Opinion

[romansh]

Here are three opinions:

• Warsaw (Warszawa) is the capital of Poland
• There must be life somewhere in this universe other than Earth
• God is Love

The first is based on copious evidence. The second is based reasoned logic and the third, to me it far from clear what it based on. The second opinion while I can see the logic behind such arguments, I find them not necessarily convincing. While I can see arguments against the first opinion, I find to all intents and purposes we can consider this close to 'true'. Of course the third opinion is based on very little. So I can't help thinking saying these opinions have some equivalence would be a little disingenuous. 

Now is materialism true (ie mind and matter are not separate)? There is copious evidence that this position is true. Unless we start claiming things like distance and time are not part of the physical world, then materialism it could be argued is closer to Warsaw is the capital of Poland kind of opinion, rather than the God is Love opinion. 

I would like to hear your arguments for and against.

[Guest intuition]

When you use the word "materialism" does your understanding of "materialism" relate in any way to the views of Kant, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Leibnitz and Descartes? When you use the word "materialism", how does your meaning of the word agree with, or differ from, Kant's, Locke's, Berkeley's, Hume's,  Leibnitz's or Descartes' use of the word?
https://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/
 

[romansh]

I can't say I am familiar with their positions on materialism.

Now Kant appears to argue that we can't know about metaphysics. As an agnostic I would be really careful about using the word 'know' other than a colloquial sense, ie I know Warsaw is the capital of Poland. Having said that, here's a question: beyond a concept does metaphysics exist? 

Materialism for me is specifically is the "mind" is not separate from the brain. It's a science problem not an arm waving exercise.

Having said that if Kant et al. have anything to say about materialism and the various grades of opinion, I am all ears.

[Burl]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

Here are three opinions:

• Warsaw (Warszawa) is the capital of Poland
• There must be life somewhere in this universe other than Earth
• God is Love

The first is based on copious evidence. The second is based reasoned logic and the third, to me it far from clear what it based on. The second opinion while I can see the logic behind such arguments, I find them not necessarily convincing. While I can see arguments against the first opinion, I find to all intents and purposes we can consider this close to 'true'. Of course the third opinion is based on very little. So I can't help thinking saying these opinions have some equivalence would be a little disingenuous. 

Now is materialism true (ie mind and matter are not separate)? There is copious evidence that this position is true. Unless we start claiming things like distance and time are not part of the physical world, then materialism it could be argued is closer to Warsaw is the capital of Poland kind of opinion, rather than the God is Love opinion. 

I would like to hear your arguments for and against.

A bonny young lass from Uranus, 

Once married a Scot name of Seamus.

They wormholed so fine, 

They went years back in time, 

And not Rom nor the priest could explain it.

[thormas]

16 hours ago, romansh said:

Here are three opinions:

• Warsaw (Warszawa) is the capital of Poland
• There must be life somewhere in this universe other than Earth
• God is Love

Since we are in the arena of opinion, I share the opinions, as they are listed above, on # 1 & 3 and would amend # 2 with the phrase, "there may be or probably is" as opposed to "must." However, I am responding only on the opinions and not on the 'explanations.' 

[romansh]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Since we are in the arena of opinion, I share the opinions, as they are listed above, on # 1 & 3 and would amend # 2 with the phrase, "there may be or probably is" as opposed to "must." However, I am responding only on the opinions and not on the 'explanations.' 

Then not terribly relevant to the thread. 

[romansh]

There was an old man called Burl.

Rom's great idea he could not unfurl.

He thought so hard,

His brain turned to lard.

He could not understand the pearl.

Edited June 8, 2019 by romansh

[thormas]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

Then not terribly relevant to the thread. 

Well that was only Part I as I had a graduation party to attend, so now Part II:

The first 'opinion' is an accepted fact. If someone differed with this so called opinion (fact), he or she would be considered wrong - and rightly so.

The second opinion may be based on reasoned logic but another could disagree or find it unconvincing as it is not a fact, like Warsaw, and for all the reasoned logic, it might be in error. 

