‹ First  < 9 10 11
 
   
 

Nature to Nature’s Fullest Extent

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3865
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 August 2019 13:14
 
Ron - 09 August 2019 10:26 AM
bbearren - 09 August 2019 09:10 AM

Stop being so disingenuously literal.

Not at all disingenuous.  bbearren - 04 October 2014  My tendency is for the most part, literalist.

You…

a) claim that it is your understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent
b) explain that this understanding is not based on logic, rationality, or intellect, but that it is faith based (YOUR faith)

THEREFORE, your understanding is faith based! So how can you deny that you are embracing faith as a mode of understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent? Unless you are going to deny a and/or b. Are you?

Previously answered: bbearren - 07 August 2019  I’ve never said that I “embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding”.  That I have faith, as I have said many times, is a result of personal, subjective experience.

Do you not understand the distinction?  I don’t “embrace faith as a mode of understanding”, I “have faith” as a result of personal, subjective experience.  bbearren - 08 August 2019  I do have knowledge that I have had personal, subjective experiences.  I believe that these experiences did occur.  Having had these experiences, an understanding of these experiences has coalesced.  My understanding applies only to these experiences—to nothing else, to no one else.  My understanding is personal, and subjective.

On one thing you are indeed correct: you do not understand my faith.  You keep working off your concept of faith.

I have absolutely no use for philosophy in any way, shape or form.  If you leave “philosophy” out of the discussions, I’ll stop expressing my disdain for “philosophy” in the discussions.  Simple, no?

This is just another distraction. Where am I interjecting philosophy? Basically, I’ve been trying to unpack two things… your apparent embrace of faith as a mode of understanding and the confidence level of your claim that it is your understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent. IF there’s any “philosophy” in my questioning, then it’s directly related to your position.

No, it is not, because my faith is not founded in philosophy.  I do not embrace faith as a mode of understanding, and I will not ascribe a level of confidence to my understanding that god is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

This time I’m asking:

Also, since you have stated that it is your understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent – yet you don’t believe it to be true, can you give a similar example of something else understood to be a certain way, but not meriting belief in it?

They are different questions.

Driving on a four-lane highway from the nearest town north of my hometown to my hometown, about half-way a county road intersects, and there is a traffic signal.  The county road is programmed for a demand green light; there has to be a vehicle waiting at the intersection to trip the magnetic sensor in order for the light on the four-lane to change to caution, then red, and give a green light to the vehicle on the county road.

This intersection is visible for about two miles of straight four-lane highway.  If the light is red when it first becomes visible, I don’t release my cruise control, because I believe the light will have turned to green before I reach it.  Traffic is variable, another car may approach on the county road, the light may turn to caution, then red before I reach it.  Still, I believe the light will have turned to green before I reach it, and I keep on cruising, but I get my right foot ready for the brake pedal.  Over the years, that belief has proven to be meritless a number of times.

I’m not sure I follow. What is it in this scenario that you understand to be the case? And, at the same time, does not merit belief in it? As in…

I understand that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent, yet I don’t believe it to be true that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

Can you take the exact format of my sentence above and just replace the “God is nature…” part with whatever components in your traffic example would convey your meaning? That would make things easier. Thanks.

No, I will not.  The “exact format” is your rephrasing, yet again, into something I have not said.  I will not allow it.  I will not respond to it.  Get rid of your rephrasing and ask your question in your own words, or by quoting me directly, not by twisting my words into something that I have not said.

There is no “twist”. Since you have said that you understand that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent, AND that you don’t believe it to be true, then my phrasing is an accurate representation of your position, regardless of whether you ever made the conjoined statements.

It’s quite simple.  That is not what I said.  I will not allow rephrasing of my statements, nor will I respond to such.  Stop insisting on using your own words in the place of mine.  I simply will not have it, nor respond to it.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1944
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
09 August 2019 15:12
 
bbearren - 09 August 2019 01:14 PM

Previously answered: bbearren - 07 August 2019  I’ve never said that I “embrace faith as an epistemology/mode of understanding”.  That I have faith, as I have said many times, is a result of personal, subjective experience.

Do you not understand the distinction?  I don’t “embrace faith as a mode of understanding”, I “have faith” as a result of personal, subjective experience.

