I don’t think it’s that dramatic
Sorry, I haven’t had time yet to move things around. Will do as soon as I have the opportunity.
In fact, I was being ironic...
I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly thank you for taking the time to create the subforum: your initiative was rather unexpected, but I seem to understand it was the result of the coexistence of two wishes: saving my contributions and saving other people's threads from the parenthetic presence of those contributions.Sorry, I haven’t had time yet to move things around. Will do as soon as I have the opportunity.
Oh, it’s not about “real or not”; it is about whether or not it’s (claimed to be) factual (scientifically, objectively falsifiable).
No worries. I’d be glad if you can find a good modus operandi.Also, I'm sorry if my message vexed someone (and you, Lúthien).
I was happy I had sent it, because it contains something I've been wanting to share with you since I began to write in this forum.
I hope you'll be able to understand that I'm not trying to say that what I say is truer than what you (readers) believe or see as true.
Ah, that explains - I often don’t get irony ...
No need to thank me ... I’d be happy if it works out. It’s sometimes hard to figure out what’s the best thing to do, with people having different temperaments and backgrounds sharing a forumI'd like to take this opportunity (...)
I hope so tooI'm writing a sort of report (about real facts, this time), which I would like to become a thread of the new subforum, it's just taking time, but I'll post it sooner or later...
I hope you'll find it interesting.
The technical term for that is greedy reductionism. It's a significant problem in the Modern world. You see, the main problem is that many, including likely many scientists, are rather on unsound mental ground about what science really is (a knowledge acquisition system for data upon which one is able to define a useful metric). So greedy reductionism tends to rear its ugly head rather frequently. See, I lean more towards pure mathematics rather than Physics, et al, so it is easy for me to see these as logical errors, and since I'm also a shaman, I detect them as errors in that cognitive mode also.
Yeah, that gets me rather riled as well: peepz like that tend to think that everything is some sort of intricate puzzle that when exposed to their (they believe) vast intellects will quickly crumble to show the 'true' sources. And you know that once you've explained a thing, why then you've essentially captured it and now can perform whatever "death by vivisection" procedures you want upon it.
I get your point of course, but I would rather say that “their belief is very limited by the notion that fact == truth”, and that therefore the only truth they get outbid that is a shovel full of uninteresting little facts that don’t have anything to do with the imaginative power of the story.Meneldur Olvarion wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:31 am
If they only knew that their belief it that regard is pure delusion, it might go some way towards setting them straight (although in the Trumpian 'post-Truth' world, I doubt it). Or to use that famous Sigmund Freud quote, "sometimes a cigar is really just a cigar."
Exactly, yes!Meneldur Olvarion wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:31 amI love JRRT's tower analogy, BTW, especially the last line, "But from the top of that tower the man had been able to look out upon the sea." There's a rather profound n-furcation right there: when viewed from the factual side, it an analogy; but when viewed from the Imaginal, it generates multiple imaginary vistas (at least it does for me as a visual thinker) some of which will be automatically selected according to one's mythological preferences to create the start of a guided meditation, essentially. And that can lead anywhere...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest