Spearthrower wrote:You're also not following clearly written English.

I did not say 'Don't criticize it' as you've now claimed twice - quite the contrary, I said it would be helpful to actually do so.

What you did was say:

Sorry for raining on your maiden post, but I have not heard anyone uttering such unmitigated nonsense since hippies roamed about freely in the wild.

ETA: Oh. I see you're here to spruik a book you wrote.

Go away.

All this does is say that you think it's nonsense and tells him to go away.

Thanks for raising the incapability of not following clearly written English.

Firstly, my posts are limited to rejecting NoemaNovel's "advice" that we ought to "not judge or criticise it* but will accept it* on its own terms", where "it" stands for "any belief, regardless of how nonsensical it is". What you said on the matter is irrelevant.

Secondly, you have ignored the "ETA" in the post in which I told him to go away. Had you not, you would have immediately recognised that it was a consequence of my discovery, as mentioned in the sentence immediately preceding "ETA", that NoemaNovel created his thread for the sole purpose of spruiking his book. Not clear enough for you?

If it gets nonsensical enough we lock them up.

Hermit wrote:
Thanks for raising the incapability of not following clearly written English.

Firstly, my posts are limited to rejecting NoemaNovel's "advice" that we ought to "not judge or criticise it* but will accept it* on its own terms", where "it" stands for "any belief, regardless of how nonsensical it is". What you said on the matter is irrelevant.

Secondly, you have ignored the "ETA" in the post in which I told him to go away. Had you not, you would have immediately recognised that it was a consequence of my discovery, as mentioned in the sentence immediately preceding "ETA", that NoemaNovel created his thread for the sole purpose of spruiking his book. Not clear enough for you?

Firstly, when you're replying to me about what I wrote, then obviously what I said is not irrelevant: it's what we're discussing. What you did in your OP is just call it a stupid idea, albeit with more colourful description. Is that it? Is that how to convince someone, or show their ideas wrong?

Secondly, not only did I not 'ignore' the addition to your post, I even quoted it when replying to you. Regardless of whether it's a consequence of your 'discovery' or not, it's still your first reply in this thread, and the first reply this person received after joining this website. Why are you not actually challenging their idea and instead just telling them to go away?

Finally, did you read the point I made about the other thread with the guy suffering from OCD? Given that all of my posts have been making this same consistent point about engaging with the idea, I find it odd you've elected to elide replying to that.

Hermit wrote:
NoemaNovel does not ask us to not condemn people whose beliefs are nonsensical as idiots. He asks us to "not judge or criticise it* but will accept it* on its own terms".

NoemaNovel wrote:
Are you willing to help make this happen by sharing your own experiences of your reality with others who will not judge or criticise it but will accept it on its own terms?

I don't think your rendition is an accurate reflection of what he wrote.

Spearthrower wrote:

Hermit wrote:
NoemaNovel does not ask us to not condemn people whose beliefs are nonsensical as idiots. He asks us to "not judge or criticise it* but will accept it* on its own terms".

NoemaNovel wrote:
Are you willing to help make this happen by sharing your own experiences of your reality with others who will not judge or criticise it but will accept it on its own terms?

I don't think your rendition is an accurate reflection of what he wrote.

Hermit's quote is more accurate to the OP than yours.

NoemaNovel wrote:
Since everyone perceives everything in their mind, “reality” can only ever be what our minds make it, so that what seems real to us is real. Do you agree that if more people accepted this, they might be kinder and more tolerant to one another?

Are you willing to help make this happen by sharing your own experiences of your reality with others who will not judge or criticise it but will accept it on its own terms?

Clearly that is a plea to be open an uncritical towards people's unsubstantiated beliefs that "seem real" to them

See previous point about not following clearly written English.

Spearthrower wrote:See previous point about not following clearly written English.

You do seem to have a problem. Look at the bit you chose to highlight, ignoring the bits related to Hermit's point, that you were supposed to be replying to.

The part about sharing your own experiences was only secondary to the context around it of how good it would be if people were uncritically accepting of odd beliefs about "reality".

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p2728909

he asks us to "not judge or criticise it but will accept it on its own terms".

Reality and the mind

Firstly, my posts are limited to rejecting NoemaNovel's "advice" that we ought to "not judge or criticise it* but will accept it* on its own terms", where "it" stands for "any belief, regardless of how nonsensical it is".

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p2728670

NoemaNovel  wrote:Are you willing to help make this happen by sharing your own experiences of your reality with others who will not judge or criticise it but will accept it on its own terms?

Clearly, in plain English, the OP was not asking us to 'not judge or criticize it', nor was he offering advice to us to 'not judge or criticize it' - what he did was invite people to share their own experiences with others who will not judge or criticize those experiences.

The bit that refers to us is the bit inviting us to share experiences.

The bit about not judging or criticizing does not refer to us, but to other people.

Of the last 20 or so posts of yours I've read, GrahamH, you don't appear to have understood your interlocutor's plain English even once. You can't read what's there, but you can read what's not there. You can't address their points, but you can make up points for them. You can take one thing to mean something completely different in a manner that appears to have no reasonable grounding whatsoever.

So I don't think it's me who has a problem.