I see. So the difference is “have” vs “embrace”. Then is it fair to say that you HAVE faith as a mode of understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent?

bbearren - 08 August 2019  I do have knowledge that I have had personal, subjective experiences.  I believe that these experiences did occur.  Having had these experiences, an understanding of these experiences has coalesced.  My understanding applies only to these experiences—to nothing else, to no one else.  My understanding is personal, and subjective.

On one thing you are indeed correct: you do not understand my faith.  You keep working off your concept of faith.

I’m merely working off what you give me. No more and no less.

I have absolutely no use for philosophy in any way, shape or form.  If you leave “philosophy” out of the discussions, I’ll stop expressing my disdain for “philosophy” in the discussions.  Simple, no?

This is just another distraction. Where am I interjecting philosophy? Basically, I’ve been trying to unpack two things… your apparent embrace of faith as a mode of understanding and the confidence level of your claim that it is your understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent. IF there’s any “philosophy” in my questioning, then it’s directly related to your position.

No, it is not, because my faith is not founded in philosophy.

I never said it was.


I do not embrace faith as a mode of understanding, and I will not ascribe a level of confidence to my understanding that god is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

What is it about the nature of that understanding that prevents you from even making a cursory assessment of your own confidence level? What stops you from asking yourself, “how confident am I that God is nature to nature’s extent”?

This time I’m asking:

Also, since you have stated that it is your understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent – yet you don’t believe it to be true, can you give a similar example of something else understood to be a certain way, but not meriting belief in it?

They are different questions.

Driving on a four-lane highway from the nearest town north of my hometown to my hometown, about half-way a county road intersects, and there is a traffic signal.  The county road is programmed for a demand green light; there has to be a vehicle waiting at the intersection to trip the magnetic sensor in order for the light on the four-lane to change to caution, then red, and give a green light to the vehicle on the county road.

This intersection is visible for about two miles of straight four-lane highway.  If the light is red when it first becomes visible, I don’t release my cruise control, because I believe the light will have turned to green before I reach it.  Traffic is variable, another car may approach on the county road, the light may turn to caution, then red before I reach it.  Still, I believe the light will have turned to green before I reach it, and I keep on cruising, but I get my right foot ready for the brake pedal.  Over the years, that belief has proven to be meritless a number of times.

I’m not sure I follow. What is it in this scenario that you understand to be the case? And, at the same time, does not merit belief in it? As in…

I understand that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent, yet I don’t believe it to be true that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent.

Can you take the exact format of my sentence above and just replace the “God is nature…” part with whatever components in your traffic example would convey your meaning? That would make things easier. Thanks.

No, I will not.  The “exact format” is your rephrasing, yet again, into something I have not said.  I will not allow it.  I will not respond to it.  Get rid of your rephrasing and ask your question in your own words, or by quoting me directly, not by twisting my words into something that I have not said.

There is no “twist”. Since you have said that you understand that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent, AND that you don’t believe it to be true, then my phrasing is an accurate representation of your position, regardless of whether you ever made the conjoined statements.

It’s quite simple.  That is not what I said.  I will not allow rephrasing of my statements, nor will I respond to such.  Stop insisting on using your own words in the place of mine.  I simply will not have it, nor respond to it.

I didn’t say that that’s what you said. It’s simply the logical conclusion of separate statements that you DID make. But the more you go down this road, the more obvious it becomes that semantic obfuscation, rather than substantive discussion, is your only recourse.   

Ron

 

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3865
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
09 August 2019 17:09
 
Ron - 09 August 2019 03:12 PM

I see. So the difference is “have” vs “embrace”. Then is it fair to say that you HAVE faith as a mode of understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent?

Can you not deduce that my faith derives from the same source as my understanding?

bbearren - 08 August 2019  I do have knowledge that I have had personal, subjective experiences.  I believe that these experiences did occur.  Having had these experiences, an understanding of these experiences has coalesced.  My understanding applies only to these experiences—to nothing else, to no one else.  My understanding is personal, and subjective.

Why is that not clear to you?  What is wrong with your thinking?  Philosophical brain twisters getting in your way?  The links I have been posting are not al all irrelevant to this discussion.  Try this one again:

“The 1920’s come in, we learn about the expanding universe in the same decade as we learn about quantum physics, each of which fall so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair, that, the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to the thinking of the physical scientist, were rendered essentially obsolete, at that point.”—Neil deGrasse Tyson

I’m merely working off what you give me. No more and no less.

