This is what my phrase 'to me' means, 'to you'.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pmYour phrase 'to me' is meant to emphasize that a particular statement does not leave the domain of your own subjective experience and beliefs.evolution wrote: ↑September 16th, 2020, 5:17 am
If you said that, are you then NOT at all OPEN to absolutely ANY thing different than that?
If you are NOT OPEN, then WHY NOT?
1. I do NOT do 'debate'.
2. Saying, 'to me', means, to me, the EXACT OPPOSITE of 'closing'.
Saying, 'to me', means being COMPLETELY OPEN, as I am only expressing the views, from my point of view only. And what is obvious is that my personal point of view/s are NOT necessarily the True, Right, and Correct one/s.
If, and when, a statement is being proposed, and it is NOT being made clear that this is just 'from my perspective', 'from my view', nor 'to me' only, then that could be accused as being a claim or proposition of what is said to be actually True, Right, or Correct, and therefore is closed off to ANY thing contrary.
By me pointing out to "others" that what I am saying, claiming or proposing, is what is true, right, and/or correct, 'to me', means that what is actually True, Right, and/or Correct could be some thing else, and which I am completely OPEN to.
See, me saying, 'to me', is NOT implying NOR claiming that what I am saying is actually True, Right, nor Correct, but ONLY what is appears to be true, right, and correct, from what I have previously observed/experienced.
This is NOT what my phrase 'to me' meant to emphasize AT ALL. Do not forget that I wrote 'it' so I KNOW EXACTLY what was MEANT TO BE EMPHASIZED. Please remember that you are only making ASSUMPTIONS here.
Until you discover, or learn, that what you assume or believe is true, is NOT necessarily true, ESPECIALLY in regards to what "others" say, and what they are MEANING TO EMPHASIZE, then you will continue to write these MOST absurd and ridiculous statements.
See, if you actually clarified FIRST 'with me' what I ACTUALLY MEANT, and meant to empasize, then you would NOT have written this outrageous statement, and nor would you have expressed that TOTALLY CLOSED view of yours here.
You can inform me of WHY what I wrote is wrong, but you can NOT tell me what I MEANT in what I wrote. You can only tell me what you ASSUME I MEANT in what I wrote.
See, once again, you have absolutely NO understanding of what I ACTUALLY MEAN, in what I write. You are , again, ONLY ASSUMING. And WRONGLY, I will add.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm Since the rational underpinnings of that subjective belief are not accessible to anyone but yourself, then we can conclude that they are enclosed in that domain where only you can manipulate them, they are not offered in debate.
WRONG AGAIN.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm
If they were accessible for all to debate, then they would have stopped being yours only and you would not use the phrase 'to me'.
You do NOT KNOW how I define the word 'debate', and you are STILL WRONG in YOUR ASSUMPTION about MY use of the phrase, 'to me'.
That is how YOU define the word 'debate'.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm By definition, debate starts at the moment when ideas are liberated from their subjective enclosures and thrown into the public arena of rational discussion, with the purpose of being recognized as objective truths, that is, of being acknowledged valid to rest of the participants (to us).
I could also write, 'By definition', debate starts with you taking ONE SIDE ONLY of an issue or discussion, and then you fighting or arguing for THAT SIDE ONLY.
If you EVER become curious, I do NOT do this. Therefore, I do NOT do 'debate'.
See, people usually only 'debate' what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true.
And, while people are BELIEVING some thing, then they are NOT open to ANY thing contrary to THAT BELIEF.
BUT, 'agreement', itself, is reached in a much more EASIER and SIMPLER way than that.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm Necessarily, to reach any agreement, there are some common rules to the debate as the use of of logic and facts in arguments.
And, how often does 'debating', itself, end in agreement, anyway?
Yes they can, and this is one reason WHY I do NOT have any beliefs.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm Anyone can have any idea about anything and use any arbitrary rules that suits their own needs to justify their own personal beliefs.
This is true, and WHY I do NOT believe any thing.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm People can believe anything and say it works for them.
BELIEFS mean not much at all, to me, anyway. BELIEFS are NOTHING more than a sign of just how CLOSED OFF a person actually is.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm But these beliefs mean nothing to anyone else if they never reach the debate.
And, to you, would hearing otherwise even be possible?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pmThe evidence that organisms live and die is overwhelming. I haven't heard of any rational mind suggesting otherwise.
You mean, to you, correct?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm I mean, not even those that believe other cycles of life come after that, will doubt it. But the evidence of another life after the first one is null, the door has been opened for quite some time, and nothing has come in.
Why only 'in debate'?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pmStatements asserted as truths in a debate are open to challenge, that's what debates are for.
Have you forgotten what I ACTUALLY SAID?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm If you think you can challenge the statement that there's only one life, nothing stops you from trying.
From what you wrote here it certainly appears that way.
But thee ACTUAL Truth asserts Itself. But only when 'you' are Truly OPEN is when you can SEE and understand this fact.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pmAgain: statements asserted as truths in a debate are open to challenge, that's what debates are for. If you think you can challenge the statement that there's only one life, nothing stops you from trying.
Which particular statement of yours?Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pmOK, then we agree that that particular statement of mine remains unchallenged.
If that 'particular statement', of yours, is:
Life is a natural phenomenon, which ends in no-life, in death.
Then, I agree that I have not yet seen anyone challenge this statement. But, to me, it does NOT need challenging anyway. As thee Truth speaks for Itself.
I suggest that you FIRST CLARIFY, with me, what I actually agree with BEFORE you MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, like you have here, and which, by the way, is TOTALLY WRONG anyway.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2020, 10:50 pm You are also agreeing that you don't support the idea that anything can literally, factually, have a new life cycle after completing the first one.