Favorite Quotes

frmthhrt wrote:
I doubt you would have misinterpreted if you are remembering a strong emotion rather than what happened. Why do you need to re-examine and look for flaws in his thinking...get it right the first time.

But that implies that perfection is possible, but its not. And no matter how good one gets in his accuracy of interpreting situations, he'll never reach 100% accuracy. One reason is that no two situations are exactly the same, so he'll often be presented with situations that he's never experienced before.

I'm trying to come up with a hypothetical example that would counter what you said, but nothing good is coming to mind. So I'll just use this (not sure that this is useful here): A father and son commonly disagree, and rarely come to agreement. Their disagreements commonly lead to both of them getting angry. One day, father and son are talking about something. The kid is squinting. So his father gets the idea that the kid is angry. Should the father assume that his idea is right? No. What happened was that the kid had the sun shinning in his face and the father didn't have that problem and didn't know that the kid had that problem. And the kid wasn't disagreeing, he was only asking clarifying questions because he didn't understand his father's position.

Man this thread is perfectly titled...because there is a hell of a lot of quote in here!

Mr.Whitmore wrote:Man this thread is perfectly titled...because there is a hell of a lot of quote in here!

Yeah there is....

Should I quote you melodi

Mr.Whitmore wrote:Should I quote you melodi

I take that as a yes......unfortunately i will have to wait for the next post.

Mr.Whitmore wrote:I take that as a yes......unfortunately i will have to wait for the next post.

lol

rombomb wrote:From Thomas Szasz 1920-2012

"Boredom is the feeling that everything is a waste of time; serenity, that nothing is."

Here's a related one from Albert Einstein 1879-1955

“I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.”

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
No I don't. I sometimes desire that which may be bad for me...or is just bad.

You can fix that. All problems are soluble. Just need the right knowledge.

It`s not a problem, and I don`t want to fix it...sometimes pure desire is nice. I have the knowledge...lol

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
Sometimes...but sometimes I do things just for the sheer joy of creating, not for any desired result or achievement, so again no.

Thats my point. Joy of creating/acheiving is good.
Joy of beating others is bad. People who desire beating others, are mistaken. They can fix this. All problems are soluble. Just need the right knowledge.

That was not the point of the quote. A quote has to stand on it's own merit, not be interpreted or based on previous writings, or it's not a proper stand-alone quote...which these are supposed to be. As I said...I do not need to achieve to enjoy creating. The act alone is enough...wouldn't you agree?
...and there is nothing wrong with a bit of friendly competition, and enjoying a victory, as long as it is not spiteful or hurtful. I don't think it is healthy to have a constant goal to beat others, but it would depend on the situation.

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
I am starting to hear the tone of someone trying to talk down to me...I sincerely hope not! You cannot berate

I had to look up what 'berate' means. I saw the word "angrily". Do you think I'm angry? I'm not. I don't know why you think that.

Well, your responses sometimes resemble browbeating...in a "you will agree with me or else you need more knowledge" kind of way...wouldn`t you agree?

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
...trust me, you will be very surprised. This board is full of well-read, well-educated and very intelligent people.

I don't know why you're saying these things. You said "thats not what I understood". So I explained that you'd have to understand Objectivism to understand the quote. Do you think I should have said something different instead?

Quotes generally do not have to be interpreted in the light of a unique philosophy to be understood...we use the Queen`s English and take it at face value.

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
No one should be talking down to anyone else here.

I don't know why you think I'm talking down to you. I haven't made any personal attacks. Are you thinking that listing some books that explain Objectivism is talking down to you? Why do you think that?

No, your response, as written, implied that I do not know what Objectivism is, or have not read Rand, and you always say others `need more knowledge`. You say my understanding of the quote is wrong, and yours is right, therefore you are superior in your knowledge and I am ignorant. I say I am not wrong in my understanding of the English language as it is written. There was no judgment implied on the desire to beat others contained within that quote. Wouldn't you agree?

rombomb wrote: I think you've misinterpreted my guess for anger about disagreement.
About disgreement, there was some discussion on that topic today on one of the philosophy lists that I participate on.
Someone said:
A lot of people have a large problem: they have an adult social role and do not want to take on a learner/student/child role. This gets in the way of their learning. What is to be done about this, if anything?
So I said:
People should adopt a good attitude towards learning -- and drop the progress-haulting attitude of seeing adults and children as different.
Anybody can learn from anybody.
Disagreements are good. They are opportunities for us to learn from
each other. Either I'm wrong, or you're wrong, or we're both wrong.
The goal of our discussion is for us to discover the flaws and fix
them.
If we're were always in agreement, that'd be boring! Learning is fun!

