tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post8050222897599694429..comments2024-03-15T00:12:57.489-07:00Comments on Covenant Zone: A reader calls on ustruepeershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16401984575637492845noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-10281206440045440282007-12-08T02:23:00.000-08:002007-12-08T02:23:00.000-08:00Life is a precious and dynamic gift we are steward...Life is a precious and dynamic gift we are stewards of.<BR/><BR/>I have no intention to wait for the afterlife to strive for that harmony which I desire in life.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate our brief argument and look forward to the next.Rob Misekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15302768489050327563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-90432698164288941302007-12-07T13:14:00.000-08:002007-12-07T13:14:00.000-08:00Rob,I certainly believe in universally-applicable ...Rob,<BR/><BR/>I certainly believe in universally-applicable truths. But you can't draw an analogy from mathematics to explain how we come to agree/disagree on questions concerning the human/politics.<BR/><BR/>We live in time; we are always reacting to the consequences of particular applications of truths that put into question if we have interpreted this truth correctly. Some even look at unhappy consequences and seek to undermine the entire notion of turth.<BR/><BR/>We have conflict because we cannot keep a steady state in anything political. We can't make everything equal and happy and then just stop the clock on history. Because we have freedom we are always creating differences that both defer conflict and become in time a basis for conflict.<BR/><BR/>I think it is inherently dangerous to promise people that there is some common end of history, once we figure out how to get there. Once people think this way they start asking what sacrifices are needed to get to this common end. And then the bodies start to fall. This is what the history of "socialism" taught us. As long as humans remain alive there can be no end of history. No matter what great things we achieve, we will still have differences, inequalities, freedoms, mimicing and competing desires that will insure there is no end of conflict and history. And that's a good thing.<BR/><BR/>Your last comment is essentially religious. If I may offfer a word of advice on such a subject, I think you should recognize that the ultimate harmony you long for is not for this world, but for the world to come. What you long for is an idea founded in religion, and it should stay there. It is not a respectable secular political idea.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I think we have enough comments on this post; and since we are not likely to agree on this any time soon, this is my last comment, if you care to write only one more.truepeershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401984575637492845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-77771562612669263282007-12-07T04:37:00.000-08:002007-12-07T04:37:00.000-08:00Truepeer,Quite frankly, for the most part, we agre...Truepeer,<BR/><BR/>Quite frankly, for the most part, we agree.<BR/><BR/>I don't disagree with your cynical and uncivilized perception of the current human condition.<BR/><BR/>I do disagree with any conclusion you make that that is the way we must be, or will always be etc.<BR/><BR/>To reach a destination must know both where we are and which heading to take.<BR/><BR/>To know where we are we can read, communicate with others and perceive our environment. <BR/><BR/>To know our heading we need a perception of our destination. For humanity our destination usually takes the form of an ideology. I have observed, like you have, that these ideologies have a common theme - the absolute. While the destination may be absolute, the paths change with time - are dynamic.<BR/><BR/>In our world, we have a jigsaw puzzle of both current locations and destinations. This is the human condition as I see it.<BR/><BR/>Like a mission to Mars, our jigsaw puzzle may be an impossibility today, but with years of energy and comittment can be achieved. <BR/><BR/>The meaning to me of "a covenant of the truth", is joining that team.<BR/><BR/>We must first agree that the objective is attainable.<BR/><BR/>This is why I argue.Rob Misekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15302768489050327563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-46084001457470772962007-12-06T14:57:00.000-08:002007-12-06T14:57:00.000-08:00Pot. Kettle. Black.rob, if your tone isn't cynical...Pot. Kettle. Black.<BR/><BR/>rob, if your tone isn't cynical and contemptuous, what is it? righteous? - almost as bad.<BR/><BR/>I think all my arguments you quote are fine arguments. It seems to me it is you who is afraid of the less-than-Utopian truth about the human condition. You think you can just quote my arguments and spit on them and that that will impress people. It won't. And I won't engage you any further until you show some sign of honestly trying to think through what is wrong with my ideas.truepeershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401984575637492845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-67260133853431234332007-12-06T11:39:00.000-08:002007-12-06T11:39:00.000-08:00Truepeer,These little clips of dialogue are exampl...Truepeer,<BR/><BR/>These little clips of dialogue are examples from you that lead me to the conclusion that you have a cynical and uncivilized perspective of humanity.