Grace Is The Knowledge Of Inseparability, And Of Us.

[Guest end3]

A man locked in a sealed prison cell cannot communicate with the outside world.

 

A man locked in a sealed prison cell can communicate with the outside world.

 

This total contradiction is resolved by the man 'dying to himself'...?

 

Please explain, End.

bad analogy.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

How about we just agree agree that an objective definition is one that is true for all of us; a common definition would be one that does not include religion. How about we call it human interaction?

Good, how do we do that.

 

I think we just did.

 

No, I breathe different air, I eat different foods, my body is programmed differently. So everything is subjective right down to every microsecond that I am alive. So what now.

 

Objective reality exists independently of your subjective perception of it. Oxygen exists for you to breathe whether or not you perceive it or how you subjectively feel about it. We can find common ground in objective reality.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

How about we just agree agree that an objective definition is one that is true for all of us; a common definition would be one that does not include religion. How about we call it human interaction?

Good, how do we do that.

 

I think we just did.

 

No, I breathe different air, I eat different foods, my body is programmed differently. So everything is subjective right down to every microsecond that I am alive. So what now.

 

Objective reality exists independently of your subjective perception of it. Oxygen exists for you to breathe whether or not you perceive it or how you subjectively feel about it. We can find common ground in objective reality.

 

It's meaningless without subjective interpretation...

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

How about we just agree agree that an objective definition is one that is true for all of us; a common definition would be one that does not include religion. How about we call it human interaction?

Good, how do we do that.

 

I think we just did.

 

No, I breathe different air, I eat different foods, my body is programmed differently. So everything is subjective right down to every microsecond that I am alive. So what now.

 

Objective reality exists independently of your subjective perception of it. Oxygen exists for you to breathe whether or not you perceive it or how you subjectively feel about it. We can find common ground in objective reality.

 

It's meaningless without subjective interpretation...

 

If the oxygen disappeared you'd soon find it was not meaningless.

 

EDIT: And actually it just occurred to me that what you are presenting is similar to a philosophical position called solipsism --the belief that only you exist. We can both see a tree, even if your color-blindness means you see it differently. You still know it's a tree, and we can agree on that. The entire world works because we agree on what reality is. You can't say it's not possible, that would be nonsense.

 

So:

1. Objective reality exists outside of your perception of it

2. Humans can agree on objective facts while having different perceptions of those facts (the tree)

3. We are smart enough to come to consensus on the definition of a word. It's a very simple thing. Go with the dictionary if in doubt, but make it a secular definition that can be used by all.

[Guest end3]

If the oxygen disappeared you'd soon find it was not meaningless.

I'm losing the significance in the banter. What would your "take home" message for me be?

[Orbit]

 

If the oxygen disappeared you'd soon find it was not meaningless.

I'm losing the significance in the banter. What would your "take home" message for me be?

 

See my edited post

[Guest end3]

 

 

If the oxygen disappeared you'd soon find it was not meaningless.

I'm losing the significance in the banter. What would your "take home" message for me be?

 

See my edited post

 

That's fine, BAA is the one holding to some objective fortress.... I don't mind agreeing to the dictionary.

[bornagainathiest]

 

But how can you have a relationship with anyone if you're trapped inside your own subjectivity?

As we can't define a dynamic subjectivity, then FAITH is all we have....and prediction.

 

 

That's not a worked example of you having any kind of relationship  - which is what I asked for, End.

 

Instead you've given an unsupported assertion that dynamic subjectivity cannot be defined.

Followed by another unsupported assertion - that faith is all we have.

Ending with a third unsupported assertion - that we also have prediction.

 

So can you make good on your three assertions?

 

With anything at all?

 

Or am I to take everything you say on FAITH...? 

[bornagainathiest]

 

#1.  You aren't able to give a Yes or No on this?

 

#2.  You do have the free will to change...?

 

#3.  But you're also trapped and unable to change...?

 

#4.  Please cite a worked example from your life.

1) Right, I am unsure.    Thanks for being honest.

 

2) To change what?  

 

To change yourself by freeing yourself from your subjectivity.  

The Prof, Orbit, Fweethawt and myself have no problem agreeing on objective definitions that work for all of us.  But you can't do this?  You're a helpless victim of your own subjectivity, unable to be objective about anything?  Really?