Spearthrower wrote:Clearly, in plain English, the OP was not asking us to 'not judge or criticize it', nor was he offering advice to us to 'not judge or criticize it' - what he did was invite people to share their own experiences with others who will not judge or criticize those experiences.

NoemaNovel did ask people - which includes us - clearly, and in plain English, to "not judge or criticise it* but will accept it* on its own terms". There's even a question mark at the end of his sentence, which marks it as a question.

*"It" standing for any belief, regardless of how nonsensical it is.

Yes, but what is "it"?



ETA I should clarify: is "it" merely our perception of it or is "it" it?

NoemaNovel wrote:Do you agree that if more people accepted this, they might be kinder and more tolerant to one another?

Would it be unkind and intolerant of me not to agree?

I guess nobody wants to address this question. I don't think reality is relevant (except for the reality that doesn't go away just because you're trying to be kinder and more tolerant). I mean, there could be the germ of a theory in back of this, but to give it full efflorescence, we need somebody like jamest on the shop floor, somebody who can operate the Lathe of Heaven.

LucidFlight wrote:Yes, but what is "it"?



ETA I should clarify: is "it" merely our perception of it or is "it" it?

O man, "it" is precisely what it is to you. Spearthrower, I and most other forum members will be as unjudgemental and as uncritical about your reality as we are about JayJay's. That's a promise!

Spearthrower wrote:.

The bit that refers to us is the bit inviting us to share experiences.

The bit about not judging or criticizing does not refer to us, but to other people.

You got half of it right, but you missed the important part. Asking us for our experiences that will not be judged is not the real point. we are asked to imagine a world where strange experiences afe not judged because here is a poster with some wild beliefs. If he doesn't judge us then we don't judge him. Won't that be nice?

Now, about those recollections of 24000 years ago...

Going by the past tense used in the publisher's author page, I'd say that the Dael Akkerman who wrote the novel is no longer with us. Perhaps the OP perceives themself to be Dael Akkerman, but more likely they were inspired by the book and adopted the name. That's like, my opinion, man, and therefore it's really real, or something. In the name of peace and brotherhood, don't be harshing my buzz.

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Clearly, in plain English, the OP was not asking us to 'not judge or criticize it', nor was he offering advice to us to 'not judge or criticize it' - what he did was invite people to share their own experiences with others who will not judge or criticize those experiences.

NoemaNovel did ask people - which includes us - clearly, and in plain English, to "not judge or criticise it* but will accept it* on its own terms". There's even a question mark at the end of his sentence, which marks it as a question.

*"It" standing for any belief, regardless of how nonsensical it is.

No, I've cited the sentence: it does not say that.

Are you willing to help make this happen by sharing your own experiences of your reality with others who will not judge or criticise it but will accept it on its own terms?

The question mark is there for "Are you willing..."

Willing to do what?

To make this happen - this being 'be kinder and more tolerant of each other'

How?

BY sharing your own experiences.... with others who will not judge etc.

It's not at all like your characterization of it.

He's not asking us anything other than whether we're willing to share our experiences. It's an invitation. An affirmative presumably will get a further invitation to like-minded people to join in some kindly tolerant people who will agree that whatever you imagined happened is real.

With such low numbers of members, we really don't need more guard dogs barking at strangers. People have bad ideas, but surely that's why we'd want them to come here, to engage those bad ideas and increase skepticism and reasonable thinking about issues. Not keep everyone away who happens to believe in some woo?

Spearthrower wrote:
The question mark is there for "Are you willing..."

Willing to do what?

To make this happen - this being 'be kinder and more tolerant of each other'

How?

BY sharing your own experiences.... with others who will not judge etc.

It's not at all like your characterization of it.

He's not asking us anything other than whether we're willing to share our experiences. It's an invitation. An affirmative presumably will get a further invitation to like-minded people to join in some kindly tolerant people who will agree that whatever you imagined happened is real.

You're right. If you suppose NoemoNovel just added "with others who will not judge or criticise it but will accept it on its own terms?" without meaning anything. Redundant, meaningless words. Makes me wonder why he decided to waste all those keystrokes on them.

And with that I'll leave you to shout at the clouds some more. Feel free to continue judging and criticising JayJay's reality. NoemoNovel never invited you to not do that. Also, when he asked us to "be kinder and more tolerant to one another", JayJay is not included in "another" just like when he wrote "if more people accepted this", he was not addressing us either, for we are not "people".

Laughable Hermit. You clearly misread the OP, didn't even bother remotely with any charitable reading of anything contained in it, and opted to act like Svartalf barking at stranger - or shouting at clouds if you will - who exactly are you showing off to? Any which way - perhaps employing just a little tolerance wouldn't be such an awful idea.

Spearthrower wrote:perhaps employing just a little tolerance wouldn't be such an awful idea.

JayJay would be ever so happy.

Spearthrower wrote:With such low numbers of members, we really don't need more guard dogs barking at strangers. People have bad ideas, but surely that's why we'd want them to come here, to engage those bad ideas and increase skepticism and reasonable thinking about issues. Not keep everyone away who happens to believe in some woo?

Which is it? Do you want more people with "bad ideas" to come and be welcomed with acceptance of those "woo" ideas or do you want to meet them with challenge and scepticism?