No, it would appear that you’re not really reading what I give you, you’re just rephrasing what I give you, and working off that.  It ain’t gonna work that way.  Try reading for understanding, because I am, and have been, putting it right there in front of you, but you just can’t seem to see it.  It ain’t that hard, but it seems that you can’t let go of your own concept of faith long enough to realize that that ain’t mine.

What is it about the nature of that understanding that prevents you from even making a cursory assessment of your own confidence level? What stops you from asking yourself, “how confident am I that God is nature to nature’s extent”?

I have no need.  It is completely unnecessary to do so.  It would serve no purpose whatsoever.  What is it that compels you to ask me questions that do not relate to my faith?  You’re asking questions that pertain to some concept of faith that is not at all relevant to my faith.  You keep going back to “could” and “should” and “would”.  Where does that come from if not from some concept of faith from which you keep framing those non-pertinent questions?  How many times do I have to say “No” for you to understand that “No” is the correct answer.

I didn’t say that that’s what you said. It’s simply the logical conclusion of separate statements that you DID make. But the more you go down this road, the more obvious it becomes that semantic obfuscation, rather than substantive discussion, is your only recourse.

No, it seems that semantic obfuscation is your only recourse, since you cannot discuss my words, my descriptions, you must somehow be compelled to twist them into your own words.  There is no discussion when you’re trying to control both sides.

As I told you earlier, syllogism be damned, it’s not what I said.  Don’t try tp tell me that you want to understand, because your efforts do not appear to bend in that direction in the least.  I’ve given you the same answers to the same questions multiple times.  You rephrase and ask the same old tired questions.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1944
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
10 August 2019 05:08
 
bbearren - 09 August 2019 05:09 PM
Ron - 09 August 2019 03:12 PM

I see. So the difference is “have” vs “embrace”. Then is it fair to say that you HAVE faith as a mode of understanding that God is nature to nature’s fullest extent?

Can you not deduce that my faith derives from the same source as my understanding?

bbearren - 08 August 2019  I do have knowledge that I have had personal, subjective experiences.  I believe that these experiences did occur.  Having had these experiences, an understanding of these experiences has coalesced.  My understanding applies only to these experiences—to nothing else, to no one else.  My understanding is personal, and subjective.

Why is that not clear to you?  What is wrong with your thinking?  Philosophical brain twisters getting in your way?  The links I have been posting are not al all irrelevant to this discussion.  Try this one again:

“The 1920’s come in, we learn about the expanding universe in the same decade as we learn about quantum physics, each of which fall so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair, that, the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to the thinking of the physical scientist, were rendered essentially obsolete, at that point.”—Neil deGrasse Tyson

I’m merely working off what you give me. No more and no less.

No, it would appear that you’re not really reading what I give you, you’re just rephrasing what I give you, and working off that.  It ain’t gonna work that way.  Try reading for understanding, because I am, and have been, putting it right there in front of you, but you just can’t seem to see it.  It ain’t that hard, but it seems that you can’t let go of your own concept of faith long enough to realize that that ain’t mine.

What is it about the nature of that understanding that prevents you from even making a cursory assessment of your own confidence level? What stops you from asking yourself, “how confident am I that God is nature to nature’s extent”?

I have no need.  It is completely unnecessary to do so.  It would serve no purpose whatsoever.  What is it that compels you to ask me questions that do not relate to my faith?  You’re asking questions that pertain to some concept of faith that is not at all relevant to my faith.  You keep going back to “could” and “should” and “would”.  Where does that come from if not from some concept of faith from which you keep framing those non-pertinent questions?  How many times do I have to say “No” for you to understand that “No” is the correct answer.

I didn’t say that that’s what you said. It’s simply the logical conclusion of separate statements that you DID make. But the more you go down this road, the more obvious it becomes that semantic obfuscation, rather than substantive discussion, is your only recourse.

No, it seems that semantic obfuscation is your only recourse, since you cannot discuss my words, my descriptions, you must somehow be compelled to twist them into your own words.  There is no discussion when you’re trying to control both sides.

