Page 2 of 8 [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

26 Jun 2012, 1:27 pm

JWC wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
JWC wrote:
If a persons viewpoint is a result of an undying commitment to a certain aspect of reality, and that aspect of reality does not change; are they still a "static" person guilty of "denouncing reality"?


Well there's reality, and then there's our apprehension of reality. The map is not the territory. An undying commitment to the accuracy of a map in the face of evidence to the contrary is definately a static person guilty of denouncing reality.

Also, whether accurate or not, focus on a "certain aspect" of reality to the exclusion of others is a near total denial of reality.


You're missing the point. Some things change, others don't. Having a 'static' opinion based upon an unchanging aspect of reality is a recognition of reality. If someone's opinion changes when reality has not, then they are still 'denouncing reality'. In summary, changes to your position should correspond to changes in reality. Which means that a 'static' viewpoint is appropriate towards an unchanging subject.


what subject is unchanging?

as far as i can see there is very little outside the hard base laws of nature and even they are revised as we learn more.

the world is so complicated that every time i see someone talking of singular subjects i cringe.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

26 Jun 2012, 1:45 pm

Oodain wrote:
JWC wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
JWC wrote:
If a persons viewpoint is a result of an undying commitment to a certain aspect of reality, and that aspect of reality does not change; are they still a "static" person guilty of "denouncing reality"?


Well there's reality, and then there's our apprehension of reality. The map is not the territory. An undying commitment to the accuracy of a map in the face of evidence to the contrary is definately a static person guilty of denouncing reality.

Also, whether accurate or not, focus on a "certain aspect" of reality to the exclusion of others is a near total denial of reality.


You're missing the point. Some things change, others don't. Having a 'static' opinion based upon an unchanging aspect of reality is a recognition of reality. If someone's opinion changes when reality has not, then they are still 'denouncing reality'. In summary, changes to your position should correspond to changes in reality. Which means that a 'static' viewpoint is appropriate towards an unchanging subject.


what subject is unchanging?

as far as i can see there is very little outside the hard base laws of nature and even they are revised as we learn more.

the world is so complicated that every time i see someone talking of singular subjects i cringe.


All subjects change for a while, then stagnate and then change some more. Following reality would mean changing when reality changes and being 'static' when reality is static.

Perhaps you're too busy cringing to have this conversation.



Mack27
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 382
Location: near Boston Massachusetts USA

26 Jun 2012, 1:48 pm

You may call me old-fashioned but I think that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness never go out of style!



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

26 Jun 2012, 2:34 pm

JWC wrote:
Oodain wrote:
JWC wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
JWC wrote:
If a persons viewpoint is a result of an undying commitment to a certain aspect of reality, and that aspect of reality does not change; are they still a "static" person guilty of "denouncing reality"?


Well there's reality, and then there's our apprehension of reality. The map is not the territory. An undying commitment to the accuracy of a map in the face of evidence to the contrary is definately a static person guilty of denouncing reality.

Also, whether accurate or not, focus on a "certain aspect" of reality to the exclusion of others is a near total denial of reality.


You're missing the point. Some things change, others don't. Having a 'static' opinion based upon an unchanging aspect of reality is a recognition of reality. If someone's opinion changes when reality has not, then they are still 'denouncing reality'. In summary, changes to your position should correspond to changes in reality. Which means that a 'static' viewpoint is appropriate towards an unchanging subject.


what subject is unchanging?

as far as i can see there is very little outside the hard base laws of nature and even they are revised as we learn more.

the world is so complicated that every time i see someone talking of singular subjects i cringe.


All subjects change for a while, then stagnate and then change some more. Following reality would mean changing when reality changes and being 'static' when reality is static.

Perhaps you're too busy cringing to have this conversation.


that is changing isnt it?


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

26 Jun 2012, 2:50 pm

Oodain wrote:
JWC wrote:
Oodain wrote:
JWC wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
JWC wrote:
If a persons viewpoint is a result of an undying commitment to a certain aspect of reality, and that aspect of reality does not change; are they still a "static" person guilty of "denouncing reality"?


Well there's reality, and then there's our apprehension of reality. The map is not the territory. An undying commitment to the accuracy of a map in the face of evidence to the contrary is definately a static person guilty of denouncing reality.

Also, whether accurate or not, focus on a "certain aspect" of reality to the exclusion of others is a near total denial of reality.


