| Re: How experience sometimes doesnt change beliefs. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: TruthSlaveTruthSlave Date: Sep 16, 2008 12:51
> I remember many years ago, my older brother and his mate were walking
> home after a 'couple of beers' . Just mildly relaxed. Far from
> intoxicated and neither touched drugs.
>
> They both saw a couple of UFO's. Their nature was such, that one
> wouldnt have mentioned it to the other for the fear of being
> ridiculed.
>
> They mentioned it to me, because they knew I was open minded and had a
> mild curiosity of the subject.
>
> I had just read what at the time, seemed quite feasable, regarding an
> individualls ability to see (and hear) beyond the normal spectrum.
>
> I was amazed how even the mention of such an explanation put me, in
> their eyes, where they felt they would be put, if mentioned to ther
> work mates.
>
> That was a good lesson in judgment. When a belief dominates, there is
> little room for open mindedness, regardless of the evidence.
>
> Any reference to the 911 interpretations is purely coincidental !!!
>
> BOfL
This is interesting, in terms of what the language allows us
to express and the way our interpretation of that language
changes with experience.
UFO. Its literal meaning leave room for the question - what
was that? However its current usage, presupposes an answer.
To say you saw something which was unknown to you, shouldn't
necessarily mean it was out of this world. Yet this is the
paradox enshrined in this re-tokened language.
We don't know.
How often do we allow ourselves room for the thought. So often
language allow us to claim knowledge of the unknown. This or
that question is tokenized with a word or a phrase or a jibe,
and that alone allows us to claim an answer when we actually
have none.
We can't say for sure.
We recognize our answers aren't enough. This is perhaps where
we ought to start, rather than jump to the closest answer.
Beliefs extend out of the commonality of our answers, their
use and function creates its own credibility. Our use of the
token UFO, now answers the question before its been considered.
We are controlled by language.
It seems to me we are at the mercy of the language and those
who know this. We are bound to its limits, limited by its
function. Satisfied only because we have something in place
of the question. Perhaps we would do better to entertain the
question, keeping the question alert in our minds until we
are as sure, as we can be, that the answer fits.
| 