Exactly, as long as you are ready to take on the role of learner/student/child yourself...

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
because we cannot reach the same conclusions...

Knowledge is objective. That implies that we can reach agreement.

No. Not necessarily...evidently.

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
and I disagree with Karl Popper too! LOL.

What criticisms do you have of Popper's ideas?

My criticism is of the quote. If you use accurate English and correct punctuation, it is quite easy to be correctly understood, and not vague.

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
That being what most people consider to be free does not mean they will be reasonable! Many people hold democracy to be the pinnacle of freedom, yet it inherently discounts the rights of minorities: therefore it is not truly reasonable. The two are not reciprocals as Rand states.

No Rand did not say that. She didn't mention democracy, you did. She talked about freedom. She envisions a future government where majorities do not take away the freedoms of minorities.

Again, you have twisted what I said. I didn't say Rand said anything about democracy. I was using that as the generally accepted example of freedom. The quote was purely poppycock. Hopefully there could be more reason when people are free...but there is no reciprocal connection. From a purely logical, non-emotional viewpoint, wouldn't socialism seem like a more reasonable way to operate a world? Who needs freedom if everyone is being equally provided for and doesn't have to worry about home ownership, car ownership, banks, the headaches of health care etc?

rombomb wrote:How do you determine one's worth (in trade)?

frmthhrt wrote: You start with "all men are created equal", and you go on from there...I don't want to have to be the one to decide.

rombomb wrote:But each man chooses to do work, and improve his skills to do better work. Some men choose to do little, and don't improve their skill much, so they do less productive work. What is equal about this?

Well that is part of the problem with the current system...so unless you are paid by piece work, I do not know...some extra reward for merit maybe, but it can`t be much.

rombomb wrote:Many non-graduates do better work than graduates. Are you suggesting that graduates with less merit make more money than non-graduates with more merit?

frmthhrt wrote:No, I would say equal pay for equal worth, but maybe with a small reward for extra merit, if that can be accurately determined.

rombomb wrote:Merit is often easily determined. In a sales job, its sales numbers. For Apple executives, its Apple stock prices and other metrics. Merit is the only good measure. School isn't a measure of skill. Neither is experience.

Often experience IS a good measure of skill, sorry.

rombomb wrote:
Many new people (to a career) do better work their experienced peers. Are you suggesting that experienced people with less merit make more money than less experienced people with more merit?

frmthhrt wrote: I really don't agree with that statement at all. Experience has value.

rombomb wrote:That value is measured in merit. Experience is just an indication that one's merit might be good.

It is hard to compare merit to experience...I will take the safe route and assume that experience usually equals merit. That model seems to have merit as it is. School, as an investment of time to learn knowledge, does merit some reward, and again I must disagree with you on experience. I have been an employer. With an experienced person, there should be no training required. I can hire that person, and they can adapt to the job in minutes. An inexperienced person will require training, and may take years to understand the nuances of the job. I will happily pay for experience.

frmthhrt wrote:
The newbs make many mistakes that experience will teach them to avoid, and are often not prepared to function in a real world situation. School can really only give one the tools to learn from a base level, to begin to acquire the experience required in a career. Again, if you can prove merit, then reward it, but as a rule, I would pay more for an experienced person. (Speaking from experience.)

rombomb wrote:Just take a sales job for example. Haven't you seen a rookie sales person sell better than veterans?

Sales is somewhat different than many skilled jobs, in that personality can be a large part of success; but even in sales, experience is an important factor. Usually the rookies are not that great in comparison to the old hands.

frmthhrt wrote:
but not more than an order of magnitude!

rombomb wrote:How do you propose setting the price of wages?

frmthhrt wrote: I don't...someone else is going to have to figure that out in my Utopian world. All I know is we start from the "All men (AND WOMEN!) are created equal" idea and go from there. What would you do? Credit for years of training, calories burned, time spent on one's feet...danger pay...I don't know. Do you want to try?

rombomb wrote:Ah, you envision a Utopian world. Do you think that world will be void of problems (i.e. that it will be perfect)?