<BR/><BR/>While your points may seem valid to you, you have done nothing to prove them as universal truths. <BR/><BR/>"-Maybe I'm cynical; that's for others to decide. But I would like to know why it is cynical to be deeply suspicious of those who call for more than temporary agreements, suspicious of those who promise an end to conflict. We have heard this promise before - from Marxists, Nazis, orthodox Muslims, Gnostic Christians. And in the last century alone such beliefs in "final solutions" cost hundreds of millions of lives. Saying that belief in an ideology that will end conflict is a Utopian lie doesn't strike me as cynical; it seems to me a necessary point to hammer home if we are to save hundreds of millions of live in this century."<BR/><BR/>Either you're cynical about the human capacity for peace or you're about to suggest an alternative ideology. Maybe we'll never know.<BR/><BR/>"We're humans, not God, and as such we're caught up in sinful rivalries with each other..."<BR/><BR/>Thats pretty uncivilized don't you think?<BR/><BR/>"At Covenant Zone we try our best to meet standards of good faith... but we are not deluded about some possibilty for universal agreement."<BR/><BR/>How about 1+1=2. It is a mathematical language but universal agreement is a given.<BR/><BR/>Calling universal agreement a delusion is not only cynical it's just plain untrue. <BR/><BR/>Proof enough?<BR/><BR/>I don't expect any of our arguments will jeopardize the safety of your family, so we should expect 100% good faith from you in the future then huh?Rob Misekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15302768489050327563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-83943090377431670232007-12-06T10:53:00.000-08:002007-12-06T10:53:00.000-08:00I don't share your cynical and uncivilized view of...<I>I don't share your cynical and uncivilized view of humanity.<BR/><BR/>Since we have reached agreement on the dynamic truth, perhaps you could answer my last two questions.<BR/><BR/>I have chosen to value the truth and good faith above all else, including politics. Can you honestly say the same?<BR/><BR/>If not, what exactly does a "covenant of the truth" mean to you?</I><BR/><BR/>-Yes, I value the truth and good faith above all else, keeping in mind that I don't pretend to ever have the whole truth and nothing but the truth when it comes to thinking through fundamental human questions. That's why I need good faith. I also recognize that truths can collide. I may "value the truth above all else"; but I also think it's true that I must value my family so much that I may at times have to tell a lie to defend them, depending on the larger consequences of the lie, of course...<BR/><BR/>Truth is not a simple thing...<BR/><BR/>Anyway, we don't talk about this blog as a "covenant of the truth". We are each in search of further truth than we presently grasp. but the covenant we promote has more to do with the rules and loyalties we must all share with our fellow citizens so that each can have the freedom to explore a little more truth.<BR/><BR/>Now, one of those rules is that you don't go calling people "uncivilized and cynical" without having a pretty good argument to back it up, one that truly engages with what the other guy is saying.truepeershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401984575637492845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-25415290212764817862007-12-06T06:50:00.000-08:002007-12-06T06:50:00.000-08:00All you need to do is answer the question. Failure...All you need to do is answer the question. Failure to do so will prove you lack good faith.<BR/><BR/>Then I will answer any question of yours.<BR/><BR/>"I'm willing to accept that the truth we perceive changes with our perception of facts. Are you?"Rob Misekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15302768489050327563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-89042833993252239402007-12-06T06:19:00.000-08:002007-12-06T06:19:00.000-08:00Truth exists apart from conspiracy means that it i...<I>Truth exists apart from conspiracy means that it is not contigent on your presuposition, however much shared by however many weakminded fools that you've crossed paths.</I><BR/>Wed Dec 05, 02:28:00 PM PST maccusgermanis <BR/><BR/><I>A good example of reaching the singular question. Unfortunately it is an irrelevant misrepresentation of my argument.<BR/><BR/>I never suggested that the truth was discerned through consensus. Those were your paranoid delusions.<BR/><BR/>I did say, let me quote.</I><BR/>Thu Dec 06, 03:57:00 AM PST Rob Misek<BR/><BR/><I>Our real enemy is anyone who doesn't value the truth enough to argue in good faith and agree that the shared conclusion represents our new truth.</I><BR/>Tue Dec 04, 04:46:00 AM PST Rob Misek<BR/><BR/><B>Oops, Blogger’s comments seem to have malfunctioned. Somehow I actually quoted the most relevant of your previous statements.</B><BR/><BR/><I>And I do say.<BR/><BR/>"I'm willing to accept that the truth we perceive changes with our perception of facts. Are you?"<BR/><BR/>Why not do us all a favour and answer the question above? </I><BR/>Thu Dec 06, 03:57:00 AM PST Rob Misek<BR/><BR/><B>And I have previously said,</B><BR/><BR/><I>Why does the "simple question" presume perception? </I><BR/>Sat Dec 01, 12:44:00 PM PST<BR/><BR/><I>If you’d spend as much time reading other posts as you claim to spend preening the idiotic drivel that you post, then you might have noticed several links to the definition and etymology of “truth” and “perception.” </I><BR/>Wed Dec 05, 11:49:00 AM PST maccusgermanismaccusgermanishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01887574496312472556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-36886030670711411372007-12-06T03:57:00.000-08:002007-12-06T03:57:00.000-08:00Truepeer,The truth, as you say, is dynamic, so no ...Truepeer,<BR/><BR/>The truth, as you say, is dynamic, so no permanent agreement is possible...