Belief systems

... because I hesitate to use the word religion.

But, if the past days threads are any indication, it seems clear that
there is no one answer that all can agree on. And the one over-riding
aspect of each person's argument is that they need to be RIGHT.

And nothing else counts.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> ... because I hesitate to use the word religion.
>
> But, if the past days threads are any indication, it seems clear
that
> there is no one answer that all can agree on. And the one over-
riding
> aspect of each person's argument is that they need to be RIGHT.
>
> And nothing else counts.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Nah . . . Did you forget I'm a Unitarian Universalist! :) I have no
need, or desire, to be right on the religion/belief-o-matic. All
beliefs are held in high esteem, and humans held in high regard
regardless of their beliefs. By me. And I don't think many of
participators of the last few days feel otherwise. In fact, I think
you've been reading a different list entirely ;)

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> Nah . . . Did you forget I'm a Unitarian Universalist! :)

Nope. You hadn't really weighed in when I wrote that.
Dante/Carl/Aaron/Kraig all seem to be having difficulty with other
views. I'm not saying they dis anyone for *having* those views, mind you.

> I think you've been reading a different list entirely ;)

Are you kidding? I'd never be as mis-informed as I am if I read *any*
list entirely. <grin>

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
wrote:
> > ... because I hesitate to use the word religion.
> >
> > But, if the past days threads are any indication, it seems clear
> that
> > there is no one answer that all can agree on. And the one over-
> riding
> > aspect of each person's argument is that they need to be RIGHT.
> >
> > And nothing else counts.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Jon
>
> Nah . . . Did you forget I'm a Unitarian Universalist! :) I have no
> need, or desire, to be right on the religion/belief-o-matic. All
> beliefs are held in high esteem, and humans held in high regard
> regardless of their beliefs. By me. And I don't think many of
> participators of the last few days feel otherwise. In fact, I think
> you've been reading a different list entirely ;)

Speaking of which, did it ever occur to you that some, if not most,
of the people spewing out answers to things are doing so to put their
assumptions out there to be *challenged*? Rather than a need to be
RIGHT, they have a need to be shown WRONG (or that they might be
wrong) wherever possible, so that they might refine or redefine their
beliefs, theories, etc. with their newfound understanding. And maybe
iterate the whole process a number of times.

Maybe I overestimate how common this is, but if you immediately take
this sort of thing as

"And the one over-riding aspect of each person's argument is that
they need to be RIGHT. And nothing else counts."

I know you'll be missing the boat, in a big way, on a number of
people.

> Speaking of which, did it ever occur to you that some, if not most,
> of the people spewing out answers to things are doing so to put their
> assumptions out there to be *challenged*? Rather than a need to be
> RIGHT, they have a need to be shown WRONG (or that they might be
> wrong) wherever possible, so that they might refine or redefine their
> beliefs, theories, etc. with their newfound understanding. And maybe
> iterate the whole process a number of times.

And indeed that is precisely what falsifiability is.

Dante

> Nope. You hadn't really weighed in when I wrote that.
> Dante/Carl/Aaron/Kraig all seem to be having difficulty
> with other views.

I did? My post was about philosophy -- I didn't comment
on the belief-o-matic. And I included a joke and stuff
like "one way to look at it".

/metatuning/topicId_7827.html#7834

-Carl

Paul,

Maybe putting a word in all caps made it seem so much more virulent.
It was simply an observation, and a generalist one about people's
belief systems, not necessarily tied to this small group.

I must have struck a nerve with you, on some level.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> Speaking of which, did it ever occur to you that some, if not most,
> of the people spewing out answers to things are doing so to put their
> assumptions out there to be *challenged*?

That has been clear for a long time to me. ("did it ever occur to
you"? - should I be offended by that??)

> Rather than a need to be
> RIGHT, they have a need to be shown WRONG (or that they might be
> wrong) wherever possible

Paul, that is so clear for many correspondents around here. And one of
the problems is that many of those people can't separate their
personal need to be shown wrong from showing other people that _they_
are wrong, even if those people don't happen to share the same love
for 'challenges'.

I guess I'm lucky: around here I'm wrong most of the time already, so
I get redefined on a regular basis...

> I know you'll be missing the boat, in a big way, on a number of
> people.

If I turn it around now and look at each of these people (let's start
with Aaron, who started the thread) and say "this person needs to be
shown he is wrong"... Hmmm. How can one be accepting of all views as
valid and also point out that they are in error?

Cheers,
Jon

C,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> I did? My post was about philosophy -- I didn't comment
> on the belief-o-matic.

Right, I know that.

> And I included a joke and stuff
> like "one way to look at it".

Yep. Maybe the word "difficulties" was a poor choice on my part. Never
mind.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote:
> > Speaking of which, did it ever occur to you that some, if not
most,
> > of the people spewing out answers to things are doing so to put
their
> > assumptions out there to be *challenged*? Rather than a need to
be
> > RIGHT, they have a need to be shown WRONG (or that they might be
> > wrong) wherever possible, so that they might refine or redefine
their
> > beliefs, theories, etc. with their newfound understanding. And
maybe
> > iterate the whole process a number of times.
>
> And indeed that is precisely what falsifiability is.

You betcha!

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> If I turn it around now and look at each of these people (let's
start
> with Aaron, who started the thread) and say "this person needs to be
> shown he is wrong"... Hmmm.

What I said "speaking of which", I meant "speaking of other
lists" . . .

Sorry and take care,
Paul

On Tuesday 06 July 2004 05:42 pm, Paul Erlich wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...>
>
> wrote:
> > > ... because I hesitate to use the word religion.
> > >
> > > But, if the past days threads are any indication, it seems clear
> >
> > that
> >
> > > there is no one answer that all can agree on. And the one over-
> >
> > riding
> >
> > > aspect of each person's argument is that they need to be RIGHT.
> > >
> > > And nothing else counts.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Jon
> >
> > Nah . . . Did you forget I'm a Unitarian Universalist! :) I have no
> > need, or desire, to be right on the religion/belief-o-matic. All
> > beliefs are held in high esteem, and humans held in high regard
> > regardless of their beliefs. By me. And I don't think many of
> > participators of the last few days feel otherwise. In fact, I think
> > you've been reading a different list entirely ;)
>
> Speaking of which, did it ever occur to you that some, if not most,
> of the people spewing out answers to things are doing so to put their
> assumptions out there to be *challenged*? Rather than a need to be
> RIGHT, they have a need to be shown WRONG (or that they might be
> wrong) wherever possible, so that they might refine or redefine their
> beliefs, theories, etc. with their newfound understanding. And maybe
> iterate the whole process a number of times.

Paul, you've nailed it for me. I like to evolve, and be challenged.
And I must say, where I am tends to be what it is because I feel that's what
has worked for me and stood the test.

But I always seek evolution!!

> Maybe I overestimate how common this is, but if you immediately take
> this sort of thing as
>
> "And the one over-riding aspect of each person's argument is that
> they need to be RIGHT. And nothing else counts."
>
> I know you'll be missing the boat, in a big way, on a number of
> people.

Yes, yes yes!!!

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

On Tuesday 06 July 2004 06:29 pm, Jon Szanto wrote:

> If I turn it around now and look at each of these people (let's start
> with Aaron, who started the thread) and say "this person needs to be
> shown he is wrong"... Hmmm. How can one be accepting of all views as
> valid and also point out that they are in error?

You can't, I guess ;)

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com