That was more of a joke than a real idea of a Utopian world...I was alluding to the "snowball's chance in Hell" likelihood of there being a change in how wages are set. Capitalism as is seems to be quite firmly entrenched here.

totally off-topic as well, but nevertheless... this is something to think about.

The feelings we remember help us, instead of what actually happens. It's the reaction to these feelings that make us interpret the differences. The feelings are always true. For instance, when someone helped you and you are happy about it. But that initial feeling you had that said, something is amiss here... That is the feeling you will always remember, despite not being able to recall it at will, whereas you being helped will be.

However, that initial feeling is what will be triggered every time. The same goes for simple, seemingly insignificant. Actions or experiences we brush off, because we make ourselves think (react to) that it's nothing special. Yet every time something like this happens, that initial feeling gets triggered too. The essence doesn't change, but our reaction to these feelings does.

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
No I don't. I sometimes desire that which may be bad for me...or is just bad.

You can fix that. All problems are soluble. Just need the right knowledge.

It`s not a problem, and I don`t want to fix it...sometimes pure desire is nice. I have the knowledge...lol

I assumed that if you have a desire for something you judge to be bad, that that would cause you suffering. And I assumed that you would consider suffering to be a problem for you. If that is wrong, then never mind.

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
Sometimes...but sometimes I do things just for the sheer joy of creating, not for any desired result or achievement, so again no.

Thats my point. Joy of creating/acheiving is good.
Joy of beating others is bad. People who desire beating others, are mistaken. They can fix this. All problems are soluble. Just need the right knowledge.

That was not the point of the quote. A quote has to stand on it's own merit, not be interpreted or based on previous writings, or it's not a proper stand-alone quote...which these are supposed to be.

I disagree, no quote can stand alone like you say.

Here's a quote that explains that:

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." Karl Popper

frmthhrt wrote:
As I said...I do not need to achieve to enjoy creating. The act alone is enough...wouldn't you agree?

I understand that achieving *is* creating and that creating *is* achieving. So your question is confusing to me.

frmthhrt wrote:
...and there is nothing wrong with a bit of friendly competition, and enjoying a victory, as long as it is not spiteful or hurtful. I don't think it is healthy to have a constant goal to beat others, but it would depend on the situation.

But, having a goal of achievement/creation is what leads to achievement/creation. The goal of beating others is not conducive to achievement/creation.

So whats the point of having a goal of beating others? Whats the benefit? I only see a cost -- it gets in the way of thinking about achievement/creation.

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
I am starting to hear the tone of someone trying to talk down to me...I sincerely hope not! You cannot berate

I had to look up what 'berate' means. I saw the word "angrily". Do you think I'm angry? I'm not. I don't know why you think that.

Well, your responses sometimes resemble browbeating...in a "you will agree with me or else you need more knowledge" kind of way...wouldn`t you agree?

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
...trust me, you will be very surprised. This board is full of well-read, well-educated and very intelligent people.

I don't know why you're saying these things. You said "thats not what I understood". So I explained that you'd have to understand Objectivism to understand the quote. Do you think I should have said something different instead?

Quotes generally do not have to be interpreted in the light of a unique philosophy to be understood...we use the Queen`s English and take it at face value.

That doesn't work well because:

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." Karl Popper

The reality is that each persons ideas affects his understanding, and no two people have the same ideas. So there is always ambiguity -- it cannot be escaped.

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
No one should be talking down to anyone else here.

I don't know why you think I'm talking down to you. I haven't made any personal attacks. Are you thinking that listing some books that explain Objectivism is talking down to you? Why do you think that?

No, your response, as written, implied that I do not know what Objectivism is,

I still believe you do not understand Objectivism well.

frmthhrt wrote:
or have not read Rand,

I did not say that you didn't read Rand.

frmthhrt wrote:
and you always say others `need more knowledge`.