<BR/><BR/>I agree 100% with this statement. <BR/>To share something that is dynamic with agreement means the process of agreement (argument) must also be dynamic.<BR/><BR/>I don't share your cynical and uncivilized view of humanity.<BR/><BR/>Since we have reached agreement on the dynamic truth, perhaps you could answer my last two questions.<BR/><BR/>I have chosen to value the truth and good faith above all else, including politics. Can you honestly say the same?<BR/><BR/>If not, what exactly does a "covenant of the truth" mean to you?<BR/><BR/>Mac,<BR/><BR/>"Shared conclusion is consensus. Truth exists apart from such conspiracy.<BR/><BR/>Truth exists apart form from conspiracy means that it is not contigent on your presuposition, however...blah blah blah ".<BR/><BR/>A good example of reaching the singular question. Unfortunately it is an irrelevant misrepresentation of my argument.<BR/><BR/>I never suggested that the truth was discerned through consensus. Those were your paranoid delusions.<BR/><BR/>I did say, let me quote.<BR/><BR/>"I believe the truth is dynamic and can be discerned through intelligence logic and science."<BR/><BR/>And I do say.<BR/><BR/>"I'm willing to accept that the truth we perceive changes with our perception of facts. Are you?"<BR/><BR/>Why not do us all a favour and answer the question above?Rob Misekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15302768489050327563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-69613173520007863762007-12-05T17:16:00.000-08:002007-12-05T17:16:00.000-08:00"We're humans, not God, and as such we're caught u..."We're humans, not God, and as such we're caught up in sinful rivalries with each other..."<BR/><BR/><I>That is your excuse not to argue in good faith, not mine.</I><BR/><BR/>-it's no such excuse, since sinful humans need good faith; whether God does, in the same way as us, I'm not sure...<BR/><BR/>But I can only repeat my claim, since you are not interested in actually addressing what I write in any serious way: the reason we need good faith is that conflict is inevitable. If we knew some world-pacifying solution were just around the corner, if only we had "faith", would it really be a question of faith? <BR/><BR/>What is your basis for thinking all will be Utopia if only the people have faith...?<BR/><BR/>At Covenant Zone we try our best to meet standards of good faith... but we are not deluded about some possibilty for universal agreement.<BR/>The truth, as you say, is dynamic, so no permanent agreement is possible... as long as humans are the species who learn desires from each other and thus inevitably come into conflicts over common objects of desire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-60160163577701251932007-12-05T14:28:00.000-08:002007-12-05T14:28:00.000-08:00Talk about circular reasoning!If I were to say tha...Talk about circular reasoning!<BR/><BR/>If I were to say that one person does exist apart from another, does that mean that neither exists? <BR/><BR/>Truth exists apart form from conspiracy means that it is not contigent on your presuposition, however much shared by however many weakminded fools that you've crossed paths.maccusgermanishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01887574496312472556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-73465633440205374402007-12-05T12:53:00.000-08:002007-12-05T12:53:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.maccusgermanishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01887574496312472556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-27704591755196885122007-12-05T12:17:00.000-08:002007-12-05T12:17:00.000-08:00mac,"Shared conclusion is consensus. Truth exists ...mac,<BR/><BR/>"Shared conclusion is consensus. Truth exists apart from such conspiracy."<BR/><BR/>So by your definition we cannot share the truth or it becomes a conspiracy of consensus and cannot be the truth.<BR/><BR/>If by agreeing to it, people change the truth, it must be dynamic.<BR/><BR/>Is that really your argument?Rob Misekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15302768489050327563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-18062716534076366992007-12-05T11:49:00.000-08:002007-12-05T11:49:00.000-08:00Rob,There is a useful referrence book in any argum...Rob,<BR/><BR/><I>There is a useful referrence book in any argument, the dictionary. You should use it before making preposterous claims.</I><BR/><BR/>It is the dictionary that I have been defending. If you’d spend as much time reading other posts as you claim to spend preening the idiotic drivel that you post, then you might have noticed several links to the definition and etymology of “truth” and “perception.” It was my use of definitions, previously defined, that caused you to suggest that my rhetoric was circular. Whereas you prefer to define truth as a dynamic thing which when fully grasped immediately changes, therefore, nothing being incomplete about our grasp, truth must be moving. The observation that your supposition of truth can be proven incongruent with reality should cause you to perceive that your supposition was faulty. You did never perceive.<BR/><BR/>"If truth is not absolute, then soon consensus is passed off as a substitute."<BR/><I>Let me guess, you can't prove this either. </I> You are the evidence. <BR/><BR/>Truth was defined well before you decided it was dynamic. It was sought, however imperfectly, by those whose work we build our understanding of the world. To suggest that it now changes according our whim is to break faith with the past and future. Whether we prove the wisdom of predecessors or antecedents prove our foolishness, truth is the static measure of each endeavor. <BR/><BR/>Shared conclusion is consensus. Truth exists apart from such conspiracy.maccusgermanishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01887574496312472556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-12802937381658980162007-12-05T05:20:00.000-08:002007-12-05T05:20:00.000-08:00Truepeer,"As soon as you *tell* me what is ojectiv...Truepeer,<BR/><BR/>"As soon as you *tell* me what is ojectively true, I am in rivalry with your superior position as the teacher."