As I told you earlier, syllogism be damned, it’s not what I said.  Don’t try tp tell me that you want to understand, because your efforts do not appear to bend in that direction in the least.  I’ve given you the same answers to the same questions multiple times.  You rephrase and ask the same old tired questions.

So syllogisms be damned, logic be damned, and even your own words be damned. It’s apparent that you will equivocate and obfuscate every step of the way in order to preserve your cherished notions. This thread is riddled with contradictory statements, strawmen, non-sequiturs, pedantry, and goal post moves. Welcome to the nonsense world of faith/God belief, where critical thinking and logic goes to die! Enjoy your comfy little self-constructed world of bbearrenisms. I’m done.

Ron

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3865
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
10 August 2019 08:31
 
Ron - 10 August 2019 05:08 AM

So syllogisms be damned, logic be damned, and even your own words be damned.

Syllogism - an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument.”  The main reason I quote my previous posts so often in threads such as this is to put statements, such as your first in this reply, in the ash heap.  I’ve quoted you throughout this thread, pointed out repeatedly, “That’s not what I said”, then quoted what I said.

It’s apparent that you will equivocate and obfuscate every step of the way in order to preserve your cherished notions.

bbearren - No, it seems that semantic obfuscation is your only recourse, since you cannot discuss my words, my descriptions, you must somehow be compelled to twist them into your own words.  There is no discussion when you’re trying to control both sides.”

My “cherished notion” is that I will defend what I have said, but I will not allow my words to be twisted and then be asked to defend what I have not said.  And so I say, “Syllogism be damned, it’s not what I said.”

This thread is riddled with contradictory statements, strawmen, non-sequiturs, pedantry, and goal post moves.

No, it is not.  I’ve gone back through this thread multiple times over the course of these discussions (often to pull quotes of what I have said, to use in a reply).  How many times, in how many ways, have you (and Garrett, for that matter) asked the same questions, rephrased and retooled, unable to accept my answers and move forward, stuck in a hole of trying to get different answers to the same questions?  What is that expression about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Welcome to the nonsense world of faith/God belief, where critical thinking and logic goes to die! Enjoy your comfy little self-constructed world of bbearrenisms. I’m done.

bbearren - My faith is not based on logic, rationality, or intellect.  It is, in its entirety, subjective, my understanding of my personal, subjective experience.”

Clearly it has not been “understanding” that you were wanting.  You did not entertain the thought that you could somehow excise my faith, did you?  What sort of demonstration of critical thinking is that?  What a silly idea!  As I have said almost throughout this thread, my faith does not conform to the concept of faith from which you frame your questions.  Regardless of your protestations to the contrary, you have yet to address anything other than your own concept of faith.

Pity that you’ve quit the field.  I’ve rather enjoyed it.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1944
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
10 August 2019 09:07
 
bbearren - 10 August 2019 08:31 AM

Pity that you’ve quit the field.  I’ve rather enjoyed it.

Fact is, I’ve enjoyed it too. But further discussion with you is useless. So unless you have anything new to offer, then I’ll respectfully say… have a good day.

Ron

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3865
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
10 August 2019 09:44
 
MrRon - 10 August 2019 09:07 AM
bbearren - 10 August 2019 08:31 AM

Pity that you’ve quit the field.  I’ve rather enjoyed it.

Fact is, I’ve enjoyed it too. But further discussion with you is useless.

If your intent is, as it has appeared to be throughout this thread, to excise my faith, further discussion is indeed useless.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8818
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
10 August 2019 11:09
 
bbearren - 10 August 2019 09:44 AM
MrRon - 10 August 2019 09:07 AM
bbearren - 10 August 2019 08:31 AM

Pity that you’ve quit the field.  I’ve rather enjoyed it.

Fact is, I’ve enjoyed it too. But further discussion with you is useless.

If your intent is, as it has appeared to be throughout this thread, to excise my faith, further discussion is indeed useless.

Here is an interesting article about faith, and losing it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/books/review/leaving-the-witness-amber-scorah.html

Though religious fundamentalism has surged globally in recent decades, the anti-intellectualism of these authoritarian movements, their staunch refusal to cede ground to reason and empiricism, often confounds nonbelievers. How can people devote the totality of their lives to the unseen, the unevidenced? How can faith subsume thinking?