*Everybody* needs more knowledge. You have implied that I said that I don't need more knowledge.

frmthhrt wrote:
You say my understanding of the quote is wrong, and yours is right, therefore you are superior in your knowledge and I am ignorant.

Either you are wrong, or I'm wrong, or we're both wrong. You think you're right, therefore you think that your knowledge (of this specific topic) is superior to mine. I think I'm right, therefore I think that my knowledge (of this specific topic) is superior to yours. I don't understand why you think this is problematic?

Do you think its bad to disagree with each other? Do you think its bad to state that we have a disagreement? If not, then what is your reasoning for why what I said is problematic.

frmthhrt wrote:
I say I am not wrong in my understanding of the English language as it is written. There was no judgment implied on the desire to beat others contained within that quote. Wouldn't you agree?

Objectivism says that a goal of beating others is bad. That quote is by an Objectivist and it assumes that the reader already knows that the goal of beating others is bad. I know this because the quote is part of a book that explains Objectivism and the idea that the goal of beating others was already explained.

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote: I think you've misinterpreted my guess for anger about disagreement.
About disgreement, there was some discussion on that topic today on one of the philosophy lists that I participate on.
Someone said:
A lot of people have a large problem: they have an adult social role and do not want to take on a learner/student/child role. This gets in the way of their learning. What is to be done about this, if anything?
So I said:
People should adopt a good attitude towards learning -- and drop the progress-haulting attitude of seeing adults and children as different.
Anybody can learn from anybody.
Disagreements are good. They are opportunities for us to learn from
each other. Either I'm wrong, or you're wrong, or we're both wrong.
The goal of our discussion is for us to discover the flaws and fix
them.
If we're were always in agreement, that'd be boring! Learning is fun!

Exactly, as long as you are ready to take on the role of learner/student/child yourself...

I take on both roles all the time at every moment of time. Everybody should do that.

Any one of my ideas can be wrong. Criticism is what points out that an idea is wrong -- self-criticism and external criticism.

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
because we cannot reach the same conclusions...

Knowledge is objective. That implies that we can reach agreement.

No. Not necessarily...evidently.

No. You and I could continue this discussion for 10 years and finally reach agreement. If we quit before reaching agreement, that does not imply that not quitting would not lead to agreement.

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
and I disagree with Karl Popper too! LOL.

What criticisms do you have of Popper's ideas?

My criticism is of the quote. If you use accurate English and correct punctuation, it is quite easy to be correctly understood, and not vague.

Do you mean infallibly?

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
That being what most people consider to be free does not mean they will be reasonable! Many people hold democracy to be the pinnacle of freedom, yet it inherently discounts the rights of minorities: therefore it is not truly reasonable. The two are not reciprocals as Rand states.

No Rand did not say that. She didn't mention democracy, you did. She talked about freedom. She envisions a future government where majorities do not take away the freedoms of minorities.

Again, you have twisted what I said. I didn't say Rand said anything about democracy. I was using that as the generally accepted example of freedom.

Why does what is "generally accepted" matter? Those people are wrong.

frmthhrt wrote:
The quote was purely poppycock. Hopefully there could be more reason when people are free...but there is no reciprocal connection. From a purely logical, non-emotional viewpoint, wouldn't socialism seem like a more reasonable way to operate a world? Who needs freedom if everyone is being equally provided for and doesn't have to worry about home ownership, car ownership, banks, the headaches of health care etc?

You have assumed that socialism could actually do what you say it can do. It can't. For an explanation of this, see _Liberalism: The Classical Tradition_, by Ludwig Von Mises. Or ask for a quick explanation here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/beginning-of-infinity

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote:How do you determine one's worth (in trade)?

frmthhrt wrote: You start with "all men are created equal", and you go on from there...I don't want to have to be the one to decide.

rombomb wrote:But each man chooses to do work, and improve his skills to do better work. Some men choose to do little, and don't improve their skill much, so they do less productive work. What is equal about this?

Well that is part of the problem with the current system...so unless you are paid by piece work, I do not know...some extra reward for merit maybe, but it can`t be much.

Actually, that is the problem with socialism. You, nor anyone else, has ever figured out a way to set prices for labor or products. This is explained in the book I mentioned above.