<BR/><BR/>I recognize this human characteristic but am not ruled by it.<BR/><BR/>I have chosen to value the truth and good faith above all else, including politics.<BR/><BR/>Can you honestly say the same?<BR/><BR/>If not, what exactly does a "covenant of the truth" mean to you?Rob Misekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15302768489050327563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-64193421135565530302007-12-05T04:51:00.000-08:002007-12-05T04:51:00.000-08:00Mac,"I have a problem with the insistence that “tr...Mac,<BR/><BR/>"I have a problem with the insistence that “truth,” “perception,” and “fundamental” must be stripped of their meaning." <BR/><BR/>There is a useful referrence book in any argument, the dictionary. You should use it before making preposterous claims.<BR/><BR/>I'm willing to accept that the truth we perceive changes with our perception of facts. Are you?<BR/><BR/>""Since the truth would be meaningless if it didn't define our perception of reality, doesn't the fact that our perception of truth changes mean that we should perceive the reality of truth to be dynamic?<BR/><BR/>Your argument is circular rhetoric."<BR/><BR/>Prove your claim.<BR/><BR/>"You claim the truth is absolute but would have as much luck proving the existence of God.<BR/><BR/>And where is the proof that “truth” –a word that means “conformity to fact”- should instead be defined as consensus?"<BR/><BR/>Go ahead, disprove my statement by proving the existence of God. I hope you're feeling lucky. <BR/><BR/>"If truth is not absolute, then soon consensus is passed off as a substitute."<BR/><BR/>Let me guess, you can't prove this either. <BR/><BR/>"How can “good faith” be valued when it is first discarded? How can you define “good faith” that pursues a “dynamic truth?” You attempt to redefine truth, and then accuse others of not acting in “good faith”? "<BR/><BR/>Whether the specific truth we perceive is dynamic or static is irrelevant to the concept of good faith. <BR/><BR/>It is your challenge to prove otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Good faith is the desire to find the truth to the best of our ability and share it regardless of the form it takes.<BR/><BR/>"Our real enemy is anyone who doesn't value the truth enough to argue in good faith and agree that the shared conclusion represents our new truth.<BR/><BR/>How nice to know that honesty is your real enemy."<BR/><BR/>And where is the honesty or good faith in your statement? You may be the enemy, but its certainly not because you're honest. <BR/><BR/>Truepeer,<BR/><BR/>"Not at all. I never suggested that creative people were extremist.<BR/><BR/>-LOL, and what makes you the arbiter of the difference between creative and extremist? You think you know what is ojective and true, but I am saying that's only your religion talking. Of course, that's just because I'm cynical... I'm sure all those who have been labelled "extremist" by people like you will be glad to hear it. It clears up our confusion. Now we know that the objective truth, as Rob and all good thinking liberal people know it, is that we are not creative, just extremist."<BR/><BR/>That is your weak argument, not mine. Is your position so weak that you must lie about mine to defeat it? I'm not buying that crap.<BR/><BR/>"We're humans, not God, and as such we're caught up in sinful rivalries with each other..."<BR/><BR/>That is your excuse not to argue in good faith, not mine.<BR/><BR/>You may cut and run from this argument because your ego won't admit defeat or accept the truth (dynamic as it is). <BR/><BR/>The lack of good faith on your part will be the reason if we fail to reach agreement.<BR/><BR/>Is this how you maintain your delusions?Rob Misekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15302768489050327563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-25268772904736577102007-12-04T18:24:00.000-08:002007-12-04T18:24:00.000-08:00maccusIslam means submission to a supposed god, as...maccus<BR/><BR/><I>Islam means submission to a supposed god, as revealed by mo’. There is one profession of faith, one shahadah. That is fundamental. It is not fantasy. </I><BR/><BR/>-With respect, I don't think so... it is a (fundamentalist) fantasy... IF you think that allying yourself with the unique source of Being in the universe solves all your worldly problems and puzzles as long as you correctly follow some "total way of life". Even if you have a true understanding of God, the trials of human existence can't be simply relegated to the unique truth (anyone who thinks he has all the answers becomes an instant menace to man, and not a real leader... even most Muslims may one day recognize this...). The suicide bomber tries to square the circle, but he has to become Satanic in the attempt. One has to tolerate human existence in all its messiness, or become a danger to all humanity, including to your fellow Muslims. In short, what is fundamental for many Muslims is also a fantasy.<BR/><BR/><I>It is true that muslims, regardless of their professions, are free, but they can not be free while continuing to submit themselves.