Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
In a sense I want to blow up the words “right” and “wrong”. I want to banish them from my vocabulary.
More specifically I do not ever wish to BE right.
And I do not ever want to say to someone else “you are WRONG”.
What is the purpose of being or proving oneself to be, right? And what is the purpose of proving someone else is wrong?
Apart from some sort of ego based sense of satisfaction what is the purpose of these things? Can anyone give me an answer to this question?
If someone says something to me with which I do not agree, I will not tell them they are wrong. I will tell them I do not agree with them.
If someone says something with which I agree then I may occasionally tell them they are right but much more likely is that I will say that “I think” they are right. Meaning, in my opinion – they are right. But – opinion is not truth.
It is not that I think it unreasonable to claim to be right if one is speaking about something which might be universally agreed upon (or as close to that as is possible).
I am talking about the ego-driven need to be right. Driven by a need for certainty.
It is an affliction.
What happens when you “know” you are right?
Nothing. And nothing CAN happen. Because by inference – nothing more can be known.
Once you believe you are right - you believe you "know"; you believe you have "knowledge".
But - no one can know anything completely. It is impossible.
Stone Cold Shiftly, I detect a judgmental tone to your posting to Tim Young. :-/.
Foreign beliefs are not allowed into "the old boys camp" very easily or quickly. A very old wise man once suggested to me (when I lived as though I was a know it all CPA) ... "If you hear something that really irritates you ... tru to immagine a situation where you would embrace it. Then when you have found that place, you are probably standing in his shoes."
A different way to say the same thing is ... "When are people going to stop believing "in Christ" ... and start believing "with Christ.?" (Use Buddha, Gandhi, Mandella, M. L. King or whoever if you wish ... the process of actually shifting of "how" one sees (i.e. where one must go) can assist one to finally learn how to take charge of one's attitudes and that perhaps is one way to gain access to the visa to the universal library of wisdom) perhaps? :-) It all a matter of choice, yours/ours or ... your/our beliefs. Its all up to you/us and how you/we think with our beliefs ... or think about our beliefs.
He was just pointing out the fallacy in what he was conveying. Saying one should live their life as if there is no right and wrong is claiming a "right" or a truth. It's completely contradictory of what he's trying to get across, which should be nothing.
One philosophical concept is inadequate to wade through the shitstorm of scenarios that arise in life. If anything, getting stuck on one way of thinking is the quickest way to being wrong there is. The world is highly situational; living from an overly ideal mindset isn't practical and results in blind conclusions that are sometimes made on a false assumption of the scenario being analyzed.
This. Thanks Ryan.
@Lawrence, I suppose you could say I was being judgmental if you really wanted to, but critical is probably the more appropriate word. A little bit of critical thought will show that Tim Young's claim is flawed. Perhaps he does have a valid theory in mind, but he still needs to explicate it in a way that makes sense, and this is something he hasn't done.
As for your post, I'm sorry but I really have no idea what you are talking about. I was critically evaluating what he said, and what he said is logically invalid. This is an objective fact, and has nothing to do with opinions or beliefs. In saying that, I will grant him the possibility that he doesn't mean what he said. I am not being closed-minded, I just think he may be using the wrong words to convey what he really means. But if that is not the case, then unfortunately his theory is false and does not withstand analysis.
I have tried to make this post as clear as possible. I hope you understand where I am coming from.
For some reason this reminds me of a debate about reality that I had with somebody when I first joined the site. They were claiming that reality was completely subjective and that nothing existed unless they believed that it existed; so I countered with something about throwing a rock at their head and told them that although they may not "believe" in the rock before I threw it at them, that they would sure as hell start believing in it after it hit them in the head. lmao
Now whether or not my throwing the rock at them would have been right or wrong... well, I suppose that would be subjective. XD
Some people want to believe their vision, or opinion on something to be ''right'' in order to hold on to it, to have something to fall back on.
In some sense this might be right: if you choose not to use right or wrong, how will you define facts. Ofcourse facts are also just things that the human kind subjectively observes. But if you not take them as true (or right), what will you build on then?
"Your right ... your left... your right left right."
If anyone recognizes this as cadence then welcome to the subtle conscription that belief systems have us in … all marching in lock-step in conformity to one central command.
There are probably a number of "things" that we all have in common HERE at this site and I would bet one of them in our intense curiosity ... or perhaps even a mega curiosity ... on #1) How "reality stuff" happens and then once we either objectively or subjectively “sense" that it “is a reality”, then the next big question is #2) Why "it" happened? ... what was the "Context-content supply chain of manifestation? ... so we can understand ... and use it ourselves in interesting and creative ways. Bottom line, we are all Reality Engineers. J
That being said, we all consciously sense that we are being both objective and subjective in our assessment of the TWO REALITIES we experience. Now there is our mutual problem number one … we are using the same word to define two entirely different packets of “Stuff” … one that can be objectively measured, repeated and observed by any sane (politicians obviously excluded here) person and the other only being experienced in the subjective world of make belief. (Caution, if we make a belief … and it self-replicates itself via “projection” it is still real … just not perhaps in physical form … that is until the quantum notion of consciousness serving as the seed of physical manifestation takes place – but I digress here … sorry.)
The point is, we really need to either develop a very unique and “specialized” set of words when we are attempting to define all the different realities we experience in life. Words (word maps, thought transporters, meaning containers, etc.) such as … “experience” or “truth” … or “facts vs. knowledge”, and the epistemological sensory-brain-mind interpretational systems that we all are relying on … with our extremely limited sensory input-process-store-retrieve-compare and assess supply chain. GIGO or … sloppy words creates sloppy analysis. Therefore precise outputs demands precise inputs into the supply chain of reason but ever here we as mere humans have a tremendous problem.
We only see/experience (with our 5 + 1 Senses and constructed physical instruments ) stuff in a very limited three dimensional plane so I think we have all the reasons in world … all the reason in the entire multi-verse to forgive ourselves for our collective ignorance … but never our self-defended stupidity … including mine. :-)
It was shared with me that ignorance encouraged with curiosity will always pick up a mirror. Stupidity not so much. Let us not defend what our “beliefs” tell us what is so ...( your right ... your left ... your right lect right) lest those belief commanders become our taskmasters. We ARE ALL able to outsmart out thinking … only when we really, really want to … by dis-identification … and that is called by some the evolutionary transformation of consciousness. (Conscious Latin < Con = with + scire = to know) + (Science Latin < scire = to know ... it does not mean "to measure" .. "to replicate" or "to get agreement with others. To know one's truth - objective and subjective is the supply chain results of "ones' experience ... so ... we are all "right" in our own small self-replicating world of reality.) Brilliant hugh ???
Very nice post, food for thought.
I have had the thought of everyone having their own reality. As for what the humankind observes as ''the'' reality is merely the connections between observations. So it doesn't really matter what we define as ''the'' reality, as long as we agree on the connections that link different observations.
This train of thought makes it possibly to assume that everyone could have their own reality.
(btw, For what I read, I believe I share you opinion on the average politician these days)
" language can define thoughts" NICELY SAID!!!!
and I woud add ... words when linked together like a railroad train ... carry messages of meaning ... all of which are made up. :-) Thought transporters ... we can all hitch a ride on and travel to reality places that seem strange ... different ...and on occasion scary but then with time may become an exciting place. Welcome to the sport of getting out of one's mind and into someone elses "Mind Map"
Just as the map is not the territory ... the menue is not the meal ... so we find that perception is not REALITY .... really! :-)