The third is indeed an opinion and many times, previous to this post, called a belief (statement). If one takes a different stance in the world, then one's opinion and belief would differ. For some, especially one with a radically different opinion or belief, they would see "very little' upon which the 3rd opinion is based. Others would see communities, going back thousands of years and across different cultures, who shared this opinion and thought it important enough to past it on and across generations. Additionally, there is an intellectual philosophical tradition that argues for an ontological necessity (or an ontological - as opposed to a chronological - 'first and continuing cause') 'behind' and sustaining all things or objects in existence. This is referred to as God. In addition, traditions then made the claim (opinion) that God is love. To demand 'evidence'  is to not understand that such an 'opinion' is a belief (statement). The 3rd opinion is and remains a belief statement, as does the opinion that this opinion is wrong.

As for materialism, it is an opinion or a belief statement. It should be evident that not all scientists agree on the 'evidence' for certain scientific opinions. As Rom doubts the logic, the arguments of the 2nd opinion, as Maddox denied the Big Bang and opted for the alternative theory called Steady State and, as was shown previously (opinions being what they are) some scientists disagree with the materialist theory or belief. Materialism, it could be argued, is not closer to Warsaw is the capital of Poland fact, it might be closer to the 2nd opinion, albeit with some not convinced by the 'logic' or the 'evidence' for materialism and therefore both the 2nd opinion and materialism seem to be more like the 3rd opinion: statements of belief. 

[JosephM]

On 6/7/2019 at 6:48 PM, romansh said:

Now Kant appears to argue that we can't know about metaphysics. As an agnostic I would be really careful about using the word 'know' other than a colloquial sense, ie I know Warsaw is the capital of Poland. Having said that, here's a question: beyond a concept does metaphysics exist? 

 

That is what you were taught or read and it is considered true or fact but in essence is only an accepted opinion/belief by the people.  It may be copious evidence accepted by an abundance of people or writings as the capital but that may be temporary as was Krakow, Poland prior to 1596. ie. What is now the capital of Israel? Is it Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? The world is flat, no the world is round, no the world is oval, no the world is an illusion ... etc. Copious evidence / abundant belief  ? 😊

Now on God is Love. You can read it and you can hear it expounded by Christian teachers and preachers and admittedly that doesn't make it so but it might be considered a Christian accepted fact by Christians or those who strictly believe what is taught and written in the Bible.  In my personal experience,  one can experience God personally and reason a biblical understanding of Love and equate one with the other. To those that 3rd opinion might be considered true and those lacking that awareness or experience cannot disprove it as it is based on personal experience and  reasoned logic of the definition of Love in the Biblical sense. Therefor there is nothing to argue about except maybe definitions. What do we really know? Is knowing merely accepted belief/opinion at the time? 

[romansh]

11 hours ago, JosephM said:

That is what you were taught or read and it is considered true or fact but in essence is only an accepted opinion/belief by the people.  It may be copious evidence accepted by an abundance of people or writings as the capital but that may be temporary as was Krakow, Poland prior to 1596

This is exactly what I had in mind Joseph. We could go all 'sciencey' here about the properties of time etc. 

[thormas]

11 hours ago, JosephM said:

It may be copious evidence accepted by an abundance of people or writings as the capital but that may be temporary as was Krakow, Poland prior to 1596. ie. What is now the capital of Israel? Is it Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?

However the capital of Poland is (now) Warsaw. That is the current 'fact.' If the Polish people decide to move the capital to another city, then we have a new fact. Seems such information is commonly referred to as fact not opinion. As for Israel, if Israel has changed their capital from Tel Aviv, then that is the new fact. I happen to disagree with this decision but that doesn't change the fact.

11 hours ago, JosephM said:

Now on God is Love. You can read it and you can hear it expounded by Christian teachers and preachers and admittedly that doesn't make it so but it might be considered a Christian accepted fact by Christians or those who strictly believe what is taught and written in the Bible.  In my personal experience,  one can experience God personally and reason a biblical understanding of Love and equate one with the other. To those that 3rd opinion might be considered true and those lacking that awareness or experience cannot disprove it as it is based on personal experience and  reasoned logic of the definition of Love in the Biblical sense. Therefor there is nothing to argue about except maybe definitions. What do we really know? Is knowing merely accepted belief/opinion at the time? 

