Are people right to have different opinions?

[shellytrokan]

@Only_Humean

@shellytrokan

@Only_Humean

That’s not evidence, or a reason to agree with you. If logic tells you something, then it should be accessible to others, don’t you think?

It’s just natural difference - I don’t expect others to agree with me (in my mind I’ve presented evidence).

Then why are you here? This is a forum, for discussing with other people.

Okay. I have presented evidence.

[Arcturus_Descending]

Neither CNN or BBC ever raise the topic of whether all nations should end. Logic dictates why this is so, yet intelligence is also either network raising the topic - logic simultaneously tells me that the world being addressed in such a way would be game-changing, yet to not expect its happening.

I don’t think that that is logic, st, it’s just the way you are seeing and feeling things and maybe some intuition. But our intuition, subjective thinking and feeling are capable of being faulty.

Show me concrete evidence.

[shellytrokan]

@Arcturus Descending

Neither CNN or BBC ever raise the topic of whether all nations should end. Logic dictates why this is so, yet intelligence is also either network raising the topic - logic simultaneously tells me that the world being addressed in such a way would be game-changing, yet to not expect its happening.

I don’t think that that is logic, st, it’s just the way you are seeing and feeling things and maybe some intuition. But our intuition, subjective thinking and feeling are capable of being faulty.

Show me concrete evidence.

I’m applying the principle of replication and uniformity - to my own subjective ends. Naturally though, the subjective being the point of reality is error, because subjectivity can’t be its own creator.
The BBC not raising the topic is logical (so you’re right) however intelligence isn’t simply the fact of the BBC; the BBC or CNN exist for a reason - they’re own existence needs anti, and because anti as an identity is subject to change, why should one type of anti have bias over another type. If type Y anti is not raising the topic, because of a mass of people who want to retain onto hierarchy and status, why shouldn’t type X anti (another mass of people who want to eliminate status and nations) overrule the other type, when the very existence of anti means conflict anyway.

Why does the forum exist, when the discussions and topics and opinions reflected on it aren’t allowed to become the CNN reality; sure, CNN allows some amount of opinions, but they’re always within a certain scope of change.

Is it possible that all of the discussions had on this site have happened in any war in human history, or during any year of human history, going back as far as Roman times? When Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, is it possible that someone nearby while he was painting was experiencing either thoughts or having a discussion with someone else about whether physics is dependent on late night shopping, or if the such and such empire should be ended because of one particular person?

What troubles me is reflection not being universal, yet the means of the restriction being dependent on the ability of the things existing that are being restricted.
The political right in the US obviously needs CNN to not ask if all nations should be ended because of Lindsay Schoneweis, yet the ability of the question is what allows there to be a political right in the first place - so what’s the resolution? Is it simply that whenever the question is able to exist it gets asked, but then if that’s the case was the political right ever dependent on the ability of the question in the first place, in which case what’s the true identity of creator?

If the forum reality is the creator of the nation reality, yet nations need forums to not become the standard reference, does that mean that creator must always be unknown, in which case why is it logical to inquire about causality, or the existence of God?

[Arcturus_Descending]

shellytroken,

I’m applying the principle of replication and uniformity - to my own subjective ends. Naturally though, the subjective being the point of reality is error, because subjectivity can’t be its own creator.
The BBC not raising the topic is logical (so you’re right) however intelligence isn’t simply the fact of the BBC; the BBC or CNN exist for a reason - they’re own existence needs anti, and because anti as an identity is subject to change, why should one type of anti have bias over another type. If type Y anti is not raising the topic, because of a mass of people who want to retain onto hierarchy and status, why shouldn’t type X anti (another mass of people who want to eliminate status and nations) overrule the other type, when the very existence of anti means conflict anyway.

Why does the forum exist, when the discussions and topics and opinions reflected on it aren’t allowed to become the CNN reality; sure, CNN allows some amount of opinions, but they’re always within a certain scope of change.

Is it possible that all of the discussions had on this site have happened in any war in human history, or during any year of human history, going back as far as Roman times? When Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, is it possible that someone nearby while he was painting was experiencing either thoughts or having a discussion with someone else about whether physics is dependent on late night shopping, or if the such and such empire should be ended because of one particular person?

What troubles me is reflection not being universal, yet the means of the restriction being dependent on the ability of the things existing that are being restricted.
The political right in the US obviously needs CNN to not ask if all nations should be ended because of Lindsay Schoneweis, yet the ability of the question is what allows there to be a political right in the first place - so what’s the resolution? Is it simply that whenever the question is able to exist it gets asked, but then if that’s the case was the political right ever dependent on the ability of the question in the first place, in which case what’s the true identity of creator?

What you wrote is way above my pay rate, if you catch my meaning. I’m not capable of responding to it. I’m just not that bright but…

If the forum reality is the creator of the nation reality,

Unless I’m misunderstanding you here, I’d say it’s just the opposite. National “thinking” and "feeling is more the creator of the forum perspective - but I may be wrong. I think both influence each other.

yet nations need forums to not become the standard reference,

What we need is what Jung spoke of - the concert of many minds - in order to find what is true and real.
What we actually need I think is many many many many more individuals to have the courage to think “differently” and to voice that. It takes all of the pieces of the puzzle to see the reality of that puzzle.

does that mean that creator must always be unknown, in

By “creator” if you mean our concept of God, I intuit that it must always be unknown…except as we individually and globally “perceive” and “understand” god to be. But there is great mystery there. Who knows. If there be a God, perhaps at some point this God will unfold and reveal itself if it isn’t already doing that.
Can there be any other way in which to “know” god except through our feeble human perceptions? Can we in truth and in actuality “know” god as humans.Can we in any more than human terms?
After all, it’s not the same as we coming to discover ourselves through nature and the processes of the universe.

which case why is it logical to inquire about causality, or the existence of God?

[/quote]
Because we humans have a great thirst knowledge and mystery. We can’t help ourselves.
I think that it is built into us. Perhaps it’s because we need/have such a desire to know who we are and where we have come from.
It’s not so much about logic but about what gives meaning albeit logic has real meaning when it is logical. lol
For many people, a God is the beginning, the root of everything. So why not!!!
Knowing that we are “starstuff” does not suffice.

[shellytrokan]

which case why is it logical to inquire about causality, or the existence of God?

[/quote]
Because we humans have a great thirst knowledge and mystery. We can’t help ourselves.
I think that it is built into us. Perhaps it’s because we need/have such a desire to know who we are and where we have come from.
It’s not so much about logic but about what gives meaning albeit logic has real meaning when it is logical. lol
For many people, a God is the beginning, the root of everything. So why not!!!
Knowing that we are “starstuff” does not suffice.
[/quote]
If I were to ask, what examples of standard reference would you give?

[Arcturus_Descending]

Define standard reference.

[shellytrokan]

@Arcturus Descending

Define standard reference.

Things which get casually spoken of - things which all people can be expected to hear or read about?