OK to disagree with an IP material?

And yet I just did explain what's wrong with that. There needs to be a thing there. A phenomenon to investigate. That's where studies begin: Reality. Starting at a conclusion and then working your way back up to it or keep spiraling around it much like a fly circles around a pile of poo leads to neither information nor discovery. So at the very least its useless, but of course Mrs. McTaggart doesn't stop at some sort of Force or deity. She goes so far as to presuppose that prayer healing and astral projections work, which they have been tested and demonstrated not to, but supposing they do actually is harmful. Just imagine how many people have suffered and keep suffering because they think meditating their way out of a cancer that could be removed by a chemo or surgery is a reliable way to clear it. And how many babies have to die because their parents are 'open-minded' enough to explore ideas of influence on vicious bacteria and viri through holding hands and doing nothing?

There is a reason people who end up making the world a better place are exploring the real world and not their ideas about all the what-if's and could-it-be's and wouldn't-it-be-coo-lif's that have at best ended up in nice fantasy literature... and I'm saying at best because it is not a direct crusade against mankind. Its not that literature hasn't inspired people to murder each other yet.

So exactly how would you define reality? I mean, a lot of people would say that simply believing in something called "the Force" is not a reality, yet for many of us it is. So what is reality?

And how can you say astral projection doesn't work? Have you tried it? I have... so telling me it doesn't work when I've done it is like trying to tell me that the sky isn't blue.

Just because you've never seen or experienced something doesn't mean it's not real.

Gisteron wrote: Avalon: To compare a mythologist who studies myths and their history and compares them with each other to then make judgements about the human condition based on its influence to our fantasies to someone who misuses science to confirm BS (let alone her anti-vax campaign) really isn't fair. Granted, Campbell may be making grander leaps, too, but at least he understands that this is gonna happen when you study mythical stories. McTaggart on the other hand doesn't conduct studies to find something, she just searches for some words to twist to verify what she already thinks is true. Of course, you haven't been to the McTaggart lesson yet, so please don't feel too criticized. The reason I'm making this response is because there may be other readers who think that one can compare the two and get away with it

I don't think I actually actively compared the two. What I did do, however, was explain what my experience thus far had been with the IP and explain how I'd been approaching my own disagreements with what I have looked at so far. After all, the initial quest was "is it ok to disagree with an IP material", so I answered that and gave my reasoning why.

Gisteron wrote: as for the whole open-mindedness thing: No, having it open for garbage isn't a good thing

I think it was Tim Minchin who said "If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out" :laugh:

I do agree there's something to be learned from examining this material, I suppose what I was concerned about was how central to the school of Jediism practised and taught here McTaggart's specific version was. It's the fourth external "text" covered by the IP which suggests it might be fairly central; however I see from all your responses that my concerns were unfounded and that it's accepted here that there as many paths within Jediism as there are Jedis.

Chalk this one up to my being new and unfamiliar with the temple, and thanks all for your contributions.

Gisteron wrote: Jestor: As I mentioned to Wescli, she didn't make a contribution. She had the conclusion before the research and she could probably have written the entire thing skipping all the research altogether, and it would probably be even much closer to fictional Jedi understanding of the Force - more of a ghost thing, less of a complicated-physics-and-midichlorian-words (not mocking you here, but her) kind of thing.
Also, about the Force and our agreement that it exists, I'm afraid you'd have to define the Force and existence for that. Since the word has (to this site) about as many meanings as there are people active on this site, its hard to tell it exists, if the only thing common to all those existing things is, that they are labeled 'the Force' by their respective believer in them. As for me, I think that existence is only relevant when it has an effect on other things. If I can't tell it from non-existence, I might as well call it non-existent and by that standard, a magical power being kind of around but not really doing something measurable or something that couldn't be attributed to something demonstrable every single time, just... doesn't seem to exist as an actual entity. Now it might.. But I can't agree that it does, if there is no indication of it.

Ah, my sparring partner!!

How are you friend?



Well, as I said, my opinion was that she was spinning a little diddy for us...

She had an idea, or heard of an idea, and set out to explain it to us...

Similar to your idea the:

doesn't seem to exist as an actual entity. Now it might.. But I can't agree that it does, if there is no indication of it.

You have an idea, and cannot prove it...

You have the idea that it doesnt exist cause it cant be proven...