</I><BR/><BR/>-As I say, it is a fantasy to think submitting yourself answers all questions and conflicts about your human existence. The reason Christianity is true is that it teaches that in submitting yourself to God, you find your real self and you now become most yourself as a free and responsible human being. Muslims may be out to lunch, but you can't eliminate the truth that any submission is not the end of the human matter... only the new beginning. You may well be right that Muslims are a danger to us, because of what they think submission to Allah entails, but I don't buy the absolute argument that they are incapable of thinking and learning just because they offer submission. Because in immutable human reality, a real submission to God, a real glimpse of the unique truth of transcendence and Being, is an opening to freedom and responsibility...<BR/><BR/><I>Theirs is not just a conflict between those of us who think they’re nuts, but one within themselves. Your platitudes do nothing to resolve either conflict. Such platitudes defer not only violence, but any meaningful discrimination between right and wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>-Well, I hope I'm not suggesting anyone can forgo discrimination of right and wrong. It's just that I refuse any final answers on such questions. But as you say, this is a conflict not just between us and them but between and within Muslim sects. This gives me reason to hope that after enough Muslims kill each other, in the full light of global media and commentary on their murderous insanity, enough of them may start to learn that submission to God is not the be all and end all, but only the beginning of learning what it means to be a responsible human being. We learn real tolerance only after we discover that submission to the one God does not provide easy answers to all the problems of unending human conflict. A man who is truly humbled by his submission to God is not a threat. He is the guy who sees through the largely ritualized consciousness.<BR/><BR/><I>I have no problem giving strategic, or even tactical/logistical, support to munafiq that wish to improve their societies. I have a problem with the insistence that “truth,” “perception,” and “fundamental” must be stripped of their meaning. I do choose sides in the civil war. I do even choose sides in the internal conflict.</I><BR/><BR/>-I don't see how I am stripping "truth", "perception" and "fundamental" of their meaning. What I am suggesting is that meaning occurs in time: a sign is made for the first time, in an attempt to transcend a conflict. But that transcendence does not take the form of a fully-concretized and immutable agreement on what the sign means. What it means awaits the judgment of history as people play it out. The reason the sign can defer the conflict is that both or many competing parties can respect it, because they both think they can make claims on it, precisely because its meaning has not yet been ironed out. It's like two poker players who both think they can still win the pot. Except unlike poker, we are in a game that hopefully never ends. That's my religious hope/commitment for you. As you can see, it's different from Islam, as many Muslims understand it, those who view their immutable, outside of history, "truth" as eternal and uncreated. But, quite simply, they have an unreal understanding of their humanity.<BR/><BR/>I am simply saying we can never have the full and final truth, not that we cannot know some part of it. When we think we know absolutely all there is to be known about something, it ceases to have meaning for us. It becomes a thing of boredom. The very fact that Islam is so meaningful for many people demonstrates that they haven't yet figured out all the truth, or lack thereof, in it. And even if we think that we "infidels" have figured the heresy all out, the very fact that some other guy who might kill us begs to differ, creates a historical dynamic in which the full and final truth of Islam as a historical phenomenon is deferred. We still don't know whether Islam can provide the means and motivation to defeat our civilization in a moment of decadence. We still don't know if we can usefully divide Islam to minimize the violence. But in good faith we might try...<BR/><BR/><I>To say that islam is the singular enemy does not presume to know how many nominal muslims are jihadists, munafiq, or concealed apostates. It is no full measure of potential allies or enemies. It is an admission of a fundamental truth. It is in this honest faith that we must meet the munafiq, jihadist, and, by now much amused, apostate.</I><BR/><BR/>- It seems to me there are two kinds of truth. I say this not to make an argument for relativism or nihilism, only an attempt to recognize our real situation in which truth is twofold. There are pragmatic human truths of the marketplace; and there are more fundamental ones that we begin to grasp - never completely - outside of the marketplace but that nonetheless teach us to return to the market and serve the pragmatic realties of human existence: we can't hang out with God all the time, at least not in this world... You may be right on some fundamental level that Islam is our enemy. If you have a commitment to another truer religion, I couldn't expect you to believe otherwise. <BR/><BR/>But on a pragmatic level, I think we have to think of developing a market in which today's Muslims can learn more about themselves and about us, where they can be forced to make choices and discover what they really believe and what kind of world they really want to live in - information that will be vital to us in the fight, information I think we just don't yet have nearly enough of - and where they can begin to learn about how they don't have the full and final truth and how those who think so are consequently a danger not only to us, but to themselves. Pragmatically, I think we have to defer final judgment on what Islam is or