HUMAN NATURE: what the heck is it REALLY?

by Terry 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  Not all of us can be "best".

  Or, everyone of us can be -- and perhaps is -- but then "best" doesn't mean the same to everyone. It can even mean the opposite.

  Perhaps there is just no common scale.

  Oh dear! You do violence to our word "best"!

  Best is a comparative.

  It is not possible that EVERY anything can be "best" or there is no comparative to indicate a superlative. Best indicates relative position when comparing.

  And...if "best" can mean the opposite of itself....well....we may as well toss vocabular out the window.

  I think what you are indicating by your statement is a reference to subjectivity.

  But, I can't abide that, myself.

  Our concepts stand or fall by the accuracy of their definitions.

  The mystics want to blur the lines as much as possible by attacking definitions and rendering concepts vague. This allows them to use conceptual language any way they wish without leaving their audience a means of testing the reality of it all.

  Take the word "spiritual" for instance. It can mean so many ill-defined things it finally means nothing much at all. It is like the word "cool".

  If I put you in a room with many objects and tell you to find what is cool you might bring back an ice cube or an iPod.

  Anyway...much ado about nothing here.

  T.
• 

  Narkissos

  Terry,

  All I tried to point out is that the concept of "best" (which you used) -- or "good" or "bad" for that matter -- is relative if not subjective.

  The "best" cop in town may not be the "best" burglar (albeit that happens). The "best" football player may not be the "best" poet. There is an infinity of possible scales, and whenever we rate "low" somewhere maybe this is just not our way. I wont tell you about the ugly little duck...

  Know thyself, this is the point of your thread if I understood it correctly.

  Next step might be, find your own standards. A perilous yet necessary one.
• 

  Terry

  All I tried to point out is that the concept of "best" (which you used) -- or "good" or "bad" for that matter -- is relative if not subjective.

  The "best" cop in town may not be the "best" burglar (albeit that happens). The "best" football player may not be the "best" poet. There is an infinity of possible scales, and whenever we rate "low" somewhere maybe this is just not our way. I wont tell you about the ugly little duck...

  Know thyself, this is the point of your thread if I understood it correctly.

  Next step might be, find your own standards. A perilous yet necessary one.

  Meaning is a result of bringing together a concept with a context and then witnessing the result.

  As context changes; so does the chemical reaction.

  Finding your own standard is another matter altogether.

  I'd substitute the word "value" for standard. We attach a value (like hacking the register hive on your computer) to everything and then our reaction is the result of that magnitude. That is emotion. Emotion is the result of the "setting".

  This personal value setting comes out of our "nature".

  And our NATURE is what I'm discussing. The "know thyself" function is tricky. I'd even change that dictum too.

  Knowing thyself is really discovering thyself.

  Not as pithy, eh?