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote:Many non-graduates do better work than graduates. Are you suggesting that graduates with less merit make more money than non-graduates with more merit?

frmthhrt wrote:No, I would say equal pay for equal worth, but maybe with a small reward for extra merit, if that can be accurately determined.

rombomb wrote:Merit is often easily determined. In a sales job, its sales numbers. For Apple executives, its Apple stock prices and other metrics. Merit is the only good measure. School isn't a measure of skill. Neither is experience.

Often experience IS a good measure of skill, sorry.

You're saying often -- so you agree that sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. So, what should be done in the "doesn't" category? Do you think its ok for two people, one of each category, to be paid the same?

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote:
Many new people (to a career) do better work their experienced peers. Are you suggesting that experienced people with less merit make more money than less experienced people with more merit?

frmthhrt wrote: I really don't agree with that statement at all. Experience has value.

rombomb wrote:That value is measured in merit. Experience is just an indication that one's merit might be good.

It is hard to compare merit to experience...I will take the safe route and assume that experience usually equals merit. That model seems to have merit as it is. School, as an investment of time to learn knowledge, does merit some reward, and again I must disagree with you on experience. I have been an employer. With an experienced person, there should be no training required. I can hire that person, and they can adapt to the job in minutes. An inexperienced person will require training, and may take years to understand the nuances of the job. I will happily pay for experience.

I too was an employer. A good learning attitude is better than little experience. Employers call this coachable vs uncoachable. In general, I'd rather have a coachable inexperienced employee over an uncoachable experienced employee. Depending on context, this could go the other way. For example, in a job that involves being on the computer a lot, having a coachable person who has zero experience in using a computer wouldn't be as productive as a less coachable person who has the computer skills.

frmthhrt wrote:
The newbs make many mistakes that experience will teach them to avoid, and are often not prepared to function in a real world situation. School can really only give one the tools to learn from a base level, to begin to acquire the experience required in a career. Again, if you can prove merit, then reward it, but as a rule, I would pay more for an experienced person. (Speaking from experience.)

Side note: Knowledge is not created by experience. Your experience does not make your idea more true. Nor does it falsify my idea. This is a philosophical mistake known as Empiricism.

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote:Just take a sales job for example. Haven't you seen a rookie sales person sell better than veterans?

Sales is somewhat different than many skilled jobs, in that personality can be a large part of success; but even in sales, experience is an important factor. Usually the rookies are not that great in comparison to the old hands.

Usually yes. So what should be done in the unusual cases?

frmthhrt wrote:
but not more than an order of magnitude!

rombomb wrote:How do you propose setting the price of wages?

frmthhrt wrote: I don't...someone else is going to have to figure that out in my Utopian world. All I know is we start from the "All men (AND WOMEN!) are created equal" idea and go from there. What would you do? Credit for years of training, calories burned, time spent on one's feet...danger pay...I don't know. Do you want to try?

rombomb wrote:Ah, you envision a Utopian world. Do you think that world will be void of problems (i.e. that it will be perfect)?

That was more of a joke than a real idea of a Utopian world...I was alluding to the "snowball's chance in Hell" likelihood of there being a change in how wages are set. Capitalism as is seems to be quite firmly entrenched here.

Thats because no one has ever figured out a way to set prices without a capitalist system of supply and demand.

mtngrl123 wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:

rombomb wrote:"People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." Maya Angelou

But people can't "make" you feel anything. Your interpretation of whats happening in front of you is what causes you to feel certain ways.

Also, most people do remember how they felt more than what actually happened, but thats bad, not good. Why? Because they could have misinterpreted. So if one only remembers how he felt, rather than what actually happened, then how can he recall what happened in order to reexamine his interpretation looking for flaws in his thinking? He can't. This is bad because its removing one's ability to error-correct.

You are over analyzing the quote. Some people make you feel good with their honesty and infectious smile, joy for life...whatever their magic spark is. You have to be cold-hearted to not enjoy their presence, no matter how you are interpreting what is in front of you.
I doubt you would have misinterpreted if you are remembering a strong emotion rather than what happened. Why do you need to re-examine and look for flaws in his thinking...get it right the first time.

Valid point hrt. It has actually been proven that which entices most emotions and senses is what we retain with the highest level of recall.

