Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Reply to thread

Message

I feel I've contributed to derailing this thread, so I'll bow out of this conversation after responding.

When I brought this up I was speaking in terms of what other people are receptive to, not my beliefs which somehow seems to be where this has come to. You're misunderstanding my point. That said, I suspend absolute judgment, especially on things I've never experienced, but also to my own experience. I feel everything can be part of some potential delusion, even such modes of thought that claim to be see through or passed delusion. Such a claim may be delusional in and of itself. I don't really have beleifs.

What is the nature of rigor for which you claim others are justified in such and such a belief?

I feel I'm more justified in suspending judgment than making a claim that lends itself toward disbelief. And I don't know what you mean by your use of "responsible" in this context. It's responsible to first and foremost be honest with oneself in my opinion, and my honesty with myself says I have seemings, reasoning, and intuitions that substantiates some things but also seeming, reasoning and intuions to the contrary as well. As such, I don't know

Saying some perceived phenomenon will be explained by something in the future is wishful thinking and I state that as the fallacy. And just because something has happened in the past doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen in the future (in the case of substantiating lucid dreaming and the same happening for other phenomena of the same or a similar class).

I also never claimed to be agnostic (the last part again seems directed particularly at me). And your thanking me for my open-mindedness seems a bit condescending. Again I'm not affirming or denying and operate off of how things seem to be. Amd how things seem to be ia potentially layered with supervenience and polyvalency, so a great deals seems possible to me. To deny certain types of experience because it doesn't align with my personal experience would be akin to my denying the alps don't exist because I've never been to see them.

And yes it's a tall order to expect people to accept and/or believe something they've never experienced, hence why I brought up receptivity in the first place. But again, I don't understand this agnostic/skeptical epistemic "responsibility" that you have mentioned. If you mean in the sense of certain knowledge, that's predicated by the idea that anything can be known and isnt a supposition to just one of many appearances how things seem to be. That is, if you mean responsible in the sense of providing positivist information that is more than just an interpretation of some experience of some potential phenomena, then I think there is a lofty expectation inherent to such an idea. There's a plethora of ways to think and things to believe, many of which are contrasting.

One love

<blockquote data-quote="Voidmatrix" data-source="post: 3906701" data-attributes="member: 5">I feel I&#039;ve contributed to derailing this thread, so I&#039;ll bow out of this conversation after responding. When I brought this up I was speaking in terms of what other people are receptive to, not my beliefs which somehow seems to be where this has come to. You&#039;re misunderstanding my point. That said, I suspend absolute judgment, especially on things I&#039;ve never experienced, but also to my own experience. I feel everything can be part of some potential delusion, even such modes of thought that claim to be see through or passed delusion. Such a claim may be delusional in and of itself. I don&#039;t really have beleifs.What is the nature of rigor for which you claim others are justified in such and such a belief? I feel I&#039;m more justified in suspending judgment than making a claim that lends itself toward disbelief. And I don&#039;t know what you mean by your use of &quot;responsible&quot; in this context. It&#039;s responsible to first and foremost be honest with oneself in my opinion, and my honesty with myself says I have seemings, reasoning, and intuitions that substantiates some things but also seeming, reasoning and intuions to the contrary as well. As such, I don&#039;t knowSaying some perceived phenomenon will be explained by something in the future is wishful thinking and I state that as the fallacy. And just because something has happened in the past doesn&#039;t mean it&#039;s guaranteed to happen in the future (in the case of substantiating lucid dreaming and the same happening for other phenomena of the same or a similar class).I also never claimed to be agnostic (the last part again seems directed particularly at me). And your thanking me for my open-mindedness seems a bit condescending. Again I&#039;m not affirming or denying and operate off of how things seem to be. Amd how things seem to be ia potentially layered with supervenience and polyvalency, so a great deals seems possible to me. To deny certain types of experience because it doesn&#039;t align with my personal experience would be akin to my denying the alps don&#039;t exist because I&#039;ve never been to see them. And yes it&#039;s a tall order to expect people to accept and/or believe something they&#039;ve never experienced, hence why I brought up receptivity in the first place. But again, I don&#039;t understand this agnostic/skeptical epistemic &quot;responsibility&quot; that you have mentioned. If you mean in the sense of certain knowledge, that&#039;s predicated by the idea that anything can be known and isnt a supposition to just one of many appearances how things seem to be. That is, if you mean responsible in the sense of providing positivist information that is more than just an interpretation of some experience of some potential phenomena, then I think there is a lofty expectation inherent to such an idea. There&#039;s a plethora of ways to think and things to believe, many of which are contrasting.One love</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Voidmatrix, post: 3906701, member: 5"] I feel I've contributed to derailing this thread, so I'll bow out of this conversation after responding. When I brought this up I was speaking in terms of what other people are receptive to, not my beliefs which somehow seems to be where this has come to. You're misunderstanding my point. That said, I suspend absolute judgment, especially on things I've never experienced, but also to my own experience. I feel everything can be part of some potential delusion, even such modes of thought that claim to be see through or passed delusion. Such a claim may be delusional in and of itself. I don't really have beleifs. What is the nature of rigor for which you claim others are justified in such and such a belief? I feel I'm more justified in suspending judgment than making a claim that lends itself toward disbelief. And I don't know what you mean by your use of "responsible" in this context. It's responsible to first and foremost be honest with oneself in my opinion, and my honesty with myself says I have seemings, reasoning, and intuitions that substantiates some things but also seeming, reasoning and intuions to the contrary as well. As such, I don't [i]know[/i] Saying some perceived phenomenon will be explained by something in the future is wishful thinking and I state that as the fallacy. And just because something has happened in the past doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen in the future (in the case of substantiating lucid dreaming and the same happening for other phenomena of the same or a similar class). I also never claimed to be agnostic (the last part again seems directed particularly at me). And your thanking me for my open-mindedness seems a bit condescending. Again I'm not affirming or denying and operate off of how things seem to be. Amd how things seem to be ia potentially layered with supervenience and polyvalency, so a great deals seems possible to me. To deny certain types of experience because it doesn't align with my personal experience would be akin to my denying the alps don't exist because I've never been to see them. And yes it's a tall order to expect people to accept and/or believe something they've never experienced, hence why I brought up receptivity in the first place. But again, I don't understand this agnostic/skeptical epistemic "responsibility" that you have mentioned. If you mean in the sense of certain knowledge, that's predicated by the idea that anything [i]can[/i] be known and isnt a supposition to just one of many appearances how things seem to be. That is, if you mean responsible in the sense of providing positivist information that is more than just an interpretation of some experience of some potential phenomena, then I think there is a lofty expectation inherent to such an idea. There's a plethora of ways to think and things to believe, many of which are contrasting. One love [/QUOTE]