Thanks for the feedback OQ!
Your perspective on what we are discussing is valid. This discussion does seem to go back and forth where one minute it seems to make sense and the next it is confusing again.
I think that what we are doing here is trying to reconcile our belief systems in some way. Trying to see how the other sees and looking for overlap and common ground. By doing this, we can refine our view, test it against the new view, strengthen it in places, and
lop off restructure bits that no longer seem as valid as before. IMO, this type of discussion is synergistic growth.
Thus anything - any idea, concept or similar may be placed upon the table, rather than any rejection through perceptual bias for example. So the first point might be that everything may be considered, with the consideration for that which has yet to be considered also. The second point might be that nothing on the table is simply assumed to be an absolute truth.
I know what you are saying here, Al. It is what you have been explaining to me all along about considering "things" without perceptual bias or rejection of ideas. And I think for the most part we are aligned.
I agree that everything should be considered, and that nothing is an absolute truth. However, I feel that having no bias is too hands-off. Perceptual bias can limit thinking, but is necessary in order to gain a foothold. In other words, you have to have a perspective (a limited/specific perspective), and judge to some degree, otherwise everything is meaningless. I guess it depends on whether or not you believe collecting knowledge is collecting meaning? Do you?
I don't think progress can be made without judgement. And that gets back to my belief that progress is what we are here to do -- it is divine
will that we progress. So do you believe we are here to progress, or just to exist?
Also, I think it is possible to have a perspective (bias) and yet have a rule of thumb not to reject anything out-of-hand (to the best of one's human-limited ability). To consider all things possible. That's why I say I believe in everything. It is my way of saying that I do have a certain point of view, but I allow for everyone else's point of view as valid, in the very least, to them. And they are equal to me. So their view is a valid equal view (but not identical). Their view can only be viewed through my view (as my view is my identity), and as such, some views might be impossible for me to embrace or incorporate. But I still accept they exist as valid.