I guess it is a 'Christian fact' but it still seems to be different in kind from Warsaw; it still seems an opinion or belief. However, I believe I get your point.

I wonder if one can experience God personally? As you have said, you profess to have had this experience as do others but it seems, on the other hand, that the 'Godhead' is known only through created reality. Is man capable of such direct knowledge (or knowing) in this current state or existence? I do agree that such knowing cannot be proved or disproved. An interesting topic.

[romansh]

17 hours ago, thormas said:

The first 'opinion' is an accepted fact. If someone differed with this so called opinion (fact), he or she would be considered wrong - and rightly so.

You can see my reply here to Joseph. So in your opinion Warsaw being the capital is an accepted fact. OK is it an accepted fact that the Earth is indeed not flat?

Maddox did indeed did favour a steady state interpretation, as did Einstein initially. I don't know whether Maddox was ever persuaded or not by the evidence but Einstein was.  Notice how it is evidence that moves us from our entrenched positions.

Now there is not a lot of evidence one way or another for there having been life on Mars. There have been a few false starts, but that is OK. So I would be agnostic on that and quite happily say I don't know and await evidence. But if someone put a gun to my head and make a bet, I would bet against life having been on Mars. Recognizing I could be very wrong.

Regarding materialism (a subset of physicalism), depending on what you mean by materialism, there is a whack load of evidence for the position. Arguments against materialism seem to be god of the gaps type arguments, and they tend to be held by believers. What is the evidence against materialism? Remember not everyone thinks the Earth is not flat. We weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion. 

Moving on to the God is Love position. Now Joseph claimed he has experienced God. I claim I can experience the universe or at least bits of it. I suppose some might claim we can experience both. I can point to the universe. Joseph earlier argued it (the world) might be an illusion; true, I am sure our perception of the universe has many illusory properties, but nevertheless our perceptions are a reflection of the universe.

While we might have philosophical arguments about what is and is not God. The first and continuing mover that causes cancers starvation, horrible parasites, to me does not seem to fit the God is Love bill. The universe does fit our experience.

My point remains. It is evidence that sways us, or at least in an ideal discussion.

 

 

[thormas]

4 minutes ago, romansh said:

You can see my reply here to Joseph. So in your opinion Warsaw being the capital is an accepted fact. OK is it an accepted fact that the Earth is indeed not flat?

Maddox did indeed did favour a steady state interpretation, as did Einstein initially. I don't know whether Maddox was ever persuaded or not by the evidence but Einstein was.  Notice how it is evidence that moves us from our entrenched positions.

Now there is not a lot of evidence one way or another for there having been life on Mars. There have been a few false starts, but that is OK. So I would be agnostic on that and quite happily say I don't know and await evidence. But if someone put a gun to my head and make a bet, I would bet against life having been on Mars. Recognizing I could be very wrong.

Regarding materialism (a subset of physicalism), depending on what you mean by materialism, there is a whack load of evidence for the position. Arguments against materialism seem to be god of the gaps type arguments, and they tend to be held by believers. What is the evidence against materialism? Remember not everyone thinks the Earth is not flat. We weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion. 

Moving on to the God is Love position. Now Joseph claimed he has experienced God. I claim I can experience the universe or at least bits of it. I suppose some might claim we can experience both. I can point to the universe. Joseph earlier argued it (the world) might be an illusion; true, I am sure our perception of the universe has many illusory properties, but nevertheless our perceptions are a reflection of the universe.

While we might have philosophical arguments about what is and is not God. The first and continuing mover that causes cancers starvation, horrible parasites, to me does not seem to fit the God is Love bill. The universe does fit our experience.

My point remains. It is evidence that sways us, or at least in an ideal discussion.

The topic was Warsaw and that it is (now) the capital of Poland is accepted fact. That the earth is flat is an opinion that is considered in error. 

I don't know about Maddox either but given the evidence of his day, he came to a different conclusion. 

I too have no idea about life on Mars. Even without the gun, I would vote for no life (except there was that movie once) but, of course, who knows given current knowledge.

Again, seems the evidence on materialism is open to question (and doubt) and different in kind that a flat earth. 