can be, just as you don't presume to know how many Muslims are hypocrites. This doesn't mean that we can't have ourselves more certain faith commitments. It's just to warn that faith can't provide easy answers to worldly dilemmas, only the courage to face them. All I hope to do is to make widespread in Islam what Christianity has known at least since Augustine: that we cannot but avoid dividing up the reality of our existence and Being into profane and sacred histories. Reality, as we learn more about it through history, comes to demand a separation of church and state. In serving God we cannot escape the trials and uncertainties of man, and consequently the wisdom of a certain tolerance about "the truth" if we wish to preserve human existence. Reality is just that, whatever religion you profess. Paradoxical, I know...truepeershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401984575637492845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-43504451726325164502007-12-04T15:15:00.000-08:002007-12-04T15:15:00.000-08:00I just am human and it just is blue. Any argument ...<I>I just am human and it just is blue. Any argument about either would be pointless.</I><BR/><BR/>-so is that an argument you just made, or what? There may be no accounting for taste, but anyone who thinks he hasn't spent his whole life thinking and arguing about the human must be from another planet. If I took that above "argument" seriously, Rob, I would just goodbye now. But, out of human friendship, I'll risk your ire and tell you that it's not pointless; it is in fact the point of our entire conversation so far...<BR/><BR/><I>This you have extrapolated to form a cynical conclusion about the human ability to reach agreement.</I><BR/><BR/>-Maybe I'm cynical; that's for others to decide. But I would like to know why it is cynical to be deeply suspicious of those who call for more than temporary agreements, suspicious of those who promise an end to conflict. We have heard this promise before - from Marxists, Nazis, orthodox Muslims, Gnostic Christians. And in the last century alone such beliefs in "final solutions" cost hundreds of millions of lives. Saying that belief in an ideology that will end conflict is a Utopian lie doesn't strike me as cynical; it seems to me a necessary point to hammer home if we are to save hundreds of millions of live in this century.<BR/><BR/><I>You may still claim that we can't be objective, in circular rhetoric, but that claim is disproved by the logic that we perceive what it is to be objective.</I><BR/><BR/>-and what is involved in this perceiving if not our personal subjectivity? Surely you realize that we would have no concept of "objective" if we were not also subjective about our shared human Being. Your argument may look objective to you, but not to me...<BR/><BR/>What seems "objective" to me, are people who argue that the very idea that arguments about the human can be simply "objective", balanced or unbiased if made by duly credentialized journalistic or academic authorities, are arguments coming from elitist liberals and Gnostic positivists who presume to have the final say on what is and is not "extremist" or "subjective".<BR/><BR/><I>Not at all. I never suggested that creative people were extremist.</I><BR/><BR/>-LOL, and what makes you the arbiter of the difference between creative and extremist? You think you know what is ojective and true, but I am saying that's only your religion talking. Of course, that's just because I'm cynical... I'm sure all those who have been labelled "extremist" by people like you will be glad to hear it. It clears up our confusion. Now we know that the objective truth, as Rob and all good thinking liberal people know it, is that we are not creative, just extremist.<BR/><BR/><I>I take my time to make a statement. Please try to address it.</I><BR/><BR/>-But Rob, this is not about me or you, it's about the truth, remember? Thus, the argument gets the time it's worth. But who decides what it's worth? The marketplace, of course. And what's objective about that?<BR/><BR/>Just because I question your notions of objectivity, doesn't mean I am a cynical disbeliever in "the truth". It's just that I know I can never have the full or final truth in my hands, that human beings are limited by our own subjective desires and positions that are in rivalry with each other. I learn more truth by becoming humble and asking why something is popular in the human marketplace, even if I come to the conclusion that fundamental truth does not belong to the market and its desires. But as soon as I step outside of the market, and try to objectify its choices and future needs, to get a little closer to fundamental truth, I realize that I can only work effectively as long as I am trying to find my way back into the marketplace, to be of service to others, with a little more of the truth, at the time and place the market will want to hear it... in short, I know nothing apart from my interaction with others. But since this interaction is mediated by our mimicing and competing desires, I can never expect a final solution to conflict. I can never expect a final truth, only a temporary market success, with any luck. But to the extent the market allows us to accrue more and more wealth, knowledge, freedom, over time we can assume that collectively we are getting a little closer to *the* truth... even as subjectively we will never agree on it. <BR/><BR/>As soon as you *tell* me what is ojectively true, I am in rivalry with your superior position as the teacher. Unless you beat me into submission I will always question your superiority, because how can I not share your good ambition to be a teacher, informed by my own experience and not only by received dogma? This is why truth and beauty cannot be so much told to others; they can only be *shown*; we are led by example. We must each subjectively come to understand and integrate the world and its truths for ourselves. We must each become authors or persons in our own right. And that means we can't simply bow to "objective" truths as others define them. What we each find objective is what helps us understand our own experience. SO it depends on many things, like our level of education, what we have experienced. Yes, at the end of the day there is only one humanity and one universal truth. But we are never able to objectify it all at once. We're humans, not God, and as such we're caught up in sinful rivalries with each other...