| cr88192 2006-11-22, 6:55 pm |
|
"Guido Vollbeding" <guido@jpegclub.org> wrote in message
news:45648459.894DAC23@jpegclub.org...
> cr88192 wrote:
>
> Your problem, and the problem of most other people dealing with the
> subject, is that you are  . You don't know what is right,
> you don't understand the basics, you don't have a firm knowledge,
> you don't have a solid position in your point of view.
>
> And that is exactly the difference to my position:
> I DO know what is right, I DO understand the DCT basics, I DO have
> a firm knowledge and experience about the subject, and I DO have
> a solid position with the approach. I am NOT , I do NOT
> have a weak position, I can NOT fall for hoaxes and misleading
> marketing hypes.
>
> The reason for this is that I have a different source of knowledge.
> Your, and most other people's, source of knowledge is your intellect
> - and that is weak, instable, and prone to error.
>
<snip>
>
> As I have said, the solution to the problem is to discard
> identification with your intellect, to EXCEED your intellect,
> and then use it as a tool in your hands on a solid position.
>
however, I will argue on an different front:
intuition is good for doing things which are subjectively definable as
better or worse (how is this design? how usable is this interface? ...).
however, I have doubts as to the reliance on intuition for matters of truth.
note here:
on MBTI tests I have taken in the past, I fall under the category of INTP,
however, my N/S bias is fairly close to center, so depending on my mood it
seems I can also come out as ISTP as well...
and so, we have arguments which can't be easily resolved:
creation vs evolution;
monoverse vs multiverse;
deterministic vs non-deterministic time progression.
the view that would be more readily held from a doctrinal position would be
that of a created deterministic monoverse;
others will interpret evidence to point more twards evolution and a
non-deterministic multiverse.
and I will argue, it is not the point of religion for people to get all
fussy about such things, but be willing to go where evidence takes them, but
also to not forget or deny the doctrinal position.
and, on the topic of religion, is another controversy:
exactly how much flexibility is allowed?
who is applicable?
one extreme is that only a very elite group can gain salvation or
enlightenment;
the other extreme is that everyone gains it by default.
and, others will argue about the means, faith vs good works/moral living.
but, in the end, who can be sure?
so, one can wait until death, and maybe then they will have their answer, as
pleasant or horrible as they may find it to be, or maybe not (one faced with
the risk of a slip into non-existance).
so, given my experience, I am inclined to believe that the border is
probably (mostly) christians (probably for people in other religions, an
alternative is provided to belief in the death and ressurection), that it is
by faith, and that a pleasant or horrible experience is based on this.
then again, good works and moral behavior are definitely encouraged, so if
it turns out that is the path that is required, one is not totally left out
in case they were wrong, I guess one has to just avoid though the position
of thinking that their standing is based on how often the attend church or
how much they pay in tithing...
and, one can also avoid the other extreme, that they can do whatever they
want and still gain forgiveness (living a life of heavy drinking, orgies,
and trying to impress everyone with their money and/or supposed good
religious standing...).
> Regards
> Guido Vollbeding
> Organizer Independent JPEG Group
|