I cannot help but wonder whether or not you stopped reading after the second sentence. Right after that short first paragraph the piece states that everything that follows depends on whether the personal outlook I had stated has merit. If yes, then I stated a possible solution which, due to clever word-smithing, is supposed to indicate that what is to follow is in at least semi-jest. No assertions were made in the piece, so I can't imagine how you found yourself burdened by unsubstantiated assertions.
I must say that coming back two day after posting I'm massively surprised by the negativity. I wish someone would explain to me what the beef is. I mean the piece makes no claims at all so what is there that would need to be backed by references? It offers a few notions that are self evident, such as the abstract nature, and postulated underpinnings of human knowledge. The piece simply asks what would happen if we had a word that stood for what we usually call "truth with a small tee," and offers such a word with an aim at humor. How can such a simple, innocuous piece be so hated? I'm gratified to see though that there are at least some positive comments. Perhaps they actually understood it for what it is.
I am amazed. Are you telling me that you do not clearly see that I propose the coining of a new word, and why I so propose, and that the piece was written in good humor?
I must confess that I went for substance and not style. Would you mind spending a moment and letting me know what your problem is with the style? No offense taken. I promise.
From the sociological point of view I cannot imagine a world without compulsory, god declared, laws for basic behaviors, such as sex-related, murder-related, and god-worship related behaviors. My outlook comes from my certainty that some minds are susceptible to the seeking of such compulsions, and my certainty that some other minds are susceptible to a need to supply such compulsions, sometimes as themselves as the authority, and sometimes as representatives of higher authority. The latter group always seems to produce some very successful iterations, from Moses to Jim Jones. . . As it is said in commerce, if there is demand, there will always be folks who will make it a... (read 469 more words →)
Maybe we should also consider that Einstein fully understood the irony in his statement, and was in a humorous mood. After all, what he would do if the attempt to verify did not succeed was not of any import whatever. It was a typical "sell newspaper" question.
I take it as a near certainty that all human behavior has a fountainhead that is greater than one is able to access consciously. Introspection is an art, and as in all art, some are more gifted than others, but most likely no human has the capacity of 100% insight. Further, and along the same line of reasoning, we humans have an interesting ability to assess another's siruation, (I see where you're at), and supply useful information to another regarding the other's behavior path. This latter ability seems also to be an art, and people have varied gifts in this also.
You seem to know about this site. I need help. I posted an article. It is in the draft section. It appears on my computer in the 'recent posts" list, but on no other computer. It is called "To Speak Veripoop." Any ideas? Thanks
vERY GOOD, but it does not deal with the greater problem. I can prove beyond any doubt (and disprove whoever claims the opposite), that people need the warm fuzzies they receive from the fundamental aspects of relgion: God, pentitude, heaven/hell, etc. I challenge somebody to invent a type of rationality that satisfies the need for the warm fuzzies when presented to minds that are inherently opposed to derive such from rationality. Then, and only then, will religiosity wither. Otherwise, my dear writer, you are preaching to the choir.
I give up, because if I have to keep on explaining, then that is proof that I have failed in communication. I never claimed that S solves P. You have to read more carefully and derive a better understanding of the spirit of the thing. I said "I have a possible solution." I said "what if we successfully substituted. . ." I never proposed to rid our selves of the "truth" word. It should be clear, but obviously it's not, which is the writer's fault, that when I said that science is one step down from truth, then the truth word, and the concept it stands for, would remain, but a new word, (and more importantly the concept for wehich it stands) would be placed between falsity and truth. Did you really think that this brief piece was meant to be a serious, all embracing analysis?