But, this was the case for a long time with many things... Many things that I wont list here cause we are well aware of them...

As to the definition of the Force...

It's like 'the word of God'.... Christians cannot agree, so they break off, creating their own parishes... Because God doesnt judge gay folks, according to some... And "God hates gays" to others... Their exact definition varies so much, that they actually fight about it, causing dissention, and fracturing of congregations....

Instead of looking for yet further reasons to seperate, we look to the similarities in our beliefs, and exchange ideas on the differences, to help further find similariteis to further merge...

Dont focus on the differences my friend...

So, sort of along those lines --

I'm really lacking anything new to say about McTaggart since many of the criticisms / observations that I posted earlier remain consistent for the new chapters I've read. If I don't have anything new to say when I reach the end of the book....should I just post that I don't have anything else to say about it that I haven't already said in previous journal entries? I'm anxious to move on, although I don't want to overlook something relevant.

Thanks for any help that you can provide with this.

You can post anything that is on your mind about it. If you feel you overlooked something or if you want to skip it for now, go back to it later. The exercises don't need to be in order.

Jestor wrote: You have the idea that it doesnt exist cause it cant be proven...[/color]

That is incorrect. I never argue that way and you even quoted me explicitly noting how I do not hold that position. If you're going to use the Straw Man fallacy on me, at least add some quote mining ontop. It looks really odd when you quote and then claim the position to be the opposite of the quote as if that was my usual or occasional way of communicating.

And as for the faulty definition of the Force... I don't think that speaks in its favour. I know what a cup is, I know what a mouse is, I can describe both to a certain degree of detail and accuracy and at some point there is a clear distinction and identification possible. Real things tend to have that property: Identifiability (please, don't try quantum mechanics - it doesn't contradict this nor say anything close to what for instance Mr. Chopra or Mrs. McTaggart or Dr. Lanza claim it does). If I believed in God, I'd rather have a thousand denominations with distinct perceptsions to choose the one that is closest to mine from than maybe three or four denominations none of which can identify their God and tell the difference between it and a mouse-cup-thingy. I am proposing divisiveness, one might conclude? Yes, probably so. So name one thing that qualifies as a religion and isn't divisive in a similar sense.

The first paragraph is the prioritized point in this post. Since both discussions continued by the two are digressions from the topic, please, continue one, both, or none via PM, if you wish.

Gisteron wrote:

Jestor wrote: You have the idea that it doesnt exist cause it cant be proven...

That is incorrect. I never argue that way and you even quoted me explicitly noting how I do not hold that position. If you're going to use the Straw Man fallacy on me, at least add some quote mining ontop. It looks really odd when you quote and then claim the position to be the opposite of the quote as if that was my usual or occasional way of communicating.

Well...

Gisteron wrote: As for me, I think that existence is only relevant when it has an effect on other things. If I can't tell it from non-existence, I might as well call it non-existent (#1) and by that standard, a magical power being kind of around but not really doing something measurable or something that couldn't be attributed to something demonstrable every single time (#2), just... doesn't seem to exist as an actual entity. Now it might.. But I can't agree that it does, if there is no indication of it.

And you talk about me taking stuff out of context, lol...

So, (#1) "non-existent" doesnt mean the same as "doesnt exist"?

And, (#2)"measureable" and demonstrable" doesnt mean "prove it"?

lol, so, I had a few responses typed up, but liked none of them...

Then it dawned on me that this:

doesn't seem to exist as an actual entity. Now it might.. But I can't agree that it does, if there is no indication of it.

Was ambiguous an answer as any definition of the force you would get here at TOTJO...

Take a stand, tell me, does it exist or not?

Im just messing with you... lol... Kinda..

If you reread my post as it was intended, although you may not see exactly what I am saying, I am just using it as a loose guideline...

You,Gisteron, have an idea(theory), and your idea is that it might as well be non-existent, because it has no measurable impact (proof)...

And:

I think that existence is only relevant when it has an effect on other things

Then why hang out at a Jedi site? We will just keep going around on the topic... :woohoo:

lol...

I ask my atheist friend one time, why he posted anti-god stuff...

He said "to help prevent people from being controlled, and open their eyes"..

I said, "so you are against the preachings of the church? Well, you are beginning to sound like an atheist preacher..."

lol...

