TESTING the results of two different ways of thinking

by Terry 172 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  coolhandluke

  Terry,

  It is in no way my aim to hijack this thread. With that said I realize that you have me at a disadvantage when it comes to life experience and command of language. However in my humble opinion your engagement on this board seems to have its root in the sharing of your ideological viewpoint for your own edification. Rarely do people disagree with the things you have to say. I imagine that this general response is a boon to the positions that you construct and share. My only evidence of this is that you continue to share. This leads me to a question: Why do I never see you support others in crisis? Those leaving an organization that we have been taught to call mother could surely benefit from your long standing expertise. From viewing the threads you have posted, I know I have. A further question: "Why do you seem to assign the majority of your energies posting to things that in are in essence self reinforcing or in defense of your established position? Why does it seem that your energies are not devoted to aiding others, but aiding your own ends? Perhaps my interpretation is mine alone and stems from my own reflexive viewpoints and not your reflective position. If that is the case, please accept my apology. Please understand that I mean this with the highest respect and simply want to understand.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  CHL,

  Those leaving an organization that we have been taught to call mother could surely benefit from your long standing expertise.

  Why does it seem that your energies are not devoted to aiding others, but aiding your own ends?

  i can't speak for terry, but i can speak from my experience of coming to this board as a lurker and a newb and reading terry's posts.

  IMO, it's all about aiding others. everyone has their own version of helping. there are lots of people here who offer emotional support, and what not. i don't see a lot writing the things terry does. so terry fills that niche, and it helps some. it helped me when i was a newb. i can say with some confidence that i am not the only one. he helped me circumvent the the energy required to tear apart details of doctrine when leaving the org, and get to the root of the issues regarding theism in general. he may not have intended it to go like that, maybe he did. but that's how it worked for me in reading his posts as a newb.

  sincerely,

  TS
• 

  coolhandluke

  I agree tet, Terry has helped me a great deal by his posts. I hope that what I wrote does not undermine that. My question is perhaps unfounded in the sense that at times, his posts seem self serving. Again, this is perhaps my flawed interpretation of it. Beyond that the interpretation might come from my JW past creeping up. We are so often taught not to draw attention to ourselves. "Its about the community of brotherhood, not about self." If that is the case, I again apologize
• 

  Terry

  Why do I never see you support others in crisis?

  1. I don't post to demonstrate to others that I am an altruist; I'm not.

  2.I get many private e-mails and such from all sorts of transitional people. I deal with each according to need.

  3.I've given blanket permission to use anything I write, which some may deem useful, in whatever manner might be effective toward a positive result.

  4. I have something I feel is sui generis to offer to Jehovah's Witnesses who may be lurking with doubt and also to former JW's who have cut loose from belief systems in general.

  5.I possess a personal taste for philosophy, religion, self-expression which lends itself to a kind of insight I seldom see others sharing here.

  When others are in crisis they themselves often have created that crisis by choices they made. I'm not a super hero. I'm an ordinary fella busy living a life with all the gusto I can. Writing comes naturally to me and it keeps my mind sharp to stop in at JWD and dash off a screed or two daily.

  When I meet up with somebody who finds fault with me, my words, or my character I face off with them and challenge them because that is how one's integrity is tested. Seldom does anyone evidence more than a casual acquaintance with what they profess to believe. This disturbs me. Why assert one's beliefs publicly if they rest on sand? I rigorously examine my own thinking daily. JWD offers that opportunity too.

  When all is said and done, frankly, I am here for my own private purposes which are none of yours. If you don't agree with some particular I espouse, then, please have the decency to confront me about something rather than a mere generality.

  I live my life for myself. I do not sacrifice (any longer) myself to others nor expect others to sacrifice themselves for me. Such a collective-socialist mentality is anathema to my personal philosophy.

  I defend myself here mostly because I am challenged. Also, no matter how many times I repeat myself the same people just don't even seem to "get it". If they "got it" they'd make that clear. Nobody is obligated to read what I write or agree with what I say. However, if somebody is going to call me out about something they damn sure better be able to stand on their own two feet and give a clear accounting of what their problem with me is.

  If I read you right, your problem with me is that I'm not Mother Theresa. Okay. But, then--neither are you.

  T.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  CHL, no worries man!

  i see the issue like this:

  science and critical thinking are reducing the gaps that magic can fill. and yet, mystics (very generally) want their magic given equal respect and air time as science and technology (like medicine).

  people who see scientific method as the best method so far for determining the best view of reality say, 'no. it is not equal. it is not just as good. it's not even falsifiable. there is a major disparity between what scienctific method has accomplished for mankind, and what mysticism has. why should equal air time be given to systems that cannot even prove the validity of their claims in the first place, let alone categorically show anything else of latchable substance.'

  i am surely not saying you disagree with this at all. i am just explaining why advocates of scientific method may seem agressive when advocates of magical thinking step out of the self imposed box of subjectivity, and start asserting it's so-called objectivity.

  Respectfully,

  TS
• 

  Confession

  Terry,

  You have suggested that Trevor’s post was irrelevant. Then you make this statement…

  A mystic does not EXPLORE anything. Science explores, measures, quantifies and clarifies the results. Mysticism has all the answers through a fluffy-puffy mechanism of "just knowing". They have no ignorance those wacky mystics!

