Belief and conviction - a n00b question

[Kai]

The best answer I ever heard to racism in a professional setting was as follows.

Professor sits down at a table with a bunch of other professors. All members are caucasian. Suddenly the talk turns to something about blacks being one of the "lesser races" and how science shows it.

Professor gets up with his lunch, walks over to a table of black professors, sits down and begins conversation.

Non-aggressive, non-argumentative and effective in making a point.

[LMNO]

i kinda envy those capable of a bull in the china shop  "enjoy the sound of shattering glass" approach. But for to have a productive discussion, having a few soft style verbal jujitsu skills gets you further and is probably better for making your ideas heard and hearing the ideas of others.

I think this might be relevant.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18809.0

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Cheers guys, some great feedback here.

And it does seem I was a little underspecific in my OP, sorry, but you chaps have hit the nail on the head.

The problem is, from a personal standpoint and like most bipedal pig-apes, I have a great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise), and when I feel it's relevant I like to share these "Truths" with other bipeds.

Are you familiar with the Cosmic Schmuck principle?

Unfortunatley, the world has made me weary of my fellow man, more specifically, in his reaction to new data and I have found him to become quite irate sometimes when presented with a new idea. Sometimes the rejection of the new data is punctuated physically (or at least the threat of such action), yet despite this I still feel compelled to try and share. I guess I just wanted to know whether I was going about it the right way, but it seems the underlying questions really are "Should I even bother?" and "Is it really worth the risk?"

Thanks.

In short, if its making you weary, getting you threats and its not appreciated by the people you're trying to communicate with... then you might be Doing It Wrong.

[LMNO]

Oh, spags may be weary,
Them spags, they do get weary...
   \

[indifferent betty]

I considered that I may be doing it wrong.

But I am amazing, and I am also the centre of the universe, so it can't be that.

[indifferent betty]

Cheers guys, some great feedback here.

And it does seem I was a little underspecific in my OP, sorry, but you chaps have hit the nail on the head.

The problem is, from a personal standpoint and like most bipedal pig-apes, I have a great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise), and when I feel it's relevant I like to share these "Truths" with other bipeds.

Are you familiar with the Cosmic Schmuck principle?

Would this principle indicate that anyone sharing thier beleifs with another is a cosmic schmuck? If so then there isn't a single (non-lurking) member of this forum that isn't one.

[LMNO]

No.

[indifferent betty]

Good, I was sweating a little there.
I also didn't realise that Cosmic Schmuckery was a principle, i just thought it was a label.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Cheers guys, some great feedback here.

And it does seem I was a little underspecific in my OP, sorry, but you chaps have hit the nail on the head.

The problem is, from a personal standpoint and like most bipedal pig-apes, I have a great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise), and when I feel it's relevant I like to share these "Truths" with other bipeds.

Are you familiar with the Cosmic Schmuck principle?

Would this principle indicate that anyone sharing thier beleifs with another is a cosmic schmuck? If so then there isn't a single (non-lurking) member of this forum that isn't one.

"The Cosmic Schmuck Principle holds that if you don't wake up, once a month at least, and realize that you have recently been acting like a Cosmic Schmuck again then you will probably go on acting like a Cosmic Schmuck forever; but if you do, occasionally, recognize your Cosmic Schmuckiness, you might begin to become a little less Schmucky than the general human average at this primitive stage of terrestrial evolution." - RAW "Natural Law, or Don't Put A Rubber on Your Willy"

Sharing beliefs doesn't make you a Cosmic Schmuck, necessarily... Heaping your beliefs upon the heads of other monkeys as though they were Truth, might. Not recognizing that you're doing it... may be an even larger indicator.

The search for certitude - like the pretence or moral righteousness - appears to me as a medieval habit that should have vanished long ago. None of us knows enough to be certain about anything, usually, and none of us are nearly as "moral" as we feel obliged to pretend we are in order to be acceptable in "Decent" Society. If we are not totally stupid and blindly selfish on all possible occasions, we are about as bright and ethical as anybody in history has ever been. The greatest batters in the history of baseball all had batting averages well below 0.500, which means they missed more than half the time they swung. Medieval morality and theology have left us with the hypocritical habit or pretending batting averages close to 0.999 in both knowledge and ethics. (The Absolutists go around talking
and acting as if their averages were actually 1.000 or sheer perfection.) On average, I think I score under Babe Ruth, and I
suspect you do, too. There thus appears to be a great deal of conceit and self-deception in the habitual poses of intellectual
certitude and ethical perfection among the educated classes. It would appear more in keeping with honesty, I think, to recognize,
as analogous to Murphy's Law, the unscientific but useful generalization I call the Cosmic Schmuck Principle.

Are you being honest about your batting average on:

a great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise)

[fomenter]

i kinda envy those capable of a bull in the china shop  "enjoy the sound of shattering glass" approach. But for to have a productive discussion, having a few soft style verbal jujitsu skills gets you further and is probably better for making your ideas heard and hearing the ideas of others.

I think this might be relevant.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18809.0

yes exactly relevant. 

[indifferent betty]

Thanks Rotastak.

Are you being honest about your batting average on:

a great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise)

And yes. I guess either way I'm a cosmic Schmuck.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Thanks Rotastak.

Are you being honest about your batting average on:

a great many things that I hold to be "True" (at least until something proves or validly argues otherwise)

And yes. I guess either way I'm a cosmic Schmuck.

GOOD! That's the best answer possible... WE ALL ARE COSMIC SCHMUCKS, we all, at least occasionally forget we're stuck in a Black Iron Prison and believe that we can clearly see the Truth just outside our window (and we forget that the bars might be in the way of some important data).

In my opinion, if you talk like you Know The Truth... you might start believing that you Know The Truth and you may begin to forget that you're a Cosmic Schmuck. The whole argument for e-Prime came from General Semantics and the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. This concept argues that the nature of the language used by a speaker, influences the thinking  (and perception) of that person.

If we speak in absolutes, we may begin to think in absolutes. If we speak as though we know the Truth, we may forget that we're hyper talkative chimps with only five senses, managed badly by a neurological system that was best designed for survival, rather than understanding the mysteries of the Universe. If we postulate that X IS TRUE... then we must first express belief in the foundation of X. Much like, to believe that Christianity is True, one must accept that Jesus was more than human. To accept that our perception of Time-Space is True, requires that we believe things like causality... which might be true, might be false, or might be currently somewhat misunderstood.

Now, there are some arguments that Count Korby read way too much into the power of language over thought... however, its opposite (that language doesn't affect thought) seems pretty unlikely to me. So, since I started thinking along those lines, I've found it beneficial to not speak like I Know The Truth, but rather to (at least try) to speak like I have an opinion, idea, halfway informed perception etc.

Defending a position is one thing and may be beneficial for convincing someone, or forcing you to think through a position...

saying "I'ma Gonna Think This Is True, Till You PROOF Otherwise", IMO, is much less useful.

[fomenter]

yes ratatosk has hit the mark, this is what  i was trying to get across in my posts on the previous page.

[indifferent betty]

well he`said it better
:P

i like him more than you, i want to play with him now. everyone else go away.

[fomenter]

he is the squirrel of discord.
i am just a stand-in holding his place while we wait for him to show up.


i don't like you either