PaulS

The only reason I have gone 'there' Thormas is because you were the one that mentioned 'prizes', as I have already outlined. I have never mentioned prizes or winning. Not once. You on the other hand, in the thread I referenced, wrote on November 25 - "Where can I pick up my prize for stating the obvious" (maybe there were others as well - I can't be bothered looking). That is why I suspect you are imagining the mindset about 'prizes' and winning of me when you say things like "What's with you guys and winning". As I asked before and to which you didn't answer - who are the 'you guys' that you are referring to? Why on earth would I have a problem with you debating a point? Where do you get that from? Because I call you out as one referencing 'prizes' for making a point? This seems to be your problem Thormas, not mine. Planks in eyes, brother. You and I BOTH do like to press our point and we BOTH go very close to wanting the last word (if I need to remind you again, this is not yelling or anger, just highlighting the term both). Is that what you are perceiving as my desire to win or want prizes when you say I am the one who brings it up (but again, only because you mention it first, not me). I wasn't referring to jokes per se, just plain old writing that is recorded in these threads. Again, it doesn't bother me at all - I'm just pointing out that you called for a 'prize' for stating a point so it seems you have more a connection to 'winning', not me. I have never mentioned prizes or winning. Ever. You have. Anybody can read who is doing the imagining here and it's not me. Neither am I testy - that is your perception which I would suggest is totally imagined, but perception is a tricky thing. I am light as a feather - just pointing things out. Things that seem to ruffle yours though so to speak (well, enough that you spend time responding to this rather than dealing with the question at hand - opposites). Priorities I guess. So back to the issue being discussed (opposites) - have you considered my Hitler questions yet? I look forward to further discussion with you about that - when you have time to respond.

Ha ha! You are entertaining Thormas. Are you still looking for that 'prize' you felt entitled to in the thread "The poor will always be with you..."! Indeed, what is it with some people here about winning. Perhaps it has more to do with perception about others who we don't really know. Planks in eyes comes to mind. Or perhaps it was more a Freudian slip, sort of giving away your state of mind than genuinely reflecting others? Indeed, as it was only Joseph who used the word 'winning' this one time, I do wonder who you think of when you write "What's with you guys and winning? Which 'guys' are you referring to specifically? Or could you be looking into a mirror? But anyway, let's try to stick to the subject matter (at this point) about opposites. I look forward to your response to my questions above about Hitler and any further discussion we may have, when you have time.

Thanks Rom, I agree with all three points you make above, so I am unsure what I am missing. Could you maybe explain a bit further - do you think there is a single reality for all circumstances or does it come down to one's perception, which is how I interpret the reason there are different realities - there are different perceptions. Is that different to what you are saying?

Thormas, Sill on the subject of opposites, have you considered my questions about Hitler and if so, can you see the difficulty in determining a point on the continuum when Hitler would cease being the opposite of Jesus? Our perception of things inclines us to 'taking sides' and saying this is wrong and that is right, etc, but when you try and drill down to capture what exactly an opposite is to another, the whole process is found wanting in my opinion.

Many of us here have been through such changes also. Religion and any beliefs concerning God really are a personal perception. I hope that you find whatever it is you are looking for and my only advice, if you are even asking for any, is to relax and not feel the need to identify a box for yourself that you have to fit into. Peace to you, whatever that may entail.

I've always loved that story, especially as told by Alan Watts!

Nonetheless, there is a genuine perception by many Christians that God was 'right' in instructing the Israelites to commit genocide against various other tribes. Clearly these people do construe genocide to be in alignment with the two great commandments because they perceive that to be God's desire. Now possibly you know better than all of them, but I actually think it is more about....Perception. Support for genocide would seem obviously 'wrong' to us today, but that has not been nor is it always the perception. Was dropping the bomb on Hiroshima right or wrong? I would say that depends on one's perception with there being no 'right' or 'wrong' but there being both, depending on one's perception.

Excellent book!