You're missing the point. Some things change, others don't. Having a 'static' opinion based upon an unchanging aspect of reality is a recognition of reality. If someone's opinion changes when reality has not, then they are still 'denouncing reality'. In summary, changes to your position should correspond to changes in reality. Which means that a 'static' viewpoint is appropriate towards an unchanging subject.




what subject is unchanging?

as far as i can see there is very little outside the hard base laws of nature and even they are revised as we learn more.

the world is so complicated that every time i see someone talking of singular subjects i cringe.


All subjects change for a while, then stagnate and then change some more. Following reality would mean changing when reality changes and being 'static' when reality is static.

Perhaps you're too busy cringing to have this conversation.


that is changing isnt it?


Not during the periods of stagnation,



SpiritBlooms
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,024

26 Jun 2012, 3:36 pm

simon_says wrote:
Quote:
Our soldiers did not go to some foreign country and risk their lives in vainand defend our Constitution so that decades later you can tell me it's a living document ever changing and is open to interpretation. The guys who wrote it were light years ahead of anyone today, and they meant what they said; now leave the document alone, or there's going to be trouble


We've changed it many times and will change it again. Jefferson said we shouldnt be shackled to the ideas of their time. And of course it must be interpreted. It's language.

I don't think you are a bad American. I think you are a non-thinking traditionalist. You've constructed a world-view to justify being low information. I don't find it admirable but fortunately I don't know you and never will. Knock yourself out.

Yes! And the right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment, one of those changes. So you want that change, I take it. You might want to try actually reading it. You'll learn something.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

26 Jun 2012, 3:37 pm

unchanging in this context is it never changes,(universal context)
i never said something couldnt hold true for a period, what i did say was that taking all teh variables(which is only a fraction today anyway) it becomes increasingly hard to argue that matters where humans are directly involved are ever static, and in essence many of the issues presented by the OP are intrinsically human in nature.

nor did i say that everything or even what amount of things i throught were this or that but taking the amount of issues you can be sure he is wrong about something, just as i and every other person on these boards are, what aspect in what time period concering what subject differs wildly.

which is why a mindset where one refuses to learn will always leave you with a net negative since you will only be right in passing if ever.
no view you can hold with a static mindset(apart from the wildly ridicoulous, in this context hard core conspiracy believers etc.) is unobtainable by "learning"

this is nto to be confused with actually learning but how we relate to what we learn, everyone can learn something using rote learning,


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

26 Jun 2012, 4:13 pm

Oodain wrote:
unchanging in this context is it never changes,(universal context)
i never said something couldnt hold true for a period, what i did say was that taking all teh variables(which is only a fraction today anyway) it becomes increasingly hard to argue that matters where humans are directly involved are ever static, and in essence many of the issues presented by the OP are intrinsically human in nature.

nor did i say that everything or even what amount of things i throught were this or that but taking the amount of issues you can be sure he is wrong about something, just as i and every other person on these boards are, what aspect in what time period concering what subject differs wildly.

which is why a mindset where one refuses to learn will always leave you with a net negative since you will only be right in passing if ever.
no view you can hold with a static mindset(apart from the wildly ridicoulous, in this context hard core conspiracy believers etc.) is unobtainable by "learning"

this is nto to be confused with actually learning but how we relate to what we learn, everyone can learn something using rote learning,


What is human nature?

Cite an example of a "static mindset".



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

26 Jun 2012, 4:30 pm

Your statements are all perfectly rational statements of opinion, and they are as valid as any other opinions that are out there. I might not agree with them all, but they are our respective rights to hold our opinions and to disagree from time to time.

So I certainly wouldn't describe you as a "bad American," unless it was to suggest that you have a worldview that will inhibit your nation's success in the 21st century.

The United States built much of its power on the basis of openness to change. It was created in the cradle of Enlightenment Liberalism, and its economic, political and demographic growth was based on the understanding that new ideas and new ways of doing thing were the way to create more with less.

The protectionist mindset seems to want to preserve in amber a United States that existed only in the imagination, and certainly one that could never succeed today.

English has always been the lingua franca of the United States--but it has never been a universal language. Each successive wave of immigration has brought new voices and new languages to the new world. It has only been with the ascendancy of economic competition that some American's have become afraid of immigration, and competition from within. Protectionist barriers were erected and then when the domestic population failed to fill the gaps in the economy, the complaints that "illegals" were doing it began. The United States will never again be the centre of global manufacturing--because others can do it better, cheaper and faster. The United States will never be the world's breadbasket--because others can do it better, cheaper and faster. The United States will never be self-sufficient in energy unless it lessens its dependence on petroleum, because the reserves that she holds are not economically viable to exploit.