But reason is a poor weapon against the believer whose very religious identity springs from an embrace of the unreasonable. Many fundamentalists are conscious of the seeming absurdity of their position, but it is precisely the stridency of their faith, their ability to withstand the irrational, that confirms for them their exceptionalism and salvation. They reject modernity’s demystification project and instead construct meaning in the supernatural. Their faith becomes very thick armor indeed, one that even the sharpest Enlightenment rationalism won’t penetrate.

But the stunted psychology of those raised in extreme religion is another problem altogether. For these children, there is no obvious forfeiture of common sense or flight from existential chaos that informs adult conversion. Rather, they experience a totalizing indoctrination that so severely limits the formation of an adult psychology that many don’t ever achieve maturity in the way secular society conceives of it, a state of empowered capability that permits complex life choices, a state in which contradictory ideas can be held in tension without psychic recoil. Instead, the fundamentalist child, raised on fear and limitation, lives a life of diminished options, constrained by strict dualisms: black and white, good and bad, God and Satan, and (perhaps most alarmingly for the broader culture) us and them.

  (more in article)

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3865
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
10 August 2019 12:22
 
unsmoked - 10 August 2019 11:09 AM
bbearren - 10 August 2019 09:44 AM
MrRon - 10 August 2019 09:07 AM
bbearren - 10 August 2019 08:31 AM

Pity that you’ve quit the field.  I’ve rather enjoyed it.

Fact is, I’ve enjoyed it too. But further discussion with you is useless.

If your intent is, as it has appeared to be throughout this thread, to excise my faith, further discussion is indeed useless.

Here is an interesting article about faith, and losing it:

A few caveats:
I was an atheist for my first 40-odd years, longer than I’ve been a believer.
I don’t consider myself a christian in the denoted sense of that word in today’s culture.
Like atheists, I don’t believe in a supernatural god who grants wishes.
I’m by no means a fundamentalist.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1896
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
10 August 2019 12:45
 
MrRon - 10 August 2019 09:07 AM
bbearren - 10 August 2019 08:31 AM

Pity that you’ve quit the field.  I’ve rather enjoyed it.

Fact is, I’ve enjoyed it too. But further discussion with you is useless. So unless you have anything new to offer, then I’ll respectfully say… have a good day.

Ron

Keep in mind that word use is not an exact science nor is it any other kind of science. Especially when it comes to the more abstract words we pile on top of each other, at times all we’re really doing is only vaguely hinting at our actual thoughts, memories and imaginings. We all do the best we can, but some things are subtle.

If at any time bb is satisfied only with his particular phrasings, I get it. Word choices and how they rhythmic flow can have a way of compelling the listener to conjure up an image that involves past and current word uses that align somehow with what’s being described. It’s almost a magic trick, and some sentences don’t come apart, and aren’t meant to come apart, the way a mathematical equation might. It amounts to an approximation that relies on the cooperation, trust, and sometimes a great deal of imagination of the recipient.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3865
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
10 August 2019 13:52
 
nonverbal - 10 August 2019 12:45 PM
MrRon - 10 August 2019 09:07 AM
bbearren - 10 August 2019 08:31 AM

Pity that you’ve quit the field.  I’ve rather enjoyed it.

Fact is, I’ve enjoyed it too. But further discussion with you is useless. So unless you have anything new to offer, then I’ll respectfully say… have a good day.

Ron

Keep in mind that word use is not an exact science nor is it any other kind of science. Especially when it comes to the more abstract words we pile on top of each other, at times all we’re really doing is only vaguely hinting at our actual thoughts, memories and imaginings. We all do the best we can, but some things are subtle.

If at any time bb is satisfied only with his particular phrasings, I get it. Word choices and how they rhythmic flow can have a way of compelling the listener to conjure up an image that involves past and current word uses that align somehow with what’s being described. It’s almost a magic trick, and some sentences don’t come apart, and aren’t meant to come apart, the way a mathematical equation might. It amounts to an approximation that relies on the cooperation, trust, and sometimes a great deal of imagination of the recipient.

