find a lot of interesting stuff. But I wonder how much of what may be real my assumptions still manage to block out. New Morning's questions make me wonder. Tom T: That is the exact point that Byron Katie is continually pointing out. When one finds oneself getting all wound up by opinions/truths of others there has to be an underlying belief hidden away in us that is causing the flames to rise and the smoke to come out our ears. Like the old joke goes if the barn is full of manure there must be a horse/cow/mule in here somewhere. Examine all beliefs and see what is left. Tom - Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV.