Change is the engine of progress. And the United States cannot expect to keep her pre-eminent place among the nations of the world if she does not choose to embrace change and innovation with enthusiasm. The world is evolving around you.

If you advocate a political view that will reinforce your well being, but inhibit your country's progress, then it may be that you are a good American, but a bad citizen.


_________________
--James


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

26 Jun 2012, 4:45 pm

shadowboxer wrote:
I have the right not to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird or make me mad.

Then what are you doing here? You know this is forum of peoples that are differents and frequently considered as weird right? Many here have been victims of such intolerance.


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

26 Jun 2012, 4:53 pm

Tollorin wrote:
shadowboxer wrote:
I have the right not to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird or make me mad.

Then what are you doing here? You know this is forum of peoples that are differents and frequently considered as weird right? Many here have been victims of such intolerance.


Some people don't get that tolerating something or someone doesn't mean you have to like it/they. Thus they believe intolerance is some sort of virtue of individual liberty. Utter degeneracy


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

26 Jun 2012, 5:06 pm

JWC wrote:
Oodain wrote:
unchanging in this context is it never changes,(universal context)
i never said something couldnt hold true for a period, what i did say was that taking all teh variables(which is only a fraction today anyway) it becomes increasingly hard to argue that matters where humans are directly involved are ever static, and in essence many of the issues presented by the OP are intrinsically human in nature.


this is nto to be confused with actually learning but how we relate to what we learn, everyone can learn something using rote learning,


What is human nature?

Cite an example of a "static mindset".


read.

as for a static mindset, the op, :wink:


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

26 Jun 2012, 5:12 pm

Oodain wrote:
JWC wrote:
Oodain wrote:
unchanging in this context is it never changes,(universal context)
i never said something couldnt hold true for a period, what i did say was that taking all teh variables(which is only a fraction today anyway) it becomes increasingly hard to argue that matters where humans are directly involved are ever static, and in essence many of the issues presented by the OP are intrinsically human in nature.


this is nto to be confused with actually learning but how we relate to what we learn, everyone can learn something using rote learning,


What is human nature?

Cite an example of a "static mindset".


read.

as for a static mindset, the op, :wink:


Read what? It was an honest question. In your opinion, what is human nature?

Specifically, where does the OP "denounce reality"?



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

26 Jun 2012, 5:34 pm

i never talked about human nature, what i did say was that they were human in nature, ie. derived from or inherently dependant on humans.(why i bolded the missed word above)

he didnt(knowingly nor intentionally anyway) and that wasnt my point, my point is that standing up and proclaiming these are my views and nothing is going to change them so deal with it(paraphrased)
suggests a static mindset reluctant to change anything for anything, that is what i meant with a static mindset, and such a mindset does to some degree neccesitate denouncing reality.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


ghoti
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,596

26 Jun 2012, 5:37 pm

Tollorin wrote:
shadowboxer wrote:
I have the right not to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird or make me mad.

Then what are you doing here? You know this is forum of peoples that are differents and frequently considered as weird right? Many here have been victims of such intolerance.


Well, it was not his writing: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/badamerican.htm



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

26 Jun 2012, 5:45 pm

Mentallyskilled wrote:

Quote:
i read half of that but i see i dont like you. too much unnecessary hate.

You apparently define individualism as hate. Well, I can assure you that you won’t like me either.



simon_says wrote:
Quote:
I think you are a non-thinking traditionalist. You've constructed a world-view to justify being low information.

There’s a world more to knowledge then just one’s personal values. Having tradiginoal values does not make someone a cave man.



Mack27 wrote:
Quote:
You may call me old-fashioned but I think that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness never go out of style!

Remember that the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing has been spun/perverted by the left.



Tollorin wrote:
Quote:
Then what are you doing here? You know this is forum of peoples that are differents and frequently considered as weird right? Many here have been victims of such intolerance.

Intolerance is not the same as a call for genocide. People can choose not to be tolerant of whatever they want and still be a constructive member of society.
Of course, I guess I should remind myself that your idea of constructive and mine are probably a world apart….... :roll:



Vigilans wrote:
Quote:
Thus they believe intolerance is some sort of virtue of individual liberty.

It is an individual liberty plain and simple. It may not be popular but nothing says that liberties and freedoms have to be.