  I will suggest that your response was itself irrelevant. Trevor was not discussing a “fluffy-puffy mechanism” that claimed to know it all. His point?

  It is possible that we barely understand the way the world really works and have many new discoveries to make. They may shatter many of the beliefs that science presently accepts. A humble a flexible mind will cope with change far better than an opinionated mind.

  Although an examination of my beliefs will demonstrate that I am much more the Rationalist—and very skeptical of Mysticism, I find myself agreeing with Trevor’s position. I think the strength of the rational, scientific approach is that it can remain calm, consider all the information, and render a conclusion not shaded by bias. To some of us, it appears that your fine posts are written from the position of "O Omniscient One," contain dogmatic statements and an emotional charge. (Example: "Bullshit!!")

  Is it possible that your appreciation of science has taken on a “passion” that is counterproductive?
• 

  coolhandluke

  Terry,

  Thank you for responding.

  If I read you right, your problem with me is that I'm not Mother Theresa. Okay. But, then--neither are you.

  I have no problems with who you are. I do not expect you to be Mother Theresa. I was unsure of your background and of the reasons why you post the things you do. You've clarified that. I appreciate that. Why attack me? Why say "But, then--neither are you." I am not trying to compare myself to you or to any one else. Nor am I comparing you to anyone. Simply that it is in my inexperience that I have noted the types of threads you start (which I appreciate greatly) and the threads you respond to. It was not a personal attack as you seem to belive it is. It is not an attack at all. It was a question, nothing more.

  Terry, you help me think. Thinking is what lead me away from the organization. Thinking is what lead me here. Typically, I agree with the things you have said. When I do not, I search myself for the reasons to my stance. In that you are successful in helping me to evaluate my personal beliefs and if anything, spark the possibilites of new ones. For that I owe you thanks. Don't attack man. I'm on your team.

  "If I read you right..." Perhaps this exchange is the casualty of a misread from both of us.
• 

  Pole

  It is in no way my aim to hijack this thread. With that said I realize that you have me at a disadvantage when it comes to life experience and command of language. However in my humble opinion your engagement on this board seems to have its root in the sharing of your ideological viewpoint for your own edification. Rarely do people disagree with the things you have to say. I imagine that this general response is a boon to the positions that you construct and share. My only evidence of this is that you continue to share. This leads me to a question: Why do I never see you support others in crisis? Those leaving an organization that we have been taught to call mother could surely benefit from your long standing expertise. From viewing the threads you have posted, I know I have. A further question: "Why do you seem to assign the majority of your energies posting to things that in are in essence self reinforcing or in defense of your established position? Why does it seem that your energies are not devoted to aiding others, but aiding your own ends? Perhaps my interpretation is mine alone and stems from my own reflexive viewpoints and not your reflective position. If that is the case, please accept my apology. Please understand that I mean this with the highest respect and simply want to understand.

  
  Coolhandluke,
  Yes, you have hijacked the thread in the most irrelevant way. You have nothing to say on topic, so you seem to pass a ridiculous judgment on Terry. Dude, it's only a stupid discussion board! Sigh.
  Terry, I think you should refrain from speaking your mind if you want to reach out for organizational privileges. Ya' makin' the bruvas stumble, man. LOL.
  BTW, I think Aristotle got it wrong most of the time! What say thou?
  Pole
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  newlight,

  Sounds to me like a perfect example of the placebo effect, which I stated would not fool me.

  how do you know this? just asserting that you are above a well documented fact (placebo) does not mean that you are. how do you know that your current belief system is not one big placebo? do you test it critically? or do you just know?

  I know about the effects of positive and negative thinking, and my statements about prayer hve nothing to do with either.

  why not? neuroscientists have shown that positive thinking and prayer are almost excatly the same thing according to brain imaging. what data can you provide that contradicts this?

  After praying, thoughts occur that absolutely do seem to come from an external source.

  that's like me saying that after working out, strength seems to come to me from some mysterious physical source. if you cannot show that praying is not a placebo, then where else would it be most economic to conclude that your thoughts come from other than your own brain?

  I completely agree with your statements about thinking oneself well, and the opposite, but I assure you that my experience with praying is in another class.

  this is an extraordinary claim that normally would require extraordinary evidence. have you any? or do you just know?

  if it's the latter, then i will also draw your attention to the fact that people all down through time, from every religion and tribe, have just known that they are special and weilders of truth. it does not mean that they were, unless you are also willing to pray to Zeus.

  TS
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  hey Confession!

  i agree that science has much yet to uncover. it may yet over turn cherished theories and laws. that of course does not mean automatically that they will. science may also continue to strengthen them. that does not mean that we should not fly with what we currently know. perhaps they're here to stay? as you know, we can't say nay, but we cannot say yay either. however, (caveat): the more that an existing theory or law is strengthened with new data/evidence, the more unlikely it is that it will ever be overthrown at some future unknown time. that's the beauty of science, as opposed to mysticism. we can see where we are most likely going.

  i paraphrase dawkins when i say that it is indeed good to have an open mind. just not so open that our brains fall out.

  and honestly, that's the way i see post-modernism. much like mysticism and magical thinking. it says that we can really know nothing apart from our own personal perception of things. this, i think, flies in the face of reality.

  TS