KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE between what is real and what isn't.

by Terry 65 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Terry

  A table could be a stool

  Do you want to live in a mental world of "could be's"?

  Or, would you prefer to live in a world of "is"?

  Broadly stated, the difference between an average person and a genius is the degree of specific knowledge brought to bear on any particular subject.

  The average person can operate off of a broad base of information that is wide and shallow without stepping off the edge of the universe. However, the genius has a depth to the base of general information that takes it several steps deeper into a real understanding.

  Or, put another way...

  If you had to have a doctor operate on you, would you want the doctor who graduated at the top of his class or the one who was near the bottom?

  There are degrees of everything we know. Most people do not care about the details, the specificities and the inner connectedness of information. The genius will not settle for less.

  We can't choose to be a genius, certainly. But, we can all increase the depth of our understanding. We can endeavor to trade up from okay to good and from good to better and from better to best IF WE SO CHOOSE.

  What kind of thinking each of us does is a matter reflecting who we are and what we are made of. No less so our confusing a table with a stool and seeing little importance in the difference. :)
• 

  Terry

  Terry

  What is the solution?

  Skepticism.

  Try it---it might save your life.

  I'll try to remember this on my deathbed.

  Start sooner and you might avoid that deathbed for many years!
• 

  journey-on

  Terry

  It's frustrating when you pull one sentence out of an entire post and focus your criticism on that... not even

  acknowledging one little tittle of the gist of the thought expressed in the rest of it. You blow it off as if no thought

  or research went into the premise of the statements as if you were totally blind, deaf, and dumb to any possible intelligent

  argument behind it. As a matter of fact, the ENTIRE thing was ignored except for that one statement that I don't put

  100% of my faith in Science. (For your information, I acknowledge the wonderful things science has given us. I believe science is

  part of the exploration that will eventually lead us to the answers mankind deperately seeks to know not just intellectually,

  but spiritually, as well, but it is 21st century and there is so much more to discover and probably toss out the window as old and

  outdated.)
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Terry

  Start sooner and you might avoid that deathbed for many years!

  You aren't trying to avoid the fact that your death is a reallity are you? You know, buy putting it off?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

  Extreme scepticism is a very easy weapon to wield against whatever you like. However, those that champion it routinely wield it only against things they dislike, while taking others for granted. Convenient.
• 

  Terry

  Terry It's frustrating when you pull one sentence out of an entire post and focus your criticism on that ... not even acknowledging one little tittle of the gist of the thought expressed in the rest of it. You blow it off as if no thought or research went into the premise of the statements as if you were totally blind, deaf, and dumb to any possible intelligent argument behind it

  Every point of view has at core a premise which is fundamental.

  If you focus on the fundamental you avoid bogging down in irrelevent details of rebuttal.

  For instance, most arguments with JW's are mind-numbing boxing matches over interpretation. All that can be avoided by concentration on the fundamental: the Bible. If you demonstrate the lack of credibility the bible has as an inerrant and divine premise all the other arguments become meaningless.

  What interested me about your post was the focus on what isn't, rather than what is.

  Science deals with what can be known. Science does not deal with what cannot be known.

  What is the point in discussing what cannot be known?
• 

  Terry

  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

  Extreme scepticism is a very easy weapon to wield against whatever you like. However, those that champion it routinely wield it only against things they dislike, while taking others for granted. Convenient.

  Proof is proof. Lack of proof is lack...of...proof.

  How is that so hard to deal with?

  When you lack proof you either wait for proof to come along before accepting something--or---you swallow without proof and start a BELIEF.

  Belief without proof is one of mankind's worst afflictions.

  If somebody tells you something fantastical, outside of your experience and offers you no proof other than their claims----how does it illustrate your intelligence for you to not be skeptical?

  I don't see the advantage to your way of thinking, personally.

  I agree with your point about WHAT we choose as a target for skepticism---IF--and only IF we cherry pick our targets without regard to proof.

  If proof is always required as the standard for acceptance; that is de facto skepticism and genuine sign of intelligence.

  Extreme skepticism does not even accept proof as proof. It is nihilism.

  A lot of people who visit here on JWD love to wallow in what they don't and can't know for sure and make that, somehow, equivalent in importance to knowledge itself.

  If we stick with what can be known and demonstrate how we can know it---we go a long way toward successful, healthy mental acumen.
• 

  gumby

  What I want to know what is real or not is Terry's boobs.

  If a person does not ponder things.... while doing other things, how can plans be made? If I'm building a fence but have an appointment to go to later in the day, I have to remind myself of that appointment. I also have to think of what other things I could do while I'm in town.

  So, since a person can think much faster than one hears, how is it we all need to only live in the moment?

  Gumboobs
• 

  journey-on

  I'm always amazed at people that can't entertain plausible possibilities. Thank goodness for visionaries throughout

  history that bucked that mentality and proceeded based on nothing more than the "possibility" that something was

  "other than." There has to be BALANCE.....healthy skepticism mixed with healthy visionary foresight. The key is

  the balance.

  Your sentence: What is the point in discussing what cannot be known?........for me that says it all.

  What is the point in intellectual exercise if one cannot discuss the possibility that what we THINK cannot be known

  might actually have a key to the known.

  Terry, my opinion is: You lack balance and are afraid of sinking back into the realm of possibilities. You want desperately

  to remain cozy in your world of certainty and just the thought that something might be more than that glob of 3-lb. gray mass

  frightens you. You are a man that NEEDS certainty and assuredness, and fear what might be that YOU can't see. Just my opinion.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Terry

  Each of us is capable of avoiding unpleasant thoughts. It is as simple as as not looking, not hearing and refusing to ponder what displeases us.

  This is comparable to taking a nap while driving, however! Reality will soon impact the front bumper of your vehicle and pop your dream bubble in a most disastrous manner!

  Who's avoiding "unpleasant thoughts" now? Death is the ultimate reality that will one day "impact the front bumper" of all our lives.

  My point is skepticism cuts both ways.