We remember what we think is important.

What do you think "entices most emotions and sense"? Its the stuff we consider to be the most important. Right?

Like something that really hurt me, is really important. Or something that made me very happy, is really important to me.

Reamsie wrote:Information is not knowledge-Albert Einstien

What Einstein means by that is that memorizing facts, and memorizing methods of solving problems, is bad. Doing so leads to having fragile knowledge. Knowledge should be structured, because that protects against it being fragile. And memorizing stuff is not conducive to creating structured knowledge.

Here's the discussion about that topic:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/message/24547

rombomb wrote:

frmthhrt wrote:
No I don't. I sometimes desire that which may be bad for me...or is just bad.

You can fix that. All problems are soluble. Just need the right knowledge.

I noticed something here that might have been misunderstood.

Dreamspace said that I disregard emotions. That tells me that he's assuming that by solving the problem (quoted above), that the desire will always "lose". But that is a mistake because that means assuming the truth before starting a truth-seeking session. Its a mistake that fallibilists understand as appealing to authority (in this case, the authority of one's judgment over his emotion).

In other words, solving the problem does not constitute assuming that the desire is wrong. It could be that the judgment is wrong.

The desire is your indication that you have a subconscious idea that the thing in question is good. And since you (consciously) know that you judge it to be bad, now you (consciously) know that you have a conflict of ideas.

To solve this problem, one needs to discover the subconscious idea and make it explicit. Once that is done, the two conflicting ideas can be examined against each other. You can examine both rival theories (aka ideas), looking for flaws and explaining them (aka criticizing them). And criticizing the criticisms.

So what will the solution look like? It'll be an idea that fixes all the flaws in both theories. And you'll have no criticisms of it, i.e. you'll be fully persuaded of it. And by this point, one of two things will happen:

(1) The desire remains, and the judgment has changed to good.

(2) The desire vanished, and the judgment remained as bad.

Which way it goes depends on the solution.

rombomb wrote:Dreamspace said that I disregard emotions. That tells me that he's assuming that by solving the problem (quoted above), that the desire will always "lose". But that is a mistake because that means assuming the truth before starting a truth-seeking session. Its a mistake that fallibilists understand as appealing to authority (in this case, the authority of one's judgment over his emotion).

Compartmentalizing emotion is not what makes someone emotionally unaware or shut off. As far as appealing to authority goes, are you saying I'm telling you logic is more credible than emotion? Because that's not at all what I had said; instead, I had said sometimes alogical value must come first.

Can you tell me, Rombomb, how you feel when someone insinuates you may have any sort of deficiency? Did you feel any negative emotion? How about typology? You say it's dehumanizing — was that an emotional reaction? Did it make you feel as though I was questioning your competence? How about autism? It sounds like you felt as though it was nothing more than opprobrious label meant to shame those who failed to conform to societal expectations. But were you being impartial there? Or did your emotions sway your decisions more than a genuine desire to seek truth?

So did you feel badly during any of this, even initially? Or are you going to tell me because you've reasoned that disagreements are just fine that you're now immune to having your self-esteem eroded or feelings hurt? You may have pushed these feelings into your unconscious, but I think it would be a mistake to say you are now completely conditioned never to have negative emotional responses in these situations. It's normal to. And even though it's not our intent to make you feel bad, I think if I were in your situation I would feel a little ganged up on with everybody siding against me. I may even have paranoid thoughts that everybody here had conspired against me in an concerted effort to censor the truth or some such thing. (Although I am quite sure everybody's assessment has been independently made.)

The process you have described in mediating internal conflicts is just fine for simple cases, but such rectilinear thinking doesn't work for the more complex and ambiguous cases. You possess a type of logic which is quite good at handling these types of problems; you examine the issue and then identify the leverage point, and so quite often there is this very simple, elegant solution. The problem is in order to manage doing such a thing, you needed to be aware of all the factors at play — both internal and external. What makes me wonder if you're aware of all your own internal emotional reactions is less your decision take this calm rational approach and more… just the general way you phrase things, the overall perspective, which seems… sometimes oblivious.