Seems we didn't move to God is love position but the perception of the universe (which is fine). As with the Godhead, I wonder if we can experience the universe or simply experience it in the 'bits of it?'

Actually I am intrigued by the God of Love in light of pain and suffering topic and have been reading on it for months. A number of very brilliant philosophers have written on it - one of the best being John Hick. I'll see if I can get you a quote to consider. However, I agree that the universe does fit the experience (if I understand you correctly) but still posit that there must be an ontological priority that is called God - who, of necessity, must allow the universe to be as it is. 

My point remains: there is not evidence for everything.

 

 

[romansh]

45 minutes ago, thormas said:

The topic was Warsaw and that it is (now) the capital of Poland is accepted fact. That the earth is flat is an opinion that is considered in error. 

Ah you are an expert on the "now". What do the theories of relativity have to say on the topic? While I might agree with you on the flat Earth opinion error … it just an opinion that it is in error. 

There may well be an ontological priority, but end of the day a "first cause" is an assumption. Turtles all the way down so to speak. Why can't the universe have always existed in some shape or form?

Why call this first cause God? The term has a whole bunch of negative connotations.

If you have no evidence for God being Love and it being an opinion, why believe (what causes you) in this concept?

What evidence do you have to support materialism is in some way false?

 

[thormas]

34 minutes ago, romansh said:

Ah you are an expert on the "now". What do the theories of relativity have to say on the topic? While I might agree with you on the flat Earth opinion error … it just an opinion that it is in error. 

There may well be an ontological priority, but end of the day a "first cause" is an assumption. Turtles all the way down so to speak. Why can't the universe have always existed in some shape or form?

Why call this first cause God? The term has a whole bunch of negative connotations.

If you have no evidence for God being Love and it being an opinion, why believe (what causes you) in this concept?

What evidence do you have to support materialism is in some way false?

Flattery will get you nowhere but thanks and by now I meant, in layman's terms, the current as opposed to the prior capital of Poland. As for the flat earth, is it an opinion or is it like Warsaw but even more so?

Good point on first cause as an assumption. Whether or not there was a first moment before which there was nothing, whether or not the universe is eternal, there would still be an ontological priority: that anything is at all. 

I agree there are negative connotations associated with the word God, however, even words like Being, The Real, The One, etc. seem to be descriptions of  and return us to the word God. In spite of the negative connotations, including a theistic understanding, I think it is the best word and the one that, when used, lets another know the topic at hand - then it is incumbent on the writer or speaker to redefine this commonly accepted word in a new way. I think the best use of the word God is present in much of the intellectual history of religion, including recent writers today.

I find that this understanding of God (as Love) is present in the Christian tradition, from its beginnings and also present in other religions or faith expressions. And it resonates with or enables me to 'make sense' of my experience of the world and the 'meaning' of 'all this,' of life, of existence. It seems, obvious (to me) that love is the be all and the end all  - or simply the stuff of life. When love is 'injected' into the world, life is enhanced, when love is withheld or its opposite is injected into the world, life is diminished. Again, I know about the pain of many different kinds of love but I am defining love as compassionate caring for the other. I was a teacher for years before going into business and saw just how easy and effective such care could impact and make better the life, even the day of a kid. My wife, an Art Teacher (and previously a math and art teacher at a high level) sees this with kids pre-K through 5th grade on a daily basis. It's sort of like a flower and the sun. Then there follows the reflection that this care we give is also something we stand in need of - we give more than we have, more than we are. We, quite literally, give life in such care yet stand in need of life giving care/love from others. Then there is the reflection on: the Jewish tradition, on the man Jesus, on those early writers about what this man meant and of course the continuing intellectual tradition of others on all this all and calling Love, God. I don't experience the Godhead, I experience love as life giving, life creating, life sustaining and then in agreement with a religious tradition and with some of the most brilliant minds of the day (including the present), I name or recognize or profess that this life giving love, that works in and through me, is 'more' than I am and is indeed Being/Life giving Itself - and thus literally and continually creating and sustaining life. For what else (has the power) can give life but life?