Yet there are many religiously inclined people who have no issue with genocide, who in fact love the God that they think instructed others to commit it. Perception. Just to clarify, when you say 'many' are you saying 'lots of religiously inclined people" or are you saying the 'majority' of religiously inclined people? If you meant majority then you have misused the word 'many' as an adjective. If your intention was to use the word to represent a 'majority' then you should have used it as a noun - e.g. 'the' many. And if you do mean the majority of religiously inclined people, I just wonder how you can support that statistically?

I did say that one can be in opposition to Hitler, but I also said that that is different than qualifying Hitler as the direct opposite of something. To call something an 'opposite' means that you have determined a threshold or a measure by which you have established the direct opposite of the other thing. Clearly what Hitler did doesn't align with how many (i.e. a lot of) of us think, but trying to qualify it as a direct opposite to somebody else's alleged behavior is only perception. Maybe if I put it this way - if you were to reduce Hitler's crimes, at what point would you qualify that Hitler ceases being a direct opposite of Jesus? If he killed half as many Jews? What about if he only killed a few hundred thousand. What if he only killed one Jew? What are the parameters for you that specifically detail Hitler as direct opposite to Jesus and not a shade in between somewhere along the spectrum of behaviors? We all know Hitler committed horrendous acts, but what qualifies those acts as opposite to Jesus and not say the acts of Charles Manson (or do you consider Manson to be the opposite of Jesus as well as Hitler? Where do you draw the line about what is opposite to Jesus and what is not? Perception. Maybe, as we're talking about people being opposites, you could consider more recent circumstances - could you contemplate an opposite for Donald Trump? I imagine you could - and if you did so, could you possibly recognize the 'opposite' you have in mind is affected by your perception of Trump? I know mine would be, but I can accept and acknowledge that.

If by 'opposite' you mean 'not in general concurrence with', I have no issue. But that is not typically what we understand when we talk about opposites. 'In opposition to' is not the same as 'being a direct opposite of'. Generally 'in opposition to' holds a different understanding than 'X is the opposite of Y'.

Merry Christmas to you too, Lucian. Peace and goodwill to all.

Rom frames it better when he talks about 'perception' (thanks Rom). How one 'perceives' any "only one Reality" is the point I am trying to make. My experience is that there is no single 'reality' concerning how any reality should be perceived and this to me seems pretty self-evident in the world. I would add to that that I can think of physical things as being a single 'reality' (quantum theory & reality aside) - but morals, thoughts, beliefs, etc are not 'realities' in my experience, but rather perceptions of reality and as such, are open to interpretation. I find it hard to imagine that you have never experienced a change in your reality throughout your life and so I imagine you too understand that there is no singular reality. I am sure there are things you once thought to be true and real, only to change your mind at some point to accept a new 'reality'. Perhaps at some point you will change your mind again and a new reality will dawn for you. This is what I am saying concerning there not being any one, single reality. It's not that your reality is wrong and that mine is right, but rather it is recognizing that our 'realities' are perceptions based on our own experiences. So how about you reconsider judging and condemning another's actions as 'wrong' and I'll try and not buy into arguing against other peoples' realities that they feel are important to them. Fair enough? The bible is probably a good example of perception - there we have people who believe bible writings point to a single reality called God - but the individual perceptions of that 'God', the reality of that God to individual writers, is remarkably different throughout the bible. Now I am not arguing for the single reality of God but rather that we all perceive the reality of our lives based on our experiences - so it is quite understandable to me that we all have different realities and that all of those realities are both real for some and foreign for others, based on our own personal perceptions of life. Similarly with your freezing to death example being a single reality, in the most basic sense, yes one might freeze to death. But there are so many variables around that (e.g. people like Hof that Joseph pointed to) that any reality is different for different people. Sure, ultimately they all might die, but the reality of when, how, if, etc - is a different reality for different people. And that's just for a physical event - clearly realities around thinking and moralizing have so much more room for difference because we all perceive life different due to our experiences. It is to this end that I don't think there is one, single 'reality'.