Dreamspace wrote:

rombomb wrote:Dreamspace said that I disregard emotions. That tells me that he's assuming that by solving the problem (quoted above), that the desire will always "lose". But that is a mistake because that means assuming the truth before starting a truth-seeking session. Its a mistake that fallibilists understand as appealing to authority (in this case, the authority of one's judgment over his emotion).

Compartmentalizing emotion is not what makes someone emotionally unaware or shut off. As far as appealing to authority goes, are you saying I'm telling you logic is more credible than emotion?

No. I was saying that you think that I think that the conscious should have authority (aka higher status) over the subconscious.

Dreamspace wrote:
Because that's not at all what I had said; instead, I had said sometimes alogical value must come first.

Can you tell me, Rombomb, how you feel when someone insinuates you may have any sort of deficiency?

I don't have an emotion when that happens. Everybody has deficiencies. No one is perfect. Why would I have an emotion about something that is true?

I realize that other people do have emotions when that happens, but thats because they lack the right knowledge.

Dreamspace wrote:
Did you feel any negative emotion?

Not negative and not positive. None.

Dreamspace wrote:
How about typology? You say it's dehumanizing — was that an emotional reaction?

No. Its dehumanizing because people can be mislead by it. Its ambiguous. One can believe that he cannot change himself to what he wants to change himself to. And that is false.

Dreamspace wrote:
Did it make you feel as though I was questioning your competence?

No. But even if it did make me "feel" that (aka think that), I wouldn't have an emotion about it. Either I'm wrong, or you're wrong (that I'm competent about that specific subject, or in general). So what? Mistakes are common. We can fix our mistakes and make progress. There is no bound to our progress.

Dreamspace wrote:
How about autism? It sounds like you felt as though it was nothing more than opprobrious label meant to shame those who failed to conform to societal expectations.

No. Autism wasn't created to shame people. It was created to control people. If you disagree, see _The Myth of Mental Illness_, by Thomas Szasz. Or, an easier read is the ipad app _Psychiatry_, by Elliot Temple.

Dreamspace wrote:
But were you being impartial there? Or did your emotions sway your decisions more than a genuine desire to seek truth?

Impartial (aka biased) means shielding an idea from criticism. I don't believe I did that. If you think I did, please point it out so that I can fix it.

I was persuaded by Thomas Szasz's ideas on the coercive aspect of psychiatry. I think you're assuming that I created this idea about Autism/Aspergers.

Dreamspace wrote:
So did you feel badly during any of this, even initially?

No.

Dreamspace wrote:
Or are you going to tell me because you've reasoned that disagreements are just fine that you're now immune to having your self-esteem eroded or feelings hurt?

Yes. Why would my self-esteem be hurt? If I made a mistake, I can fix it. Then that mistake is no longer part of me. So why should I feel bad about my mistakes? If I felt bad about my mistakes, that would be because I believe that I can't fix my mistakes.

Dreamspace wrote:
You may have pushed these feelings into your unconscious,

No, because doing that inevitably leads to those feelings resurfacing, which is something that one can notice when it resurfaces. Burying problems does not work, because they resurface.

Dreamspace wrote:
but I think it would be a mistake to say you are now completely conditioned never to have negative emotional responses in these situations. It's normal to.

By normal, do you mean its human nature? That its genetic or something? Its not.

Just because you and everybody you know has this problem, doesn't mean that someone hasn't solved the problem, or that someone in the future can't solve the problem.

Dreamspace wrote:
And even though it's not our intent to make you feel bad,

I assumed no such thing. You guys are better than that.

Dreamspace wrote:
I think if I were in your situation I would feel a little ganged up on with everybody siding against me.

That *is* the case only because you all disagree with me. But so what? Like 99+% of the human population disagrees with me on this. I already knew that before these discussions.

Dreamspace wrote:
I may even have paranoid thoughts that everybody here had conspired against me in an concerted effort to censor the truth or some such thing.

That would be a mistake. [Edit: I noticed this to be ambiguous. I mean it would be a mistake for someone to think that everybody (or some people) had conspired against him/her in an effort to do that.]

Dreamspace wrote:
(Although I am quite sure everybody's assessment has been independently made.)

Me too.

Dreamspace wrote:biguous too. I mean also am sure everybody's assessment has been independently made.)