As for materialism, I have only recently read Sheldrake and found that he was credible: his concerns, his take on unquestioned dogma in science, his questions. I recognize materialism as a belief, with 'evidence' resulting in different conclusions for sincere people. Materialism is not a priority topic for me as I have other topics that are of much more immediate concern/interest for me and a reading list in my Amazon cart that will see me through to my 100th birthday (still many years away).

[JosephM]

12 hours ago, thormas said:

However the capital of Poland is (now) Warsaw. That is the current 'fact.' If the Polish people decide to move the capital to another city, then we have a new fact. Seems such information is commonly referred to as fact not opinion. As for Israel, if Israel has changed their capital from Tel Aviv, then that is the new fact. I happen to disagree with this decision but that doesn't change the fact.

 

Thormas,

But agreement or disagreement does change the fact as defined (copious evidence) on such matters. The US recognizes Jerusalem as the capital but the United Nations does not. So which is the capital, Jerusalem or tel Aviv? It seems to me agreement has more to do with what one would consider fact than most might suppose.

[JosephM]

Rom,

12 hours ago, romansh said:

 

While we might have philosophical arguments about what is and is not God. The first and continuing mover that causes cancers starvation, horrible parasites, to me does not seem to fit the God is Love bill. The universe does fit our experience.

My point remains. It is evidence that sways us, or at least in an ideal discussion.

I agree that it "does not seem to fit the God is Love bill" but perhaps your view of Love , God, and cause and effect ie...and cancers and starvation etc are incomplete and can only be 'understood/known/seen'  through revelation that is presently beyond description in words? It might be similar to trying to describe the taste of sugar to a person without a sense of taste or smell or even a sunset to a blind person. It seems to me, in my experience,  it requires a non-duality experience to begin to grasp.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Thormas,

But agreement or disagreement does change the fact as defined (copious evidence) on such matters. The US recognizes Jerusalem as the capital but the United Nations does not. So which is the capital, Jerusalem or tel Aviv? It seems to me agreement has more to do with what one would consider fact than most might suppose.

Israel seems like a unique situation with two recognized capitals. However, the present capital of Poland seems to be beyond dispute and this is recognized and accepted. This is the fact and if denied one is in the wrong. Again, this is about capitals and Israel is unique.

I agree that in some cases, where there is not enough facts or information, agreement has to do with what one considers fact or the information one has at hand: a lack of information might lead to a different opinion but it doesn't change the fast, example the earth is not flat. 

[JosephM]

13 hours ago, thormas said:

Israel seems like a unique situation with two recognized capitals. However, the present capital of Poland seems to be beyond dispute and this is recognized and accepted. This is the fact and if denied one is in the wrong. Again, this is about capitals and Israel is unique.

I agree that in some cases, where there is not enough facts or information, agreement has to do with what one considers fact or the information one has at hand: a lack of information might lead to a different opinion but it doesn't change the fast, example the earth is not flat. 

Even the definition of fact is a fact only because there is agreement by English speakers on how to use the term.  Nothing is beyond dispute. If you deny this it doesn't make you "in the wrong" it only makes you disagreeable or more respectfully said "not in agreement" or "not recognizing it as such". 🙂😄

It seems to me , it is easier to understand what something is not rather than what it really is.

[thormas]

14 hours ago, JosephM said:

I agree that it "does not seem to fit the God is Love bill" but perhaps your view of Love , God, and cause and effect ie...and cancers and starvation etc are incomplete and can only be 'understood/known/seen'  through revelation that is presently beyond description in words? It might be similar to trying to describe the taste of sugar to a person without a sense of taste or smell or even a sunset to a blind person. It seems to me, in my experience,  it requires a non-duality experience to begin to grasp.

My question is how do you understand revelation? Even for me, a believer, this comes off a bit as magical and it also seems to come off as privileged information. I guess one could argue that someone who receives a revelation is privileged but then the biblical stories would have to be taken literally. And if those who receive a revelation are 'different' than others - like one who lacks a sense of taste/smell or is blind - It would seem to suggest that God has favorites and that seems to fly in the face of what is believed about the one who lets the rain fall on all. 

I agreed when you said that "perhaps your view of.......is incomplete" (although I would understand if Rom or others disagreed with that assessment) as that seems to put the onus on man, however to say "only known through revelation" puts the action and choice of who receives the revelation on God. I lean to human insight (which the Bible and Holy Books are) as opposed to what is traditionally explained as revelation. 