And as for the faulty definition of the Force... I don't think that speaks in its favour. I know what a cup is, I know what a mouse is, I can describe both to a certain degree of detail and accuracy and at some point there is a clear distinction and identification possible. Real things tend to have that property: Identifiability (please, don't try quantum mechanics - it doesn't contradict this nor say anything close to what for instance Mr. Chopra or Mrs. McTaggart or Dr. Lanza claim it does). If I believed in God, I'd rather have a thousand denominations with distinct perceptsions to choose the one that is closest to mine from than maybe three or four denominations none of which can identify their God and tell the difference between it and a mouse-cup-thingy. I am proposing divisiveness, one might conclude? Yes, probably so. So name one thing that qualifies as a religion and isn't divisive in a similar sense.

I dont understand quantum physics... Im working on it, but, I dont have to understand the physics of riding a bicycle to ride one, to use it and enjoy it...

And to reiterate, the many views of the force are as individual as what is the best dinner... (Pizza, in case you were wondering mine...

The first paragraph is the prioritized point in this post. Since both discussions continued by the two are digressions from the topic, please, continue one, both, or none via PM, if you wish.

Nah, I like the public sparring...

I like being proven wrong...

Really...

I put myself out here for a reason...

So you don't care a lot about the original topic in a thread. Fine with me

In (#1) I said that when you cannot tell apart existence and non-existence, you have options to call it either. However, I did not assert that therefore one of the two assertions is correct. Indeed, the fact you can't tell them apart leaves you with no definitive answer.
Proof is a concept in mathematics, not science. Measurements or demonstrations don't prove things, but that's all the time I'll waste on semantics. If however you read the entire sentence (#2) you this time tried to mine from you see that the point made is the same that was being made all along: If the effects of something cannot be attributed to a specific cause, whether that cause exists or not becomes irrelevant. And if its existence is irrelevant anyway, then why assume it? The initial quote was not out of context, it actually made the very point I'm repeating right now. It is now that you attempted to drag a few words out of context to make my words sound like the opposite of what I said. In the initial quote that you repeated now it reads "doesn't seem to exist" and I specifically mentioned that it still might, only that I have no reason to assert it does (nor, to be fair, that it doesn't, but it is only positive claims that require positive evidence). "I can't agree that it does (exist)" does not mean that I agree that it doesn't, it only means I've yet to gain more evidence to agree on the positive.

Also, just to make sure there are no more misunderstandings: When I say you should have quote-mined me and taken things out of context, that means that you didn't. As I mentioned before, it looks rather odd when you first quote something (like that I said you didn't take my words out of context or that I don't assert the negative) and then claim that they mean the exact opposite (like if I said that you did take my words out of context or that I did assert the negative). Please, if you want to put the opposite of my words in my mouth, don't quote my actual words in a fashion so that everyone can see how what you read and rewrite is the opposite of what I wrote.

Besides, its not that you are misunderstanding me.

your (i.e. mine, Gisteron's) idea is that it might as well be non-existent, because it has no measurable impact

is very, very different from

You (i.e. me, again) have the idea that it doesnt exist cause it cant be proven

which just so happens to also be the opposite of

doesn't seem to exist as an actual entity. [..] it might.

You do understand the point I make rather well, you just made it sound like something that it wasn't. Perhaps you were just a little floppy with the language and that is not as bad as being intentionally dishonest, of course. If that was the cause of this little scuffle, maybe we just found something to try and avoid next time.

Yes sir (snappy salute!)...

I am perhaps as loose in my speaking, as I am in my definition of the force, and everything else...

When I speak, literally speak, to a live person, I allow for the flow of the world, which is very hard to see in print...... I say things that upset ,my wife and frustrate her, lol, not to do it to be a snot, its just my nature...

She will ask, "Are this dishes dry?", and I will say "yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, yes, etc"

To which she says, "What?"

I say, "Well, it is here, but not there, over here is, but this spot isnt"

Basically, it is not 100% dry, nor 100% wet (immersed in water)....

Yea, Im surprised I wake up somedays....

And, I am like this ALL THE TIME....

I try not to be sometimes, but, life is just so funny and interpretation so important, I like to play with words...

+++++++++++++++++
Ok, what was the topic again?

As far as McTaggart, her science is flawed, but as was proven in this thread, this person (me, ..), and this sites defining, uh, hesitancy, (lol), sometimes, we just are telling a story, and trying to explain it the best we can...