 

3) Yes, subjectivity is unshared.  

 

So you're trapped inside your own subjectivity and unable to change?  

Then how come we can all free ourselves whenever we want?  Are you saying that we're all deluded and you're the only sane person in this thread?

 

4) ??  You don't understand the question or you have no examples to share?  Please specify.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

A man locked in a sealed prison cell cannot communicate with the outside world.

 

A man locked in a sealed prison cell can communicate with the outside world.

 

This total contradiction is resolved by the man 'dying to himself'...?

 

Please explain, End.

bad analogy.

 

 

Why so?

 

Justify your latest unsupported assertion please.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Ah... good!    End's online.

 

Could you please look at post # 174 End and then answer this question?

 

"What must each of us do to stay equal to the others, when it comes to the definition of the word communion?"

.

.

.

To help you out some more, here's a bit more explanation.

 

EACH OF US ...refers to you, me, Orbit, theProf, Fweethawt and anyone else involved in finding a working definition of the word communion.

 

DO ...refers to the action each of us must take when agreeing on the meaning of that working definition.

 

TO STAY EQUAL ...refers to our status re: each other, which must at all times be totally equal to each other.

.

.

.

Please factor these points into your answer to the above question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

We wont ever be equal imo, so compromise is the only option with regard to communion.

 

 

Btw End.

 

In this forum our status is that of equals.  

You don't have any power to get me to agree to something that if I don't want to.  And vice versa.  And so it goes for everyone here - equally.  Each of us has the very same freedom to agree or disagree with each other.

 

Please confirm that you appreciate this as an undeniable fact of this forum's workings.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

End,

 

Please confirm the emboldened sentence above.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Ah... good!    End's online.

 

Could you please look at post # 174 End and then answer this question?

 

"What must each of us do to stay equal to the others, when it comes to the definition of the word communion?"

.

.

.

To help you out some more, here's a bit more explanation.

 

EACH OF US ...refers to you, me, Orbit, theProf, Fweethawt and anyone else involved in finding a working definition of the word communion.

 

DO ...refers to the action each of us must take when agreeing on the meaning of that working definition.

 

TO STAY EQUAL ...refers to our status re: each other, which must at all times be totally equal to each other.

.

.

.

Please factor these points into your answer to the above question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

We wont ever be equal imo, so compromise is the only option with regard to communion.

 

 

Btw End.

 

In this forum our status is that of equals.  

You don't have any power to get me to agree to something that if I don't want to.  And vice versa.  And so it goes for everyone here - equally.  Each of us has the very same freedom to agree or disagree with each other.

 

Please confirm that you appreciate this as an undeniable fact of this forum's workings.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

End,

 

Please confirm the emboldened sentence above.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

It's not a fact BAA, so how can I confirm?

[Guest end3]

 

 

A man locked in a sealed prison cell cannot communicate with the outside world.

 

A man locked in a sealed prison cell can communicate with the outside world.

 

This total contradiction is resolved by the man 'dying to himself'...?

 

Please explain, End.

bad analogy.

 

 

Why so?

 

Justify your latest unsupported assertion please.

 

Locked in subjectivity is not the same as locked in prison.

[Guest end3]

 

 

#1.  You aren't able to give a Yes or No on this?

 

#2.  You do have the free will to change...?

 

#3.  But you're also trapped and unable to change...?

 

#4.  Please cite a worked example from your life.

1) Right, I am unsure.    Thanks for being honest.

 

2) To change what?  

 

To change yourself by freeing yourself from your subjectivity.  

The Prof, Orbit, Fweethawt and myself have no problem agreeing on objective definitions that work for all of us.  But you can't do this?  You're a helpless victim of your own subjectivity, unable to be objective about anything?  Really?

 

3) Yes, subjectivity is unshared.  

 

So you're trapped inside your own subjectivity and unable to change?  

Then how come we can all free ourselves whenever we want?  Are you saying that we're all deluded and you're the only sane person in this thread?

 

4) ??  You don't understand the question or you have no examples to share?  Please specify.