So, if times permits, if you could clarify as revelation seems to suggest 'special status.' In addition, biblical revelations are 'put into words' so revelation is not typically understood to be beyond description in words. Again, just curious. 

[thormas]

5 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Even the definition of fact is a fact only because there is agreement by English speakers on how to use the term.  Nothing is beyond dispute. If you deny this it doesn't make you "in the wrong" it only makes you disagreeable or more respectfully said "not in agreement" or "not recognizing it as such". 🙂😄

It seems to me , it is easier to understand what something is not rather than what it really is.

I take your point (to a degree) but also recognize that most of us would accept facts at face value, as given. I simply don't see how Warsaw as the capital of Poland is not beyond dispute. If you get in a cab at the airport and you say, "take me to the capital of Poland" and the driver takes you to Gdansk and charges you for the trip, not only are you not in the capital but the driver is wrong and you have a legitimate right to be a 'bit upset' and withhold payment.

Some select group (I guess) decided to change the location of the capital to Warsaw and we thereafter had a new fact that was accepted as fact (for now and different from the fact in the 16th century)) even by those who were not alive and not able to be part of the agreement to change the capital. If a present day student, when asked the capital of their country on a test, answered Krakow, they would be judged to be and in fact be wrong. Until the capital is changed, it is beyond dispute and anything else would be wrong. One would not simply be "not in agreement' they would be wrong - especially if they were the aforementioned cab driver.

I am simply not in agreement with you on this topic, as this topic (as opposed to Warsaw) is not a fact but a matter of opinion :+}

[JosephM]

On 6/10/2019 at 1:55 PM, thormas said:

My question is how do you understand revelation? Even for me, a believer, this comes off a bit as magical and it also seems to come off as privileged information. I guess one could argue that someone who receives a revelation is privileged but then the biblical stories would have to be taken literally. And if those who receive a revelation are 'different' than others - like one who lacks a sense of taste/smell or is blind - It would seem to suggest that God has favorites and that seems to fly in the face of what is believed about the one who lets the rain fall on all. 

I agreed when you said that "perhaps your view of.......is incomplete" (although I would understand if Rom or others disagreed with that assessment) as that seems to put the onus on man, however to say "only known through revelation" puts the action and choice of who receives the revelation on God. I lean to human insight (which the Bible and Holy Books are) as opposed to what is traditionally explained as revelation. 

So, if times permits, if you could clarify as revelation seems to suggest 'special status.' In addition, biblical revelations are 'put into words' so revelation is not typically understood to be beyond description in words. Again, just curious. 

My understanding of revelation is ... the divine or supernatural disclosure to humans of something relating to human existence or the world.

Privileged information only in the sense that not all are aware of their connection to experience such though the experience is available and present to all. Most religions speak of it.

It seems to require a "stillness" that excludes thinking, labeling or judgement of any kind. Some use meditation techniques, some use physical techniques, for some it just seems spontaneous when conditions are right. Personally for me it has been spontaneous triggered by conditions of imminent danger where extreme calmness presented itself, or during times of consciously watching my mental activity and sensing a shift in consciousness where i am just a witness of that activity, or during moments of extreme concentration on an object or person without labeling or judging, In most cases there has been a strong or burning desire in my heart to connect to that which is my source of my being (God). I do not see intelligence as a requirement and it seems to me it is often a deterrent.

Nothing 'special status' about it. The words in revelations , in my experience, only point, they don't have revelations in themselves. The revealing may be triggered by them but it is like seeing for the first time what you already knew or in other words remembering what you already know but weren't aware of because of clouds that were obscuring your vision. (clouds being things like anger, hate, unforgiveness, obsessive thinking, judgement , etc.) For me, unforgiveness, measuring and judging were the greatest obstacles to removing many of the clouds. The teachings of Jesus speak volumes concerning this.

