Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Chui  So I'll outline my style.
0. All opinions are plausible until concluded false; accept them.
1. If possible, do not begin with an opinion; conclude it.
2. If you must have an opinion, assume that it is wrong; prove it.
3. If you cannot believe it is wrong, say nothing illogical and admit your assumptions; show it.
To me, this was obvious. I seek to treat "opponents" as co-conspirators against the veiled universe, participants against whom frames, suggestions, and ideas can be bounced off in unexpected ways, and thus tools for the purpose of discovering truth. |
I like how you start at "0". I wish more people had your style. I think you have responded to some of my posts and helped clear me up because of your ability to not just say "your wrong because I think I'm right".
I think many like to think they believe something that they can't prove but some how think they know is true and then are surprized and feel the need to tell others that they are wrong when they can't even prove to themselves what they believe.
Then there's debates or argueing over something that hasn't really been defined - or that Steve redefined as something other than what it normally means - specifically the subjective reality ideas. Debating ideas that are taken in different meanings is recipe for misunderstanding and frustrations.
Quote:
|
I suppose if I were to summarize it, I would say, "Just because others are wrong doesn't make you right. So why bother showing that other people are wrong? Just show that you're right and defend it as needed."
|
That sounds like how I try to operate. I try to first seek to understand someone, regardless of any of my pre-judgements or ideas. And I'm more often trying to not believe things, as opposed to believing something - I have enough left over beliefs mucking with me already. If I can't understand them there's not much to talk about. Or if they end up not being able to explain what they mean, then they aren't really saying anything.
Eventually, I always hope, that there's a common ground somewhere. However, common ground is not found in what someone decides to believe with faith. I mean, you could have that same faith as common ground, but faith is not really a belief in my mind - it's just someone wanting to use a belief for some reason - they have decided to ignore the ambiguousness of not being able to prove it and take on the belief. Maybe that's OK, as Steve has writen about using belief sets and switching them in and out of your filters of reality.
Someone believing something with an experience is another thing - and if I haven't had that experience there's no need to tell them they are wrong.
If I'm right about something, I hope it is something that is true for everyone and as such would not need defending. Or if I try to defend and it's not true, eventually it will become false or not proveable - as long there are people like you desiring to "treat 'opponents' as co-conspirators against the veiled universe"!
However, it almost seems like there is very little that is "true". Or it's true only because of it's definition.