 

 

Sure I can agree to agree on a def. That's the point of my discussion, that we must sacrifice something in order to agree....unless we are omniscient or can stop the dynamic.

 

The point of "knowing" others is an attempt to circumvent our inability to objectively know.

 

What is it BAA that you would wish me to take away from this conversation.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Ah... good!    End's online.

 

Could you please look at post # 174 End and then answer this question?

 

"What must each of us do to stay equal to the others, when it comes to the definition of the word communion?"

.

.

.

To help you out some more, here's a bit more explanation.

 

EACH OF US ...refers to you, me, Orbit, theProf, Fweethawt and anyone else involved in finding a working definition of the word communion.

 

DO ...refers to the action each of us must take when agreeing on the meaning of that working definition.

 

TO STAY EQUAL ...refers to our status re: each other, which must at all times be totally equal to each other.

.

.

.

Please factor these points into your answer to the above question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

We wont ever be equal imo, so compromise is the only option with regard to communion.

 

 

Btw End.

 

In this forum our status is that of equals.  

You don't have any power to get me to agree to something that if I don't want to.  And vice versa.  And so it goes for everyone here - equally.  Each of us has the very same freedom to agree or disagree with each other.

 

Please confirm that you appreciate this as an undeniable fact of this forum's workings.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

End,

 

Please confirm the emboldened sentence above.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

It's not a fact BAA, so how can I confirm?

 

 

But do you deny it?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

A man locked in a sealed prison cell cannot communicate with the outside world.

 

A man locked in a sealed prison cell can communicate with the outside world.

 

This total contradiction is resolved by the man 'dying to himself'...?

 

Please explain, End.

bad analogy.

 

 

Why so?

 

Justify your latest unsupported assertion please.

 

Locked in subjectivity is not the same as locked in prison.

 

 

Please say how and why this is so.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

#1.  You aren't able to give a Yes or No on this?

 

#2.  You do have the free will to change...?

 

#3.  But you're also trapped and unable to change...?

 

#4.  Please cite a worked example from your life.

1) Right, I am unsure.    Thanks for being honest.

 

2) To change what?  

 

To change yourself by freeing yourself from your subjectivity.  

The Prof, Orbit, Fweethawt and myself have no problem agreeing on objective definitions that work for all of us.  But you can't do this?  You're a helpless victim of your own subjectivity, unable to be objective about anything?  Really?

 

3) Yes, subjectivity is unshared.  

 

So you're trapped inside your own subjectivity and unable to change?  

Then how come we can all free ourselves whenever we want?  Are you saying that we're all deluded and you're the only sane person in this thread?

 

4) ??  You don't understand the question or you have no examples to share?  Please specify.

 

 

Sure I can agree to agree on a def.

 

If you can agree on a definition, then you are NO  LONGER locked inside your own subjectivity any longer, End.  

Yet you persist in arguing that you are still locked in there.  That's what I meant yesterday when I said that the Prof, Orbit, the others and I can all break free of our subjectivity any time we want.

 

You still seem to be struggling to understand that you can break free from it too.

Every time you communicate with someone, in fact.  Quite why you can't see that you're just as free and able to escape from your subjectivity as we are, I really don't know!

 

Can't you see that by your every act of agreement, you break out of your subjectivity?  

Can't you see that whenever we agree, this is collective and communal and is therefore more objective than our individual subjectivity?

Can't you see that every act of agreement by us brings us out of our subjectivity prisons and into the common ground of objectivity?

 

That's the point of my discussion, that we must sacrifice something in order to agree....unless we are omniscient or can stop the dynamic.

 

No sacrifice involved that I can see, End.

 

As Midnierider wittily pointed out yesterday, you must have a real tough time communicating with others. (What with sacrificing a small, part of yourself every time you to communicate!)

 

Unless, of course, your every act of communication operates according to the common rules of human society that you gladly accept and live by.  No sacrifice involved there, friend.  That's just how we humans live and interact with each other.

 

The point of "knowing" others is an attempt to circumvent our inability to objectively know.

 

But we can't perfectly and absolutely know anything, objectively or otherwise.

So it's just wrong to set the bar that high.  All we need to know is enough to get by.  Enough that's objective to let us communicate with each other and to agree with each other.   That's all that's needed and we do it every day - without even thinking about it.  There's no need to have a complete and/or omniscient understanding of the universe just to ask for a coffee, is there?