Thanks Rom, that's a much better way to frame what I am trying to say. It is our individual 'perceptions' and 'understandings' of reality that ensure there is no single 'right' reality. Clearly, physically speaking, something like the sun existing is a single reality. But what we think of that sun, how we regard it, whether we see it as a God or simply as a combusting star, are all different realities to different people. We can argue that one reality is superior to the other, but the only reality is that everyone has a different reality! But indeed our perceptions are not the reality - Thormas' reality that using somebody for sex is wrong is his reality, whereas my reality is that one can use another for sex and it be a good thing. Neither reality is THE reality but rather both are our own personal perception of the reality of the 'act' of using another for sex. Sometimes people can accept alternate perceptions of another's reality and sometimes we argue that another's perception is lacking, but at the end of the day, both are just perceptions. At best, we seem to side with the perception that best suits our cultural and social circumstances at the time.

If you think that I am trying hard to establish that your reality is wrong, it is because it is you who thinks that, not me (another example of different individual realities over the same matter). I have never said your reality is wrong - to the contrary - I have said things like "Your reality is your reality", "All reality is different to somebody" and "There is no singular reality and it is an illusion to pretend there is". So I am even recognizing that my reality is just that - MY reality (not shouting or being angry, just highlighting the focus of the word my so as not to confuse it with yours). Even with the example you provide of the supposed reality of freezing to death - it is a different reality for different people. Body composition and size can make a difference to the time it may take to freeze, one person's body may shut down differently to another, some may even survive this cold depending on the period of exposure (i.e. two people could have the same exposure but one lives and one dies). There is simply not a simple 'one size fits all - no ifs or buts' reality. Even in the simple, dramatic example you cite, once one starts digging into it it is clear that it is not a single, simple reality that suits everybody, every time. And then there's quantum theory and reality, but I think that'd have to be for another thread. And of course the differences to 'reality' only become more and more pronounced when we start taking into account non-physical influences such as beliefs, culture, religion, sin, self-actualization, opposites, etc. These 'realities' are much more complicated than somebody dying due to a certain temperature exposure and duration. Which in my reality, seems pretty important when people are prepared to judge and condemn another's actions as 'wrong' because of what 'they' perceive as THE only possible reality. Again, not shouting or being angry - just highlighting to differentiate.

Not meaning to shout and I'm certainly not being angry - I am just trying to highlight the subject matter as you seem to keep overlooking it. It is about your view that you were being asked for (no highlights on the word you this time). If you think you've answered Rom's question about how you understand heat, then so be it. I don't think you have answered the actually question, but it's not that important to me (enter next dig from Thormas here). Perhaps others will be grateful if I didn't post. Perhaps others would be grateful if you didn't obfuscate and avoid. But your reality is your reality. Merry Xmas Thormas - hope you enjoy your movie (PS - relax and enjoy the movie with your family rather than jumping back on here during commercial breaks. I won't be back for a couple of days).

I certainly agree with that.

So when you say - "As for 'opposites:' love and no love", - you are saying these are not opposites but somehow asking a question (without a question mark)? What is reality? Your reality is clearly different to mine. All reality is different to somebody. There is no singular reality and it is an illusion to pretend there is. The question of degree depends on who is asking it and how they see it - their opinion. Yes, it is all very much subjective. You and I may have an opinion that bullying or murder is wrong, but at other times we may think differently of bullying and murder (if somebody had murdered Hitler earlier on in the war would you have been as upset?). It is all subjective. Good for the girl who marched against bullying men - tomorrow the men may be marching against a bullying woman. It is all subjective subject to time, place, circumstance, opinion, cultural views, etc. There is no point on any scale that you can say is 'the' point. Well you can, if your mind thinks in opposites and absolutes such as right &wrong, love & no-love, good & evil, etc.

