Ramifications of clear discussion......

[Spiritone]

You could discuss or argue for the next ten years or for your whole life and not convince anyone of anything that you believe is right. You might argue with someone about some profound concept and hate each other but if you were to meet you might agree, eventually. The problem is that our language or communication abilities are not adequate to portray a definite understanding of what we absolutely mean.
There is a statement and then many answers all coming from the perspective of each individual according to their upbringing and experiences in their lives, what they were born as, in terms of sexual orientation, their financial situation, their sex and experiences, their parents' religion etc. Also their mental condition as in being depressed, angry, or whatever.
When we discuss we are not on the same page. We, at best can agree to disagree, but where does that leave us. Nowhere. We disagree, and so don't learn anything.
If you were to discover something really important beyond anything known to the general public, what would you do? If you contact the evening news with your info. you will be blown off. Newspapers, same thing. You will be known as a crank. You mighty as well forget it.
What I'm saying is, you can't deviate from the already decided scenario that is set as acceptable or you are 'shut out.'
That seals the whole agenda. Period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[YmirGF]

What I'm saying is, you can't deviate from the already decided scenario that is set as acceptable or you are 'shut out.'
That seals the whole agenda. Period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One way around this is to sit quietly and bide ones time. Make the effort to understand the permutations of what you think you have understood and get all your little duckies in a proverbial row. When happy that everything is as airtight as you can make it, leave it, ponder it for a few more years and then look at it again with fresh eyes. If at this point, you still believe you are onto something you are likely ready to handle any objections that are raised. There are always risks, but if one is patient one can at least minimize those risks.

 

[Spiritone]

One way around this is to sit quietly and bide ones time. Make the effort to understand the permutations of what you think you have understood and get all your little duckies in a proverbial row. When happy that everything is as airtight as you can make it, leave it, ponder it for a few more years and then look at it again with fresh eyes. If at this point, you still believe you are onto something you are likely ready to handle any objections that are raised. There are always risks, but if one is patient one can at least minimize those risks.

Good advice.
My search/hobby/adventure has been mostly a life long effort in one way or another. More people around the world seem to be more aware and asking questions regarding what was supposed to be a given, especially because of the internet. And religion does not have the same 'grip' on the masses.
My beliefs, which are never even near 100% certain, have changed dramatically over the years. When ETs reveal themselves it will blow the whole thing to hell. LOL

 

[MSizer]

You make me think of a few things. I agree that communication is flawed in many ways, but one can improve one's ability to convince other people. I believe that conviction is not concious. In other words, nobody "chooses to believe" anything. Our minds take information, process it, and decide unconciously what to believe. Therefore, the key is to offer the correct information is the only option I know of to sway one's unconcious choices. Of course, as you point out, background influences so many faculties of mind that some information will change some people's minds, while that same info will fall on deaf ears to other individuals.

Dan Dennet points out that just like biologists must be very careful in their experiments not to accidentally unleash some virus or mutation that could cause great harm, people who work with unconventional knowledge must also be mindful of the receiving audience before unleashing their heretic thoughts, even if they are correct thoghts. If the public isn't ready for the truth, the truth isn't a good thing at that time.

 

[YmirGF]

Dan Dennet points out that just like biologists must be very careful in their experiments not to accidentally unleash some virus or mutation that could cause great harm, people who work with unconventional knowledge must also be mindful of the receiving audience before unleashing their heretic thoughts, even if they are correct thoghts. If the public isn't ready for the truth, the truth isn't a good thing at that time.

I never did care for Dennet's thinking much. I disagree with the idea of people receiving an idea they are not ready for. If they weren't ready for it they simply would not give it the time of day. Now, how they handle it, is another thing completely.

 

[Spiritone]

You make me think of a few things. I agree that communication is flawed in many ways, but one can improve one's ability to convince other people. I believe that conviction is not concious. In other words, nobody "chooses to believe" anything. Our minds take information, process it, and decide unconciously what to believe. Therefore, the key is to offer the correct information is the only option I know of to sway one's unconcious choices. Of course, as you point out, background influences so many faculties of mind that some information will change some people's minds, while that same info will fall on deaf ears to other individuals.

Dan Dennet points out that just like biologists must be very careful in their experiments not to accidentally unleash some virus or mutation that could cause great harm, people who work with unconventional knowledge must also be mindful of the receiving audience before unleashing their heretic thoughts, even if they are correct thoghts. If the public isn't ready for the truth, the truth isn't a good thing at that time.

