jerkey wrote
I disagree. People “up” and disappear all the time, might not even one have made it “up”? Don’t conflate my positivity with your negativity.
Sometimes blatantly has its utility.
Capable of what, exactly?
Sauwelios is only talking about being the driver, nothing else than the driver. Whatever else exists is of no concern to him.
jerkey wrote
Honesty among thieves who steal Hope? And edit reality?
Can man handle more than he has? Is man handling what he has in any good measure?
Because I needed to make it clear that by what means one believes, is significant to giving the answer. Do people just believe whatever other people say? Clearly not. But what else do you have with merely text communication?
In effect you have now asked, “By what means does one make something sacred?” And that is an extremely important social utility, not to be taken lightly nor treated disrespectfully. Those who use such a tool cause long enduring social effects, not easily corrected (obvious examples are the Ambramic and Eastern religions, thus tread lightly and speak carefully).
Interestingly the very act of answering that question, is the answer to that question.
If I made a particular principle very cognitively clear to you as being real, by definition, you would cognitively, consciously accept the principle into your mind as real (temporarily forgiving those many around with cognitive dissonance). And if I made a behavior very emotionally clear to you as being needed, again by definition, you would emotionally accept that reaction into your “heart” as “blood”.
Both of those statements are necessarily true simply because to “make something clear” means to remove any obstacles to belief (the muddiness in the mind) or to remove any doubt (the cloudiness in the heart). And the common concern in both statements is the issue of clarifying; clarify to the mind and clarify to the heart (what else is there), and thereby the person has lost any resistance to the chosen principle and behavior. When the mind and heart agree, there is little to prevent the behavior from being enacted. And when they agree with the reality of their situation, there is no resistance - the principle and behavior WILL BE enacted.
That is a principle of how to cause a chosen behavior, is irrevocably true, and cannot change. In a sense, it is already sacred to reality itself. It is much like the principle of gravity in that it is and always has been simply how things behave.
And since having something sacred means instilling a chosen behavior and making something sacred is the goal, the understanding of how to cause a behavior is itself sacrosanct.
Now the question is, at this point, have I made it clear that such is the answer (minus some significant further details)?
And if I have not made it clear that such a principle is the answer, then isn’t it clear that making the proper principle clear, would be the answer? And thereby clearly be the principle that answers the question.
JSS wrote
The whole truth, not a chosen one. Sounds like brainwashing tactics you learned way back. People need to arrive at their own clarity, clear their own way, not one chosen for them which defeats the principle of having a choice themselves.
But that wasn’t the question being asked.
JSS wrote
I answered your question no matter your intent.
That phrase was in reference to what makes up a person; mind and heart (body not being significant to the conversation). The concept of “The Whole Truth” can fit into either or both of those components, but is irrelevant to the question and discussion.
I disagree. The whole truth doesn’t want for placement, especially your dissection of when, where, and what to whom and how. It isn’t in the details, it is the details, every last one of them, that form the whole, never to be dissected again.
Now I must take my leave to cook up dinner, don’t miss me too much.
Yes dear.
Soooo… too much? Too little? Too confused? Too strange?
… Too … clear?
Where’d ya go?
I had not forgotten about it, and in fact I happened to finally intend to write something today.
I agree that the means to make something sacred to people is getting them to see it make sense and feel it is needful. Where you may lose me, though, is where you seem to suggest that this means is itself the sacred principle. At most, I could grant that the process of making something sacred to people–as, for example, Socrates did–is what is truly sacred. And then I suppose this can be seen as an “eternal” principle, in that it applies to all times and places equally (e.g., to modern philosophy as well as to ancient philosophy).
Hmm…
What is more important:
-
A) Communication
-
B) A particular language
-
A) Transportation
-
B) The internal combustion engine
-
A) Shelter
-
B) A mortgage
-
A) Nutrition
-
B) A particular diet
-
A) Inspiration
-
B) A particular religion
-
A) Information
-
B) Google
-
A) Gold
-
B) A golden cow
-
A) Light
-
B) A flash light
I thought that you asked for something above reconciliation … ?
Each A is wholly abstract, so the question doesn’t make sense. You cannot, say, have communication without at least one particular language. And even if there was only one particular language, there would already be communication.
Also, I’m not sure what this has to do with my asking for something above reconciliation. What I intended with that phrase was the prevention or undoing of universal comfortable self-preservation, so there will always be self-sacrifice.
Abstractions.
And yes, there cannot be a scientific law until there is at least Science. Thus which of the two would be more sacred?
Well, I have a particular means to that end in mind.
B. Which is interesting considering that I thought you were suggesting the answer was A. I still don’t see what you’re driving at, though.
Well?
Is it a secret?