 

What is it BAA that you would wish me to take away from this conversation.

 

Well, for a start, it would be a real result if you came to understand and accept the following.

 

Subjectivity is EASY to put aside.

We do it all the time.  It's an everyday part of human life that even young kids quickly get the hang of.  Nobody has to be trapped within their subjectivity.  The commonly-accepted rules of human communication we all use without even blinking, easily put aside subjectivity, enabling us to easily agree with each other and be objective.

 

There's no sacrifice, no dying to oneself, nothing hard or mysterious involved.

 

 

That would be a good start.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Ah... good!    End's online.

 

Could you please look at post # 174 End and then answer this question?

 

"What must each of us do to stay equal to the others, when it comes to the definition of the word communion?"

.

.

.

To help you out some more, here's a bit more explanation.

 

EACH OF US ...refers to you, me, Orbit, theProf, Fweethawt and anyone else involved in finding a working definition of the word communion.

 

DO ...refers to the action each of us must take when agreeing on the meaning of that working definition.

 

TO STAY EQUAL ...refers to our status re: each other, which must at all times be totally equal to each other.

.

.

.

Please factor these points into your answer to the above question.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

We wont ever be equal imo, so compromise is the only option with regard to communion.

 

 

Btw End.

 

In this forum our status is that of equals.  

You don't have any power to get me to agree to something that if I don't want to.  And vice versa.  And so it goes for everyone here - equally.  Each of us has the very same freedom to agree or disagree with each other.

 

Please confirm that you appreciate this as an undeniable fact of this forum's workings.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

End,

 

Please confirm the emboldened sentence above.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

End,

 

Confirming the above sentence would also be good for you.

 

By doing that you'd be affirming that your ability to be objective is the same as my ability to be objective.  

And the Prof's ability and Orbit's ability and everyone else's ability.  Confirming that sentence would be an AGREEMENT on your part that we ALL share the same common ground by sharing the same common ability to put our subjectivity aside at will.

 

And if you acknowledge that we share this common ability, then what's stopping you from agreeing with us on other issues?  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Orbit]

Well, to be fair, End did agree to use the (objective) dictionary definition of communion, the secular definition.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Interesting that I'll never see you again is more healing for you than I'll see you again. It's not a stretch to understand why you don't believe God is in the relationships. Yes, not a problem to agree to disagree.

 

The reason "I'll never see you again" is more healing (for anyone) is because it acknowledges and accepts reality, allowing the person to grieve properly and then move on.  Believing one will see the loved one again just indefinitely postpones some of the grieving.  A person who believes this never accepts that the person is gone, gone forever.

 

Scientists have studied the grieving process (objectively, as it affects the human population as opposed to one person's subjective experience) and this is how we know that grieving is a process that requires acceptance of the reality of the loss, and eventual moving on.

 

The belief that death is only a temporary separation from a loved one, and that one will see them again, due to some undefined supernatural means, is a belief without reason or evidence.  That's why I don't believe in it.  Since I accepted that death is final, I have been so much healthier and appreciative of the time we do have with loved ones while they are still alive.  I recently lost a loved one and the whole process has been much easier to bear, so my experience matches up with what reason and evidence tells me.  I find it's a much better way to live.

[Fweethawt]

That's the difference between "us" and "them"; we'd rather have\accept the cold, hard truth over warm and snuggly lies and myths.

 

I think it's just an honesty issue, really.

 

 

 

This was a response to FTNZ's last post that I forgot to quote.

[Guest end3]

The problem I have with your stance BAA, is this. Every time I say something outside of extremely rigid objectivity, you call foul. And then when I point out that science can't do rigid objectivity (that you too agree is the case), then you say it's ok to agree to some lesser definition. So which is it?

 

Just spit out what you would like be to believe and I'll think about it. I'm actually confused about what point you are trying to make.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Objective reality exists independently of your subjective perception of it. Oxygen exists for you to breathe whether or not you perceive it or how you subjectively feel about it. We can find common ground in objective reality.

 

It's meaningless without subjective interpretation...