I agree with that.
Problem at all times; If the truth was to be presented to the public at large there most likely would be rebellion. If a person or masses of people are told that what they believe and their parents believed is a delusion, what would they do. I would not like t o be the one telling them that. So, if something is to be revealed that is radically different, how should the public be informed?
That is the question that I think will or has come up recently.

 

[YmirGF]

I agree with that.
Problem at all times; If the truth was to be presented to the public at large there most likely would be rebellion. If a person or masses of people are told that what they believe and their parents believed is a delusion, what would they do. I would not like t o be the one telling them that. So, if something is to be revealed that is radically different, how should the public be informed?
That is the question that I think will or has come up recently.

My own experience is that if a message is radically different, it will simply not be accepted. Sure one or two folks will take it in, but by and large the main population will not. The writer would simply be ignored and shuffled off into oblivion. For example, think of how bringing a message that sin did not exist in the time of Jesus or Muhammad would have gone over. The main population believed in the concept so strongly that anyone who suggested otherwise would have been assumed to be joking. If they pushed the point they would quickly find themselves the object of derision and their message would become lost.

 

[imaginaryme]

Huh? I don't know what you mean...

How many people actually listen? How many people actually know what they're talking about? This is why science rulz and other stuff... not so much. If one does the science and presents the theory in a rational manner, the theory is likely to be valued on its merits. I've been reading stuff for days about how these ideas will be "found in obscure journals" and "rediscovered after years;" whereas, concepts presented to the popular culture better be - sexy, now; and dumbed-down - or fuggadaboutit.

 

[Spiritone]

My own experience is that if a message is radically different, it will simply not be accepted. Sure one or two folks will take it in, but by and large the main population will not. The writer would simply be ignored and shuffled off into oblivion. For example, think of how bringing a message that sin did not exist in the time of Jesus or Muhammad would have gone over. The main population believed in the concept so strongly that anyone who suggested otherwise would have been assumed to be joking. If they pushed the point they would quickly find themselves the object of derision and their message would become lost.

Exactly. You and 'imaginaryme' are right on. Even in science if a radical thinker suggests that, for instance, there are spiritual effects that influence some experiments, they are in danger of being labeled as crank and being shut out as a worthwhile scientist. I know there are some scientists who believe that and have a following although some have lost out, big time.
You may not agree with the latter mentioned scientists but I'm just making an observation.

 

[dragynfly0515]

When we discuss we are not on the same page. We, at best can agree to disagree, but where does that leave us. Nowhere. We disagree, and so don't learn anything.

I think discussion is beneficial whether or not at the end of the discussion an agreement is reached. Discussing religion on this forum has helped me sharpen the reasoning behind my beliefs, like sharpening a knife on a whetstone. I don't think the point of a discussion is to win, but to learn something about others or yourself.

:candle:
Crys

 

[YmirGF]

I think discussion is beneficial whether or not at the end of the discussion an agreement is reached. Discussing religion on this forum has helped me sharpen the reasoning behind my beliefs, like sharpening a knife on a whetstone. I don't think the point of a discussion is to win, but to learn something about others or yourself.

:candle:
Crys

I agree. Though I think I skewer "opponets" points with relative ease at times, I find that for the most part, these discussions simply hone my thinking. They help to concretize ideas that have been percolating for some time. Quite often, I see arguments made and make a mental note to try to avoid such thinking or coming across the way the writer of those arguments seems to come across to the reader.

I know when I came to RF, I didn't expect to get much support for my thinking, but was pleasantly surprised at the reactions I have had over the years. Though I am far from mainstream, I can see that there is a ready, albeit small audience, that craves to hear things explained in ways that are not "in the books" or diverge from accepted thinking.

 

[Spiritone]

I think discussion is beneficial whether or not at the end of the discussion an agreement is reached. Discussing religion on this forum has helped me sharpen the reasoning behind my beliefs, like sharpening a knife on a whetstone. I don't think the point of a discussion is to win, but to learn something about others or yourself.

:candle:
Crys

We are in agreement but I didn't suggest a discussion was to win if that is what you were saying.
Of course it should be beneficial but it isn't when it becomes an argument or both people remain the same as before and are at not being able to convey a theory or idea or explain something.
I don't get the Crys thing. Please enlighten.