Reply #56: Shrug And maybe I do have that monopoly on reality, [View All]

It would take a monopoly by you to make a statement that I don't. Basically I am guessing you are discussing mutable reality.

I don't consider your position to be more enlightened, nor do I claim to always be correct, nor do I believe that people can not make best guesses.

If your plane was more enlightened, you would not have to say it, it would be shown by your comment. However I would guess you are in anarchy mode, lots of them around lately. No need to move to some 'other plane' considering even by your argument it may not even exist. You may even have a touch of secret doctrine, but that is just a guess.

I think people should be nice, but I don't need a monopoly to believe something, nor to have an opinion on something.

I also think Karl Rove lies, that does not mean he does, nor does it mean everyone thinks he does. It means I think he does, and I can think that based on my best guess of reality. And I can call him a liar, although knowing I am not perfect that does not make him a liar, it only shows that I think he is.

I actually do understand your argument I just don't agree with it, most likely you are making the doctrine of multiple realities based on an individual, therefore nothing can be known for sure, and to say someone lies is making an evaluation of what is truth to them, since lying requires intent. Or you could even go as far as to say two people could be in different realities where he could tell the truth while lying in a separate persons reality. Sort of information dilation effect, where the perception and thoughts define a reality literally so he would then be able to say the truth that is also a lie after crossing a boundary between someone in a different reality. Those realities can be thought different by something simple like perception, or complex by actual modification of space time between communicating individuals. I know all those doctrines and found flaws in them long ago. If you were to assume everyone creates there own reality, then Rove could tell the truth by his creation of his reality, while I see him lie by my creation of reality, and any interaction is changed during process of observation. Many variations on those thoughts.

I am well aware of multiple reality concepts, perceptions, and even modifications that can create different views of existence. However the Karl Rove that lies is the one based on the reality from my information set. As is any statement made by anyone, or any other thought is based on the reality of their experiences.

My point is I choose to see reality based on the one I experience, since that is the one that is real for me, if there is a different reality that changes his lie to truth, he has to be able to explain that, until then he lies. And that is his choice and I don't hate him for it, I just think he has a different set of values on many issues. And if he can not form a way to explain that, either you have to say I completely claim control over my reality, and do not allow him to explain that, or he would not want to. Been through most of those variations.

You could be making the basic statement nobody knows anything for sure, and then making the leap to not being able to think anything about anyone from that. However that ignores best guess, which is what everything is, and in the argument of nobody knows anything, you don't know if when I read the word lie I don't see wuffy duffy waffle cone. and I may be saying he is a wuffy duffy waffle cone, and you see that as me saying he lies. At some point there has to be some standards of reality that can be discussed, or there is no communication, and it seems your argument is that there can not be any transfer of thought since people would have to agree on something for someone to say it.