[JosephM]

On 6/10/2019 at 2:22 PM, thormas said:

I take your point (to a degree) but also recognize that most of us would accept facts at face value, as given. I simply don't see how Warsaw as the capital of Poland is not beyond dispute. If you get in a cab at the airport and you say, "take me to the capital of Poland" and the driver takes you to Gdansk and charges you for the trip, not only are you not in the capital but the driver is wrong and you have a legitimate right to be a 'bit upset' and withhold payment.

Some select group (I guess) decided to change the location of the capital to Warsaw and we thereafter had a new fact that was accepted as fact (for now and different from the fact in the 16th century)) even by those who were not alive and not able to be part of the agreement to change the capital. If a present day student, when asked the capital of their country on a test, answered Krakow, they would be judged to be and in fact be wrong. Until the capital is changed, it is beyond dispute and anything else would be wrong. One would not simply be "not in agreement' they would be wrong - especially if they were the aforementioned cab driver.

I am simply not in agreement with you on this topic, as this topic (as opposed to Warsaw) is not a fact but a matter of opinion :+}

You can withhold payment but what is " a legitimate right to be a bit upset " You can be upset or not. It's your choice. If he is ill informed or not that is his problem. You can be upset or laugh at the experience and calmly find an alternative to your destination. Why legitimize your being upset? Upset is a cloud i mentioned in my last post.

Getting hung up in the dichotomy of right and wrong, in my view, is also a cloud . Of course , you have that right but in my view, it is not expedient to revelations if they interest you. 🙂

So, you are not in agreement. on this topic of Warsaw .... nothing wrong with that. 🙂 Perhaps you gleamed something else from the discussion

[romansh]

8 minutes ago, JosephM said:

I take your point (to a degree) but also recognize that most of us would accept facts at face value, as given. I simply don't see how Warsaw as the capital of Poland is not beyond dispute.

I am not saying it is not beyond dispute. Joseph picked up on the very reason  I chose Warsaw …  Krakow. 

So Warsaw as the capital of Poland for those of us travelling at similar velocities is an accepted fact. Not a problem

Materialism by and large is an accepted fact in the science community. There are those of a flat earth type of devotion to dualism who do not accept this. And they have an opinion that is by and large unsubstantiated. It's not a problem. But the point of this thread is, calling a point of view an opinion. in no way negates that opinion.

You yourself have demonstrated that with Warsaw and flat Earth.

[thormas]

9 hours ago, JosephM said:

My understanding of revelation is ... the divine or supernatural disclosure to humans of something relating to human existence or the world.

Privileged information only in the sense that not all are aware of their connection to experience such though the experience is available and present to all. Most religions speak of it.

It seems to require a "stillness" that excludes thinking, labeling or judgement of any kind. Some use meditation techniques, some use physical techniques, for some it just seems spontaneous when conditions are right. Personally for me it has been spontaneous triggered by conditions of imminent danger where extreme calmness presented itself, or during times of consciously watching my mental activity and sensing a shift in consciousness where i am just a witness of that activity, or during moments of extreme concentration on an object or person without labeling or judging, In most cases there has been a strong or burning desire in my heart to connect to that which is my source of my being (God). I do not see intelligence as a requirement and it seems to me it is often a deterrent.

Nothing 'special status' about it. The words in revelations , in my experience, only point, they don't have revelations in themselves. The revealing may be triggered by them but it is like seeing for the first time what you already knew or in other words remembering what you already know but weren't aware of because of clouds that were obscuring your vision. (clouds being things like anger, hate, unforgiveness, obsessive thinking, judgement , etc.) For me, unforgiveness, measuring and judging were the greatest obstacles to removing many of the clouds. The teachings of Jesus speak volumes concerning this.

Thanks for the response.

First question: is the divine disclosure information or the experience of the divine?

If it is the latter, I agree that it is not privileged because it is possible for all and a matter of being aware or developing awareness. If it is information, then for me, it is similar to the 'deposit of faith' and moves back to privileged information.

Your explanation of stillness is a good one.

And you have answered my questions: good explanation about the words of revelation not having revelation but perhaps triggering or pointing to the experience. I had a professor who spoke of the baby's wide eyes, as being aware to being - as being - until, of necessary, the little one is 'pulled' into the world of things and learns to differentiate among them. Then life is the attempt to see and experience being yet again.

Interesting topic, thanks.