[quote="Dreamspace"]
The process you have described in mediating internal conflicts is just fine for simple cases, but such rectilinear thinking doesn't work for the more complex and ambiguous cases.

You assert that without explanation. What is your explanation for that?

Do you have a hypothetical situation that we could use as a counter-example to the idea that *all problems are soluble*?

Dreamspace wrote:
You possess a type of logic which is quite good at handling these types of problems; you examine the issue and then identify the leverage point, and so quite often there is this very simple, elegant solution. The problem is in order to manage doing such a thing, you needed to be aware of all the factors at play — both internal and external.

No. That implies that perfection is possible. It implies that as soon as one starts to attempt solving a problem, that all the knowledge he needs is immediately available. That is a mistake. Learning is incremental.

Dreamspace wrote:
What makes me wonder if you're aware of all your own internal emotional reactions is less your decision take this calm rational approach and more… just the general way you phrase things, the overall perspective, which seems… sometimes oblivious.

Just because you disagree with my ideas, that is no reason to assume that I'm wrong (aka oblivious). Doing so means considering yourself an authority over me (i.e. thinking that you have more status than I do).

Thinking in terms of status is a justificationist mistake.

rombomb wrote:

Reamsie wrote:Information is not knowledge-Albert Einstien

What Einstein means by that is that memorizing facts, and memorizing methods of solving problems, is bad. Doing so leads to having fragile knowledge. Knowledge should be structured, because that protects against it being fragile. And memorizing stuff is not conducive to creating structured knowledge.

Here's the discussion about that topic:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/message/24547

And here I thought I was just sharing a good quote with everyone, since this is the "Favorite Quotes" thread or at least it used to be. *sigh*

Reamsie wrote:

rombomb wrote:

Reamsie wrote:Information is not knowledge-Albert Einstien

What Einstein means by that is that memorizing facts, and memorizing methods of solving problems, is bad. Doing so leads to having fragile knowledge. Knowledge should be structured, because that protects against it being fragile. And memorizing stuff is not conducive to creating structured knowledge.

Here's the discussion about that topic:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/message/24547

And here I thought I was just sharing a good quote with everyone, since this is the "Favorite Quotes" thread or at least it used to be. *sigh*

I think thats a hint. And I think I understand what its about. Tell me if I'm wrong.

So about the content. Maybe somebody appreciated what I wrote. If at least one person appreciated it, then its best to continue -- AFAIK, there are no problems.

If no one appreciated it, then its best to stop.

What do you think?

*edit*

I think I'm going to respond to Rombomb in a new thread… rather than continue to derail the quotes thread. Sorry, everybody.

From Albert Einstein:

“I believe the most important mission of the state is to protect the individual and make it possible for him to develop into a creative personality…”

“I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.”

From Ayn Rand:

“The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.”

The very wise sage and philosopher Tourettes Guy has taught us that "pissing out the window and shitting out the window are two different things."

Every time you point the finger at someone, you have three fingers pointing back at yourself.

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent - Eleanor Roosevelt

I found myself needing to remind myself of this today.

Nucky wrote:No one can make you feel inferior without your consent - Eleanor Roosevelt

In other words, when person A has an emotion immediately after person B did something, its not person B that *caused* A to have the emotion. A is the one who actively created the emotion.


Here's another quote:

“The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.” _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Ayn Rand.

In other words, a person who doesn't love himself, cannot love anything or anyone.

rombomb wrote:“The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.” _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Ayn Rand.

In other words, a person who doesn't love himself, cannot love anything or anyone.

I know from experience this isn't true.

Dreamspace wrote:

rombomb wrote:“The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.” _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Ayn Rand.

In other words, a person who doesn't love himself, cannot love anything or anyone.

I know from experience this isn't true.

I do too.

Dreamspace wrote:

rombomb wrote:“The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.” _The Virtue of Selfishness_, Ayn Rand.

In other words, a person who doesn't love himself, cannot love anything or anyone.

I know from experience this isn't true.

Can you explain this (maybe with hypothetical details rather than personal ones)? And in your explanation, please explain what it means for someone to not love themselves -- I mean, how does it show in his actions (or maybe what sort of thoughts does he have)?