Everything is Made of Energy Stuff

Khaos wrote: If one is truly comfortable with the unknown, then there would be no desire to figure things out.

Dunno, perhaps if one would be truly satisfied there would be no desire, but one can be comfortable with working with the unknown and still desire to transform it.

Its not the question thats vague if you dont know the answer - its the answer that is vague.

There is a line to be drawn between comfort with not knowing and comfort with admitting ignorance. I'm comfortable being honest, even if it means to admit flaws in my knowledge or reasoning. I'm not comfortable having those flaws however and I try and correct them after I spot them.

And on Adder's final line. I humbly disagree. When a question is vague there is no way to know an answer to it. Sure, not having an answer doesn't render the question vague, but it also doesn't mean one ought assert a vague answer to a straight question. When one doesn't have an answer, the right thing to do is admit to it and continue searching, rather than formulating a vague answer just so there is any.

Its not the question thats vague if you dont know the answer - its the answer that is vague.

Sure the question could be vague. The answer is more than vague at that point.

Many times, the question itself needs to be refined, and more specified, or perhaps you could be asking the wrong question altogether.

Yes indeed, the question itself can be too vague..

Dunno, perhaps if one would be truly satisfied there would be no desire,

I dont know, I have had plenty of satisfying meals, and then been hungry again.

Satisfaction is not a fixed state.

I have achieved many goals, and have gotten great satisfaction from it, and yet, still have pressed on further in those areas.

No, not in my opinion, see you cannot know a question is vague until you know the answer. Once you know the answer, the question might become vague.

The sensation of frustration or annoyance at a question or statement is one of two natural reactions to an unknown. A person can feel confident about solving it, or frustrated about not being able too. It might be the affective aspect of affective-cognitive schematics at work.

I think what might be happening is vague answers are causing the later, which is then used to criticize the question, which is reinforced by the cognitive argument about empirical 'fact' and logical deduction to justify, understand and control the negative feelings of ignorance. It is an approach but I don't think its a good one.

I think in a spiritual learning environment questions are about helping people find their own truths, rather then preaching a system or structure of facts to achieve some standardized output.

So IMO a question is designed to achieve some sort of progress to an answer. Sometimes more then one question might be needed to find the answer being sought. Different people might get different things from questions, what is 'truth' is best described as whatever helps that person progress closer to moving forward in whatever areas of their life they seek improvement. Doesn't mean we have to ignore the facts in that process.

Well, I suppose it is largely a matter of if you prefer primarily inductive or deductive reasoning.

http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Deductive%20and%20Inductive%20Reasoning.htm

I don't consider this a "spiritual learning environment" in any case.

At least, that's not what I come here for.

It's a learning environment in the sense that you can learn from the discussions, but not all discussion are of spiritual learning.

Certainly not the ones I primarily become a part of, unless what is discussed in there is bastardizing science,etc, to justify thereupon peddling.

Khaos wrote: Well, I suppose it is largely a matter of if you prefer primarily inductive or deductive reasoning.

I'm not sure that's relevant, I'd think whatever works best works best. For me everything is spiritual :blink: :huh:

Reminds me of the Jedi Council of First Knowledge, ya know learning through discovery. :side:

Adder wrote: Different people might get different things from questions, what is 'truth' is best described as whatever helps that person progress closer to moving forward in whatever areas of their life they seek improvement. Doesn't mean we have to ignore the facts in that process.

So what if there is a proposition that is not factual but does help the person in the sense that you suggest? By your definition it would then still be truth. So while truth doesn't necessarily conflict with reality, it can, by your standard. Now do you yourself find that an appropriate standard? I suppose this comes down to semantics anyway. Surely there may potentially be partially beneficial things that are in conflict with reality, its just that I couldn't label them as "true" from that point on, because my definition of truth is one that does require conformity with reality.

No spiritual mumbo-jumbo, much less any fiction can ever compete in beauty with the magnificence of the true universe as it is.

I'm not minimize science or logic. I do feel there more ways to know and understand that goes beyond them and we have to be more semsitive/receptive to experience them. If it "makes me feel warm and fuzzy" I'm OK with that.

I didn't post my thoughts to argue with or put anyone or thing down. It was just a muse.

Be happy. Peace

“The brain is so powerful that the imagination has allowed us to conceive of any delightful future we choose, pick the most amazing one, and pull the present forward to meet it.”-Jason Silva

Nice quote.

I don't consider this a "spiritual learning environment" in any case

I do.

That may explain a lot.

Live and let live.

It explains only what I have kept constant since joining here, its not a revelation.

A for live and let live....I have no idea what you mean.

Honestly, I think its good to have people who do, and dont see this as a spiritual learning environment not just simply "live and let live"

Such skepticism, and peer review from a source that doesnt share your worldview, and vice versa offers a much more dynamic conversation with much more options to look at that it would be detrimental to simply "live and let live."

The fact that you do see it that way, and I dont, and that there are many who do, and dont makes for a better learning environment( not solely spiritual in nature, but much broader and deeper in regards to content, subject matter, and angles viewed) than it would be otherwise.

Live and let live gives nothing in regards to any kind of learning.

So, I will have to disagree there as well.