 

Patently untrue.  Objective reality doesn't require subjective interpretation, though subjective interpretation does often add spice.  If I examine a tree, I will use objective "interpretation" (for lack of a better word).  I will place thin layer leaf slices under the microscope, observe the xylem and phloem at work, count and categorize the number of other species that live within the tree, and discover the life cycle and reproduction strategy of the tree.  None of this will be done subjectively.

 

To the poet, though, the same tree might be interpreted as a place where young love once blossomed.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Objective reality exists independently of your subjective perception of it. Oxygen exists for you to breathe whether or not you perceive it or how you subjectively feel about it. We can find common ground in objective reality.

It's meaningless without subjective interpretation...

 

Patently untrue.  Objective reality doesn't require subjective interpretation, though subjective interpretation does often add spice.  If I examine a tree, I will use objective "interpretation" (for lack of a better word).  I will place thin layer leaf slices under the microscope, observe the xylem and phloem at work, count and categorize the number of other species that live within the tree, and discover the life cycle and reproduction strategy of the tree.  None of this will be done subjectively.

 

To the poet, though, the same tree might be interpreted as a place where young love once blossomed.

 

I think I am not making myself clear. I am saying without humanity to define and then interpret reality, it' meaningless. In that, I really don't see how reality outside of subjectivity is possible.

[bornagainathiest]

The problem I have with your stance BAA, is this. Every time I say something outside of extremely rigid objectivity, you call foul. And then when I point out that science can't do rigid objectivity (that you too agree is the case), then you say it's ok to agree to some lesser definition. So which is it?

 

Just spit out what you would like be to believe and I'll think about it. I'm actually confused about what point you are trying to make.

 

That's ok, End.

 

Just forget those instances and move on.  Instead, please focus on what I'm about to spit out.  (Metaphorically speaking, of course. )

.

.

.

I don't want you to believe anything.  Nor do I have the right or authority to make you do so.

That's why this sentence is SO important.

 

Please confirm that you appreciate this as an undeniable fact of this forum's workings.

 

​It's a mutual and communal agreement by all of us that we are equals.

So how can you possibly have so much trouble accepting this, when it guarantees your freedom of choice?

How can this be so vexing to you when you already agree to so much, everywhere else in your life? 

Don't you already agree with and live by the laws of your home community in Texas? 

Don't you already agree with and follow the procedures and protocols of workplace?

Don't you already agree with and abide the common rules of behavior and language everywhere you go?

.

.

.

I'm just asking you to communicate with us in the the same way as you communicate with your family, your friends, your colleagues and anyone else you meet.  Which is what I was referring to yesterday, here...

 

As Midnierider wittily pointed out yesterday, you must have a real tough time communicating with others. (What with sacrificing a small, part of yourself every time you to communicate!   Unless, of course, your every act of communication operates according to the common rules of human society that you gladly accept and live by.  No sacrifice involved there, friend.  That's just how we humans live and interact with each other.

 

And here..

 

But we can't perfectly and absolutely know anything, objectively or otherwise.

So it's just wrong to set the bar that high.  All we need to know is enough to get by.  Enough that's objective to let us communicate with each other and to agree with each other.   That's all that's needed and we do it every day - without even thinking about it.  There's no need to have a complete and/or omniscient understanding of the universe just to ask for a coffee, is there?

 

And here...

 

Subjectivity is EASY to put aside.

We do it all the time.  It's an everyday part of human life that even young kids quickly get the hang of.  Nobody has to be trapped within their subjectivity.  The commonly-accepted rules of human communication we all use without even blinking, easily put aside subjectivity, enabling us to easily agree with each other and be objective.

 

I just don't see why you're making this so difficult (like putting up barriers of subjectivity to the Prof) when you you clearly don't live, think and interact with others on this subjectivity first basis. Why is that so, End?  Why can you live objectively, moment-by-moment , outside of this forum, but when we ask you to join us on common ground... what do you say?  

 

NO!  Reality IS subjectivity.  Subjectivity is all.  There is no external reality we commonly inhabit.  There can be no common ground between us.  

 

C'mon man!  

Get real!  You DON'T live like that... do you?  Nobody exists in their own bubble of subjectivity.

 

BAA.