<BR/><BR/>Peace... for now...truepeershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401984575637492845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-961807979578681842007-12-04T13:28:00.000-08:002007-12-04T13:28:00.000-08:00you'reyou'remaccusgermanishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01887574496312472556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-89030535759834648592007-12-04T13:27:00.000-08:002007-12-04T13:27:00.000-08:00I take my time to make a statement. Please try to ...<I>I take my time to make a statement. Please try to address it.</I><BR/><BR/>At least your good for a laugh. But, you really shouldn't get people's hopes up by suggesting that you value the truth.maccusgermanishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01887574496312472556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-21918181587708932392007-12-04T13:25:00.000-08:002007-12-04T13:25:00.000-08:00Rob,Since the truth would be meaningless if it did...Rob,<BR/><BR/><I>Since the truth would be meaningless if it didn't define our perception of reality, doesn't the fact that our perception of truth changes mean that we should perceive the reality of truth to be dynamic?</I><BR/><BR/><I>Your argument is circular rhetoric.</I><BR/><BR/><I>You claim the truth is absolute but would have as much luck proving the existence of God.</I><BR/> <BR/>And where is the proof that “truth” –a word that means “conformity to fact”- should instead be defined as consensus?<BR/><BR/><I>The truth <B>may well be absolute,</B> but we can only prove that we uncover it in a dynamic process.</I><BR/> <BR/>I suppose this is what you refer to as <I>“a clearer understanding of the question, not from an opponent actually changing his position.”</I><BR/><BR/>The “dynamic process” of supposition, experience, and observation can lead to perception. It is not foolproof.<BR/><BR/><I>Absolute truth makes a great ideal and I share it in my personal and spiritual life.</I><BR/> <BR/>If truth is not absolute, then soon consensus is passed off as a substitute.<BR/><BR/><I>However using something that can't be proven through science or logic during an argument constitutes not arguing in good faith.</I><BR/><BR/>Such as insisting upon a supposed dynamic nature of truth? Or presuming perception?<BR/><BR/><I>Violence results from not agreeing on the truth. Agreement is unlikely when opponents don't value good faith.</I><BR/><BR/>How can “good faith” be valued when it is first discarded? How can you define “good faith” that pursues a “dynamic truth?” You attempt to redefine truth, and then accuse others of not acting in “good faith”? <BR/><BR/><I>In my physical life I make decisions based on my dynamic perception of the truth.</I><BR/><BR/><I>This awareness of the dynamic is what separates humans from beasts and inspires our creativity.</I><BR/><BR/>You perceive not even your own hubris.<BR/><BR/><I>Our real enemy is anyone who doesn't value the truth enough to argue in good faith and agree that the shared conclusion represents our new truth.</I><BR/><BR/>How nice to know that honesty is your real enemy. If you could only build a large enough consensus of weak minded fools, you’d make short work of we dissenters. I’d prefer that you thought, period.maccusgermanishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01887574496312472556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-82423762377899943082007-12-04T13:20:00.000-08:002007-12-04T13:20:00.000-08:00Truepeers,Islam means submission to a supposed god...Truepeers,<BR/><BR/>Islam means submission to a supposed god, as revealed by mo’. There is one profession of faith, one shahadah. That is fundamental. It is not fantasy. It is true that muslims, regardless of their professions, are free, but they can not be free while continuing to submit themselves. Theirs is not just a conflict between those of us who think they’re nuts, but one within themselves. Your platitudes do nothing to resolve either conflict. Such platitudes defer not only violence, but any meaningful discrimination between right and wrong. <BR/><BR/>Fundamentalist need not control anything to define what islam is. They are those that have honestly sought the truth from an untruthful source. They have defined themselves rather defined islam. As such they have no need to destroy language itself to disguise their own deficiencies of comprehension. They meet us in honest faith, to kill us. At least if they can see the error of their ways, they can admit they were wrong. –that a wrong and a right does exist outside of their own fashionable “perception”- <BR/><BR/>I have no problem giving strategic, or even tactical/logistical, support to munafiq that wish to improve their societies. I have a problem with the insistence that “truth,” “perception,” and “fundamental” must be stripped of their meaning. I do choose sides in the civil war. I do even choose sides in the internal conflict.