Not to detract from what you’ve said here, I’d like to add that the reason I so often quote from and link to old posts of mine is to preserve and maintain my narrative, to illustrate concisely that I am bringing nothing new to the table, but keeping my cards firmly on the table, face up.  As has been said a number of times, this annoys some people.  But it serves my purpose; it’s my narrative.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21925
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
10 August 2019 13:58
 
nonverbal - 10 August 2019 12:45 PM
MrRon - 10 August 2019 09:07 AM
bbearren - 10 August 2019 08:31 AM

Pity that you’ve quit the field.  I’ve rather enjoyed it.

Fact is, I’ve enjoyed it too. But further discussion with you is useless. So unless you have anything new to offer, then I’ll respectfully say… have a good day.

Ron

Keep in mind that word use is not an exact science nor is it any other kind of science. Especially when it comes to the more abstract words we pile on top of each other, at times all we’re really doing is only vaguely hinting at our actual thoughts, memories and imaginings. We all do the best we can, but some things are subtle.

If at any time bb is satisfied only with his particular phrasings, I get it. Word choices and how they rhythmic flow can have a way of compelling the listener to conjure up an image that involves past and current word uses that align somehow with what’s being described. It’s almost a magic trick, and some sentences don’t come apart, and aren’t meant to come apart, the way a mathematical equation might. It amounts to an approximation that relies on the cooperation, trust, and sometimes a great deal of imagination of the recipient.

Communication is hard work. It’s difficult to understand what someone is saying if you don’t have a similar experience.  We naturally associate certain words and phrases with our own history, and that may be substantially different than the history of the speaker.  I hear you saying that when trying to understand a person whose experience is different, it’s important to stick with the phraseology that person uses, and stay with it until you understand what is being said.  You may never agree, but at least you understand.

Since I have had the kind of experience bb had (not exactly the same, but in the same category) I generally get what he is saying. I might have used different words, but I see why he demands staying precisely with his phraseology.  It took me awhile, but now I don’t find it such a mystery.  You have to care enough to invest the time.  At the beginning he was not forthcoming at all, but he opened up eventually. It’s no longer a black hole to me.

Mario’s basic message is not hard for me to understand at all, but he is such a complete ass wipe that I feel he needs to be flushed on occasion.

[ Edited: 10 August 2019 14:01 by EN]
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
10 August 2019 15:14
 
EN - 10 August 2019 01:58 PM
nonverbal - 10 August 2019 12:45 PM
MrRon - 10 August 2019 09:07 AM
bbearren - 10 August 2019 08:31 AM

Pity that you’ve quit the field.  I’ve rather enjoyed it.

Fact is, I’ve enjoyed it too. But further discussion with you is useless. So unless you have anything new to offer, then I’ll respectfully say… have a good day.

Ron

Keep in mind that word use is not an exact science nor is it any other kind of science. Especially when it comes to the more abstract words we pile on top of each other, at times all we’re really doing is only vaguely hinting at our actual thoughts, memories and imaginings. We all do the best we can, but some things are subtle.

If at any time bb is satisfied only with his particular phrasings, I get it. Word choices and how they rhythmic flow can have a way of compelling the listener to conjure up an image that involves past and current word uses that align somehow with what’s being described. It’s almost a magic trick, and some sentences don’t come apart, and aren’t meant to come apart, the way a mathematical equation might. It amounts to an approximation that relies on the cooperation, trust, and sometimes a great deal of imagination of the recipient.

Communication is hard work. It’s difficult to understand what someone is saying if you don’t have a similar experience.  We naturally associate certain words and phrases with our own history, and that may be substantially different than the history of the speaker.  I hear you saying that when trying to understand a person whose experience is different, it’s important to stick with the phraseology that person uses, and stay with it until you understand what is being said.  You may never agree, but at least you understand.

Since I have had the kind of experience bb had (not exactly the same, but in the same category) I generally get what he is saying. I might have used different words, but I see why he demands staying precisely with his phraseology.  It took me awhile, but now I don’t find it such a mystery.  You have to care enough to invest the time.  At the beginning he was not forthcoming at all, but he opened up eventually. It’s no longer a black hole to me.

I appreciate BB having taken the time to post with me about his position.
I know it’s tough to open up in a place like this where multiple posters are likely to become involved.

EN - 10 August 2019 01:58 PM

Mario’s basic message is not hard for me to understand at all, but he is such a complete ass wipe that I feel he needs to be flushed on occasion.

I don’t understand why anyone pays that guy any attention. He’s not worth any of my time.

 
 
‹ First  < 9 10 11