It is starving the thing to death, because the thing lives on brains.
So, in a situations where one speaks or writes and the other listens or reads, the only one who knows is the speaker/writer.
Does the speaker/writer always know their own intention and meaning?
Is it possible for someone to not realize their own real intention? to think it is one thing and not another?
Is it possible for others to know the real intentions and the speaker/writer is incorrect?
If it is not possible to know the intention and meaning, then would it be wrong to tell someone they actually meant something else? If someone attributes the intention and meaning to someone else and they say that was not their intention and meaning, should one then not apologize?
Would it not be best to NOT tell people what their intention and meaning is when they post something, given that unless one is that person, one cannot KNOW?
Is this something you avoid doing? Do you avoid telling that person what their intention and meaning were? Do you avoid telling others what other people’s meaning and intentions were when they write or say things?
Would you apologize if it was pointed out that you did this and it was true that you did?
@Socrates i’m wondering when you’ll have anything meaningful to say about God.
Thanks.
Are you here claiming that ‘you’ know whether ‘the question’ was cynical or not, even though ‘you’ are NOT ‘the one’ who posed and asked ‘the question’? Let alone ‘you’ having some ability to also know ‘the perspective’ from ‘what ‘it’ the thing/question is’?
What ‘the thing’ is is ‘a question’. So, from ‘the perspective’ of ‘the question’, itself, ‘you claim and belief’ ‘the question’ is cynical, even though ‘you’ did not think it up, form it, pose it, nor even asked it, correct?
Again 'you are only ‘the one’ inferring and interpreting words there. ‘you’ are NOT ‘the one’ who knows, fully, what was intended, meant, nor even implied.
‘you’ are absolutely free to assume and/or believe this, but just as long as ‘you’ realise and know that ‘you’ have just provide a perfect example of NOT knowing what was actually meant and intended, and have jumped to another conclusion that is completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect here.
I would be surprised if every speaker/writer always has.
This would depend on how ‘you’ are defining and using the ‘real’ word here, exactly?
If ‘you’ had not use the ‘real’ word, then the question could be far easier and simply answered.
Just about ALL adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, do not know their selves, let alone the Real Self, so ‘they’ do NOT, always, know the Real consequences of ‘their intentions’. This is partly because ‘they’ do not even KNOW, for sure, what it is that ‘they’ ALL Truly want and desire, and so ‘they’ do NOT, always, know what their Real intention is, in Life.
Yes, for example, at times when people are just expressing irrefutable Truths, or just demonstrating Facts about how easy and simple it really is to make a Truly better word for everyone, and others are speaking or writing responses, it is possible to see and know the Real intentions of these speakers and writers. After all, there are plenty of examples of this just here in this philosophy forum as well as in other philofophy forums.
This is all moot, as I just explained how it is possible.
Hm. If nothing of what I’ve said is meaningful to you, then the things you need to hear about God are not ones I concern myself with. But good luck with it, I can think of few subjects more important.
On the other hand, if you had, from the beginning, a desire to participate in the thread, if for unformed or unclear reasons, maybe go over the first few posts more slowly, more calmly, let it swim around in your mind. It might prove fruitful or bring something to the fore of your mind that was stuck somewhere in the mechanism.
1 Like
What is the false conclusion there and why is it false?
OK. It seems like here you are saying that the listener/reader can KNOW the real intentions of the writer/speaker. But earlier you said:
The writer/speaker or the reader/listener?
Remember only one KNOWS the True intention and meaning. The other only THINKS they know.
So, from what you have said so far in this post: speakers/writers can be mistaken about their intentions. They can also be correct. Listeners/Readers can know the writer/speaker intentions, but can also be mistaken.
Can you be mistaken about the intentions of the people who write here? If you can, wouldn’t it be better to refrain from asserting as if you know what their intentions are?
What the false conclusion is, “the only one who knows is the speaker/writer”. Why it is false is, ‘the listener/reader might also know’. The listener/reader might have guessed the Right and True intention and meaning, and so does know. But, the only one who Truly knows (hightlighted KNOWS in capitlized letters), is the speaker/writer. So, only after clarification and clarity is sought out and obtained can the listener/reader Truly KNOW if what they had guessed and assumed is actually True and Right.
Imagine a “wife” at home and the “husband” walks in from work, the “wife” ‘can know’ how the “husband” is feeling and/or ‘can know’ how work was that day, meaning the “wife” could have ‘assumed/guessed correctly’, but the “wife” would NOT KNOW, for sure, until clarification and clarity is sought out and obtained first.
So, in situations where one speaks or writes (or just walks in), and the other listens or reads (or observes), the other ‘can know’, but it is only the speaker/writer who KNOWS, for sure, and with certainty, what the True intention and meaning is, exactly.
Remember only one KNOWS the True intention and meaning. The other only THINKS they know. Which means the other ‘can’ know, but they do not yet KNOW, for sure, with certainty.
Yes. Notice the ‘can’ word. Other people ‘can know’, but they do NOT YET KNOW for sure nor with certainty.
Where in ‘this post’ have I so far said, “speakers/writers can be mistaken about their intentions”?
So far in ‘this post’ I thought I was saying that listeners/readers can mistake the True intentions and meanings of “speakers/writers”.
When ‘you’ say and write here, “but can also be mistaken”, these words are in relation to listeners/readers, right?
If I make any, then Yes, OF COURSE.
If i want to, then, yes, it would be better to refrain from asserting as if i know what their intentions are. What would be much better and more productive thing to do is just seek out clarification and obtain clarity first.