<BR/><BR/>I did not wish islam into being. You will not wish it away. It is as evidenced by the current jihadists, the koran, and 1400 years of dhimmi beating tradition. Yes that is “fundamental.” But, “fantasy” is to suggest that one can simultaneously choose both submission and freedom. <BR/><BR/>To say that islam is the singular enemy does not presume to know how many nominal muslims are jihadists, munafiq, or concealed apostates. It is no full measure of potential allies or enemies. It is an admission of a fundamental truth. It is in this honest faith that we must meet the munafiq, jihadist, and, by now much amused, apostate.maccusgermanishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01887574496312472556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-82430086934498706022007-12-04T12:21:00.000-08:002007-12-04T12:21:00.000-08:00You seem to be preoccupied with discussing what it...You seem to be preoccupied with discussing what it is to be human.<BR/><BR/>I haven't been arguing about that or my favorite colour. I just am human and it just is blue. Any argument about either would be pointless.<BR/><BR/>"-do you appreciate the problems with a science (or scientific argument) in which the observer cannot separate himself from what he observes, because he is what he observes, a science or argument where any true observation becomes a value that will circulate in the human marketplace and be absorbed and discounted, changing the human in the process?"<BR/><BR/>I'm also beginning to realize that you believe that people cannot separate observations from our human bias - be objective. This you have extrapolated to form a cynical conclusion about the human ability to reach agreement.<BR/><BR/>You may still claim that we can't be objective, in circular rhetoric, but that claim is disproved by the logic that we perceive what it is to be objective. By doing so you wouldn't be arguing in good faith.<BR/><BR/>Any argument in good faith is all about objectivity. The conclusion is agreed to and shared by opponents. <BR/><BR/>"Your religion presumes to be able to define the "extremists" in matters religious. But don't new truths always come from those whom all "sensible" people first label "extremists"?"<BR/><BR/>Not at all. I never suggested that creative people were extremist. <BR/><BR/>Please, don't conjure up an argument, assign it to me and proceed to disprove it. <BR/><BR/>I take my time to make a statement. Please try to address it.Rob Misekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15302768489050327563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-55050171950133341312007-12-04T11:13:00.000-08:002007-12-04T11:13:00.000-08:00Our real enemy is anyone who doesn't value the tru...<I>Our real enemy is anyone who doesn't value the truth enough to argue in good faith and agree that the shared conclusion represents our new truth.</I><BR/><BR/>-there is some truth in this, but truth, "our shared conclusion" is not the exclusive property of the study, classroom, or debate. It must emerge from human interaction in all the worlds of the human - economic, political, esthetic. And we cannot separate the truths of human interaction from the motivations that people bring to them. We come to learn that certain religious ideas/motivations can be "proven" more or less true by their success in the marketplace in generating new understandings of the truth.<BR/><BR/>Your own religion and motivation seems to be a form of elitist liberalism that promises a Utopian lie: one world religion and an end to conflict.... Your religion presumes to be able to define the "extremists" in matters religious. But don't new truths always come from those whom all "sensible" people first label "extremists"?truepeershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401984575637492845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-78634532897280386532007-12-04T10:59:00.000-08:002007-12-04T10:59:00.000-08:00Is your faith in your religion so weak that you fe...<I>Is your faith in your religion so weak that you fear an honest argument where intelligence, science and logic prevails?</I><BR/><BR/>-not at all; and my objection to what you write is not particularly religious. <BR/><BR/><I>It's not that I reject unproven written information. It has its uses. Just not in an argument.</I><BR/><BR/>-it's not clear to me Rob, what your idea of a science or argument appropriate to the study of the human is. <BR/><BR/>-do you appreciate the problems with a science (or scientific argument) in which the observer cannot separate himself from what he observes, because he is what he observes, a science or argument where any true observation becomes a value that will circulate in the human marketplace and be absorbed and discounted, changing the human in the process?<BR/><BR/>-what makes the human sciences is their reliance not on discrete observations or arguments but overall paradigms for integrating knowledge. Because we are so reliant on these paradigms, we are neither making good nor honest arguments when we either are not aware of them or when we try to hide them from view. A proper argument tells the listener where it is coming from, in terms of the intellectual paradigms on which it relies. That is why dialogue with those great thinkers who have come before is so essential to a serious argument about the human.<BR/><BR/>The idea that we can start with a blank slate using just "logic and science" is being dishonest about what we are. Who is this man using "logic and science"? Does he really start from scratch, with a blank slate? No, his mind is full of preconceived ideas. And only the discipline of arguing through these can advance the human sciences or his own arguments.<BR/><BR/>Respectfully,truepeershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401984575637492845noreply@blogger.com