That work?

Like the battle between creationists, and evolutionists, there is the battle between those who are very definite, and like their "i"s dotted, and "t"s crossed, and those who are a little looser, and like to cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s...

I am the second one, lol...

If everyone was loose, noone would really understand anyone.
If everyone was definite, everyone would really understand everything.
So its not so much that the definite can't appreciate the loose nature of others per se. Rather the definite is a way more effective way to communicate messages, even the loose ones. A crossed not-dotted "i" is a "t" and a non-crossed dotted "t" is an "i". Ha, but "timber" is a word everyone, loose or tight, understands while "itmber" ts someihtng netiher ihe loose nor ihe itghi do.
Accuracy isn't just a preference, but an advantage. There is reasons some insist on it and there are reasons communication runs smoother among those who maintain it at least when it comes to expression of the idea.
Although, to be fair, the accurate ideas about quantum mechanics or the zero point field help us explore the stars while fuzzy ones help us delude ourselves into thinking that wishing things into being works.

At the end of the day, the storytelling thing is a good thing when that's where it starts rather than where it closes. Sooner or later the definite should become paramount over the loose. That's why the definite ones immediately disagree with McTaggart's words. The loose ones sometimes spend time defending bits and piecs of her intentions to then admit they disagree with the words, too - for an "i" is an "i" and a "t" is a "t" and there is only so much sense arguing about it

Sooner or later the definite should become paramount over the loose.

You mean the weak minded?

Gisteron wrote: If everyone was loose, noone would really understand anyone.
If everyone was definite, everyone would really understand everything.
So its not so much that the definite can't appreciate the loose nature of others per se. Rather the definite is a way more effective way to communicate messages, even the loose ones. A crossed not-dotted "i" is a "t" and a non-crossed dotted "t" is an "i". Ha, but "timber" is a word everyone, loose or tight, understands while "itmber" ts someihtng netiher ihe loose nor ihe itghi do.
Accuracy isn't just a preference, but an advantage. There is reasons some insist on it and there are reasons communication runs smoother among those who maintain it at least when it comes to expression of the idea.
Although, to be fair, the accurate ideas about quantum mechanics or the zero point field help us explore the stars while fuzzy ones help us delude ourselves into thinking that wishing things into being works.

At the end of the day, the storytelling thing is a good thing when that's where it starts rather than where it closes. Sooner or later the definite should become paramount over the loose. That's why the definite ones immediately disagree with McTaggart's words. The loose ones sometimes spend time defending bits and piecs of her intentions to then admit they disagree with the words, too - for an "i" is an "i" and a "t" is a "t" and there is only so much sense arguing about it

This reminds me perfectly of a lecture by Alan Watts.

http://youtu.be/XXi_ldNRNtM

Vesha wrote:

Gisteron wrote: If everyone was loose, noone would really understand anyone.
If everyone was definite, everyone would really understand everything.
So its not so much that the definite can't appreciate the loose nature of others per se. Rather the definite is a way more effective way to communicate messages, even the loose ones. A crossed not-dotted "i" is a "t" and a non-crossed dotted "t" is an "i". Ha, but "timber" is a word everyone, loose or tight, understands while "itmber" ts someihtng netiher ihe loose nor ihe itghi do.
Accuracy isn't just a preference, but an advantage. There is reasons some insist on it and there are reasons communication runs smoother among those who maintain it at least when it comes to expression of the idea.
Although, to be fair, the accurate ideas about quantum mechanics or the zero point field help us explore the stars while fuzzy ones help us delude ourselves into thinking that wishing things into being works.

At the end of the day, the storytelling thing is a good thing when that's where it starts rather than where it closes. Sooner or later the definite should become paramount over the loose. That's why the definite ones immediately disagree with McTaggart's words. The loose ones sometimes spend time defending bits and piecs of her intentions to then admit they disagree with the words, too - for an "i" is an "i" and a "t" is a "t" and there is only so much sense arguing about it

This reminds me perfectly of a lecture by Alan Watts.

http://youtu.be/XXi_ldNRNtM

Gisteron/Vesha

the muse is inspired . . .

Yeah, looks like you were fine. Had that problem a few times with campbell and am actually writing on it right now. What did I do? I pointed it out lol and had to get my dusty old greek lexicon to cite...fun