So, the listener/speaker can not KNOW unless the speaker/writer clarifies. The former cannot just hear what is said or read what is written and KNOW. So, it would not make sense, ever, for the listener/reader to state with certain what the speaker/writer meant without first getting that clarification.
Aha. Then let me ask directly can speakers/writers be mistaken about their intentions?
Yes.
If you make any what?
If you want to what?
If this is what you believe and say so, then okay.
But I think you have just provided a precise example of what I have been saying and meaning.
What do you mean by ‘aha’, exactly?
Did I say ‘it’ or not?
Yes they can, but then ‘we’ are getting deeper down into the psyche of people. Which I do not think ‘we’ have resolved any misunderstanding so far.
Anyway, until speakers/writers KNOW “themselves” and the True Self, exactly, people, at times, are not fully aware of what it is exactly that they really want and intend.
Assumptions, presumptions, or guesses (about the intentions of the people who write here).
Make any assertions.
So, when you tell someone what their intentions are before getting clarification, would it be helpful if we reminded you that this is something you prefer to avoid doing?
If you think or believe this would be helpful, then you can remind me.
However, if what I say is actually True and Right, then do you think that it would still be helpful if you did that?
I asked you:
and I meant ‘would it be helpful to you?’
If you haven’t asked for clarification, then neither you nor I would know if it is actually True and Right. It would be a guess based on assumptions. If you were guess about my intentions without asking for clarification, I would KNOW, and there would be no need to help you since you would have made a lucky guess without clarification if you were right, and could remind you if you were wrong.
I recognised this previously.
This is why I used the ‘if’ word.
Or, it could be an assumption based on guesses.
Okay.
Right, but I was looking at the situation. Anew claims another person’s intention is _________. You don’t know and I don’t know if your guess is True and Real. Nevertheless you went ahead and made the claim. Perhaps later it will turn out to be correct, but there you were assuming and guessing.
So, would it be helpful to you to remind you not to guess/make assumptions when you guess/make assumptions about their intentions.
So, you are talking about something that might happen sometime, maybe in the near or maybe very far into the future, or maybe never.
If I recall correctly, that is exactly what I was expressing and explaining to you.
What claim, exactly?
What, exactly?
Are you pre/assuming that I might do this sometime in the future?
I was talking about what has happened in the past and that might happen sometime and might never happen again.
Yes, I find it useful to repeat things, if they are part of a slightly different whole. That way if I have misunderstood, the other person can correct me. I show the steps. Others may not want or need to do this, but I find it useful. Perhaps I misunderstood what you said. If I present it and it is incorrect, rather than having it tacit in my response and not written, the error is visible to all. Ah, there’s the error.
In a situation where you claim what the intentions of another writer here are. That claim. The one that would be based on assumptions/guesses if no clarifying questions were asked.
Their intentions. That is what you would have been guessing.
No. I’ve only noted it in the past. I do not know what will happen or might happen in the future.
Sorry, I apologise. I had ‘the below’ ‘in thought’ when I responded above.
As for ‘what happened in the past’, I am not sure what you are referring to, exactly.
Okay. I find asking for clarification instead more useful here. That is, of course, when those questions are answered and clarified.
I found asking questions more efficient, simpler, quicker, and easier. ‘But each to their own’, as some say.
Here is an example of when I am not fully understanding.
When I did what you do, and repeat things. That way, if I had misunderstood, you could have corrected me. Which you did when you wrote;
But here you stated, ‘In a situation where you ‘claim’ …’. Did you mean, ‘In a situation where you ‘claimed’ …’? Were we talking about ‘what happened in ‘the past’.’
you were talking about ‘some claim’ that I had, supposedly, ‘went ahead and made’ [the claim].
I do not recall making a claim about what the intentions of another writer here ‘were’.
(As always this is not to say that I have not, I was just asking out of genuine curiosity.)
This sounds like ‘past tense’ again here. Well, to me anyway.
Are we discussing one ‘that happened in the past’, or one ‘that might happen in the future’?
I agree; that is, if I ‘was’. But you wrote,
So, when ‘was’ I assuming and guessing ‘another’s intentions’.
Okay. And this was WHY my specific clarifying questions. Where and/or when, in the past, did you note me claiming what the intentions of another writer here were, exactly?
Which is why I only asked you about ‘pre/assuming’ and not ‘knowing’, and also why I specifically used the ‘might’ word only and not the ‘will’ word.
Anyway,
‘God’ in the visible and physical sense, is the Universe, itself, and what the Creator, It Self, actually is.
And,
‘God’ in the invisible and spiritual sense, is the Mind, Itself, and who the Creator, It Self, actually is.
Just something to think about.
That’s ok. I think the past or wider context has been a potential bone of contention, an area of abrasion. I think I will let sleeping dogs lie.
Which is really good. Of course including the past makes the past present again, so memory and searching are less necessary. There’s the past of the conversation right there, not just the strings of questions and answers in the uncollected flow. But again, I’m letting that sleeping dog lie.
That’s the great thing about present simple, it is actually timeless despite it’s name. But here we come to the crux. It does not matter when or if it happened or will.
If a present moment arises when that claim is made, I can point it out. If it never arises (note the use of present simple again), then no claim will be made in some present moment and no reminding will be necessary. The past can sleep. Who cares what happened then? [a rhetorical question]. If such a claim is made, a reminder can be made. If a claim is not made, no reminder is needed. I stay in the now(s).
This might wake the dog. We don’t need to wake the dog.