Philosophy Discussion Forums

Actually, you unwittingly answered me. The definition I was failing to grasp was actually that of "setting one free" in which I think you two have different definitions.

Jester I am fAR freer for the truth in my life. I am speaking for myself, I didn`t say you are in chains for following your untruths did I? I didn`t suggest untruths don`t ever occur. Meleagar said the truth has only imprisoned him. He must learn not to say YOU when he means HE, its bad grammer.

That's all nice, but that still just means you have different definitions, which need to be proposed for this to go any further.

I'm under the impression that he proposes to find freedom in being able to choose his chain while you propose that one choice is not a chain at all.

I prefer the shiny golden chain.

Jester I propose before you make a misplaced hypothesis yet again, you actually read the thread, and what I was actually saying, otherwise you are just another link in the chain of the master of untruths as is Meleagar. One can`t fully debate with others if they keep deliberatly misquoting what is said. Its hand waving away the issues raised by the opposition and nothing more.

A classic example of Jesters confusion here.
Jester wrote

he proposes to find freedom in being able to choose his chain

No he didn`t propose he chooses, he proposed the truth chains us all. He prefers to choose anything that free`s him,which obviously isn`t truth so it has to his idea of untruths.

Let your and Meleagars quibbling commence, I propose Meleagar should never have decided what truth is for us all and that if truth is something he understood he would not say it chains him.

Abacab wrote:Jester I propose before you make a misplaced hypothesis yet again, you actually read the thread, and what I was actually saying, otherwise you are just another link in the chain of the master of untruths as is Meleagar. One can`t fully debate with others if they keep deliberatly misquoting what is said. Its hand waving away the issues raised by the opposition and nothing more.

I'm entirely disinterested in making this personal. Please, might we try to explain our thoughts of materialism and reality rather than try to discredit others? Please try to specify what I have misquoted again, and maybe explain how it might relate to my chain anecdote.

Jester you made it personal to me in #134

What in "the truth" sets you free then? It seems you are associating lies with chains

Not only were you asking me personal questions on what is my truth, you also misrepresented what I said that I take personally. I don`t mind personal. If I tell you all about my life and wife and home and how great my untruths free me and worked for me as my choosing to be anyway to be happy, then I put it out there. However if I tell you all that the truth chains and makes you unhappy then I better be able to back that up.

By the by there was nothing personal in my statement that you quoted.

Abacab wrote:Jester you made it personal to me in #134

What in "the truth" sets you free then? It seems you are associating lies with chains

Not only were you asking me personal questions on what is my truth, you also misrepresented what I said that I take personally. I don`t mind personal. If I tell you all about my life and wife and home and how great my untruths free me and worked for me as my choosing to be anyway to be happy, then I put it out there. However if I tell you all that the truth chains and makes you unhappy then I better be able to back that up.

I'm sorry, I am as guilty as Meleagar of improper grammar, I assure you, I meant no ill. I simply meant the average person, not everyone, but as far as you have said it is entirely due to the individual. I can't necessarily refute that, it seems to be indicative of the same idea as Meleagar proposes though.

No problemo Jester that is why its good that we can communicate. Its inevitable that some cross wires will occur in this format.

Could you please then explain to me what the difference in the two arguments is? If you don't mind, I prefer anecdotes

The difference in the two arguments Jester is that I don`t go asserting that the those who believe in truth are not being free agents. Meleagar is saying that. As for anecdotes, why? this is not a Dear John room, this is a philosophy forum. If and when I want to know other peoples anecdotes and if and when I want to share mine I will. I have read none of yours.

Meleagar did not either, only that a measure of freedom is conceded on part of assumption. Shouldn't you consent, that if you really believe something, no matter how true it is, you would make logical (and other) concessions on its part? I think this is what Meleagar means by losing freedom.

I'm sorry again; as to "anecdote" I had its definition confused with "analogy." I just meant it would be easier to explain by relating it to something simple, like my idea-chains.

[/quote]The difference in the two arguments Jester is that I don`t go asserting that the those who believe in truth are not being free agents.

Jester wrote

Meleagar did not either

Meleagar wrote earlier

Quote:
The truth doesn't set YOU free, IMO, it chains YOU to it as long as you believe it to be true.

QED

If you are seeking my anaolgy on QM mysticism then why not just say so? If what a person thinks and really believes as true is all that is required to solve their situation or to make their thoughts a reality [as Meleagar asserts] why is it that millions are starving? Why is it only the good die young? it raises more questions than it answers do you see the analogy? If we all follow Meleagars QM theory, in which we create our reality, we are condoning suffering as something created by the sufferer and not mans neglect. Where a materialist would act on it and help the sufferer the theorist like Meleagar would say man caused his own suffering and created it so let him stew in it. See where this leads ..to chaos is where it leads. Any man believing he is a god or is instructed by his god is a path leading to chaos, and lacks reason

Fortunately, what you believe doesn't constrain the creative potential of my experience.
_________________

Meleagar,of course not! I love eccentricity. Thank goodness we humans are not robots all the same like computers.You have had some good posts so I call upon you
to tighten up all of your reasoning and not depend upon elisions to put down your opponent.

James S Saint wrote:

Meleagar wrote:While truth might not matter to you, it matters a great deal to me.

You have yet to convince anyone of that.

Good. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Abacab wrote:I have a great life that doesn`t depend on anyones lies and I find the truth free`s me far more.

You're apparently conflating two different kinds of "truth". I haven't said anything about lies, or lying, as a form of communication that corresponds to experience as closely as possible. I am extremely diligent in my argumetns and in my internal dialogue to keep my dialogue about my experience truthful. In fact, my entire system of thought stems from eradicating as much programming as I could so that I could begin a basic, more truthful correspondence with my experience.

When I say that the truth keeps you (the general you) in chains, I'm not talking about an honest correspondence/communication with experience; I'm talking about believing things to be true that lie entirely outside of one's experience.

For example, for me, a truthful statement would be that the sun moves through the sky on a fairly regular schedule. A statement of belief about my experience, "the Earth orbits the sun" refers to an explanatory mechanism that is entirely outside of my experiential frame of reference; I cannot say "the Earth orbits the sun" truthfully. I can say, "I believe the Earth orbits the sun", or "in my opnion, the Earth orbits the sun", but that's the extent of what I can say truthfully about my experience of the sun.

There are many things I used to believe were true as models that explained aspects of my actual experience. My efforts to create a truthful internal dialogue included establishing a differential for isolating actual experiences from beliefs about experience; seperating what I could truthfully say about experience from that which I had no actual experiential knowledge of.

For another example, I used to believe that I should treat veryone as nicely as possible because I believed that if I treated them rudely or confrontationally that bad things would result. I realized I actually had no experiential evidence to support this; it was just a truism for whatever reason in my mind. I wanted to see whether or not it actually worked that way for me; I tested it, and found that my belief was in error. I established a new system of how I treat people based on an actual correspondence with what actually occurs in my experience when I treat certain people in a forceful, confrontational, or rude way.

I'm glad you are enjoying a great life, but I never said that I base any of my views, conditional beliefs, or opinions on lies, nor did I say that I lie to myself. In fact, my perspective requires a diligent, truthful examination of experience and a truthful seperation of "what I know" from "what I do not know".

Meleagar wrote:

James S Saint wrote: You have yet to convince anyone of that.

Good. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I seriously doubt that you have convince anyone of that either.