Thormas, Rom asked you a question which you refused to answer, even further when I suggested you were misreading Rom. Rom was asking YOUR opinion on heat - he was asking YOU what YOU thought of it. It may be one example of many but he was interested in how YOU understood heat. You chose not to honor his request - that's your choice, but you can't justify your refusal to answer by saying YOU decided it wasn't relevant. I never doubted your honesty, have I?. I think experience is exceptionally relevant, particularly when one who has had the experience can counter somebody else's negative view of it being 'wrong' even though they themselves have never experienced it being 'right'. My point being, if you think me speaking from experience has less credibility than you speaking form your lack of experience in a matter, so be it. That is your opinion. Still, you refused to answer Rom's question even when it was pointed out to you that he was asking for YOUR understanding of something. Not to worry. This is where I think YOU need to read a little more carefully and just see how many question have been asked of you which you haven't answered. That's your call, but your are mistaken if you think you answered them all. I'm not going to do the work for you, but if you re-read the thread it will be obvious to you how many you have overlooked when it suits you. But my point isn't that we need to extensively answer every sentence that has a question mark during a written conversation (most of us don't have the time to sit in front of the screen for hours) - but neither should we pretend one of us is 'right' and everybody else is doing it 'wrong'. It seems important to you that you are 'right', so I'll just leave it at that.

You say opposites are not for you but then you also say "As for 'opposites:' love and no love", which seems to be you providing an example that opposites do exist. So in moving forward, do you think opposites exist or not? At what degree does tolerance versus non-tolerance exist? It is all subjective. Opinion. I think it does matter when one is judging right from wrong. Joseph has demonstrated how such a view can only be subjective and arbitrary, not a set point on a continuum that one can point to and say that is exactly where it sits on a scale. Hot and cold are NOT points on a spectrum, they are words that many (i.e. a lot of) people use differently to sometimes describe the same point on a spectrum, as Joseph made clear with the example of he and his wife considering their air-conditioning. Same point on the spectrum to to speak (degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius) yet two entirely different opinions about the same point. It is subjective. Opinion. One is not wrong and the other right. You example of Hitler makes a good example of 'reality' - it is a subjective experience. The 'reality' of one thinking Hitler is evil and one thinking he is a great guy, is subjective. Different opinions about the same thing. There is no singular reality that is the 'right' one. How that reality seems to the one experiencing it, is subjective. I think you mistake 'reality' with thinking it can only mean one thing, when it fact it can mean many (i.e a lot of) different things to many (i.e. a lot of) different people based on their own personal subjectivity.

I was really interested in how you may have answered Rom's question about heat, but of course you didn't see fit to honour his question. Not particularly helpful in the course of a conversation I would have thought.

............funny..............

Don't give up hope, Rom!

I think Joseph has said much to enable others to see, it's just that not all others can see. I think I can see quite clearly what Joseph is saying - opposites don't exist. They are a figment of your imagination. Arbitrary terminology does nothing to establish opposites. Even your 'love or no love' is not a case of opposites but merely just points where one lands on any 'love' continuum. In fact, you are yet to establish a case for anything that could actually be substantiated as opposites. Your mind is thinking in a very human, black and white concept mode (again, black and whites are not opposites but it is an arbitrary phrase we humans use), which is possibly why it doesn't work for you (currently) that there are no opposites. Such thinking may have helped us in a fear or flight situation (even then they are not true opposites but one can see where the very human notion of opposites possibly came from in our evolution and development), but to me it seems totally inadequate when trying to understand how one or another views actions. Just the two phrases above I used demonstrate to me how our human language is loaded with opposites, but when you stop and think about them, they are not actually opposites at all. In the most simplistic way we do think opposites exist, but when we scratch deeper and test this notion, I can see what Joseph is saying and it makes perfect sense to me. Opposites are simply an opinion, so depending on what the opinion is determines where one decides what is opposite. Perhaps recognizing that it is just opinion means one can recognize that there is no opposite. At least that's how I see what Joseph is saying.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, Thormas.