Pastelland Forum

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:

Fair enough, but what do you mean by saying that you build the floor with your boards then?

By taking the borders, like the ones that keep you from seeing a movie, because it has some religious things you don't like. Or something that you don't believe, because it is kept out of your mind because of some thought that prevent you from believing it.

With the Floor, I can have a base to stand on, then explore all the Concepts, Possibility, and Realms that yet to be found.

There are two ways I could address this. Firstly, while I probably wouldn't go watch a religious movie, it is not because I'm somehow utterly disgusted by it, but because I don't think it would probably wouldn't be all that funny, and I go to the movies to be amused. Are you saying that all manner of preference is to be cast aside? For instance, may I no longer prefer cauliflower to broccoli if I embrace this concept?

Secondly, you seem to be asking us to look at the word without bias when making judgements. This sounds exactly like what we - and any decent logical thinker, for that matter - aspire for already. I know you've said this subject is beyond words, but can't you at least point us towards some part where we are wrong, if indeed we are? Is it our perception of bias, or it is our reasoning in general?

I think those are our origins as well, it's why I used the word "primal". Perhaps a better question is in what is our view of those origins, positive or negative?

That's what I got from your text. Could you expand on this?

That the part that gets tricky. It like that movie "Altered States". He found a way to get back to the Origin of the Human Race. The unevolved one. The truth I know is something like that, except I can keep it together.

I haven't really seen that movie, but since I seem to have understood what the origin is already, maybe I can get it. I don't, however, know in what light the movie portrayed the origins, although I'm going to assume negative from "unevolved", word usually used in negative contexts. So how was I wrong then? Are we to embrace our origins or stomp them to death? Are they good or bad, or both.

EDIT: Also, we aren't angry at you at all.

While it is true we all have primal rages in us, they only "activate" when we are provoked.
And not just humans, but animals too.

Secondly, you seem to be asking us to look at the word without bias when making judgements.

I don't think he's referring to all bias, if you take away that you'd have nothing left as you take away your opinion with it. I think he means influence from external/internal sources (by internal I mean anything limiting the clarity of one's thoughts) with the exclusion of opinion. What I am referring to in similar, but overall makes a significant difference. I hope I haven't confused anyone.

Please! I'm SORRY!

Calm down.

primal

I don't know about anyone else, but I've noticed that the further we go back in time the simpler life is and the less individuals have an impact on others (I do not mean person-to-person interaction).

I don't think he's referring to all bias, if you take away that you'd have nothing left as you take away your opinion with it. I think he means influence from external/internal sources (by internal I mean anything limiting the clarity of one's thoughts) with the exclusion of opinion. What I am referring to in similar, but overall makes a significant difference. I hope I haven't confused anyone.

Ahhh... now that is possibly the best alternative interpretation for his thoughts that I've heard. Part of my problem with this hole line of "reject all bias and just go with observation/reason" is that we still have a bias that our senses and reason are accurate. If you get rid of that bias, you loose your floor, so yes, you would have to have some bias.

And yes, World, were not mad at you.

I know what the Truth is.
It this.


This is why I couldn't tell you in words.

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:I know what the Truth is.
It this.

[image]

This is why I couldn't tell you in words.

I find it a bit curious that you can actively know something, yet totally lack all the vocabulary needed to present or even paraphrase it. Your drawing seems to be - in the light of the discussion - a representation of the Darkness surrounding and seemingly overpowering the light. Are you saying the Darkness covering the Truth from us? This is yet another - rather complex - metaphor, which has dozens of possible interpretations. I can't just know what you meant when you drew this, especially since this drawing is so simple with only a few features.

EDIT: So could you perhaps try to explain? You don't have to be thorough, just don't make me guess what you mean.

While "a picture says a thousand words," like we've been telling you:

1) We're not angry at you, we're trying to have a logical and rational discussion.
2) Try to explain yourself - Saying "I can't explain myself" doesn't make the discussion move forward.

Point out the bias please, because I fail to see what one-sided argument we've been making. While even universal truths may not all be universal, telling us that "we have the floor but have to look around" isn't very helpful. Why would we have the floor if we weren't going to look around? That's where the confusion comes in, and that's where you keep answering either "I can't explain it to you" or you respond with that image. Just try, no one's going to attack you for trying.

I understand you're not calling us derogatory terms, I never said you were, that came from your thoughts alone.

So *the Truth* is something scribbled on a piece of paper? Cool.

It just came to me one day. It was nagging me like a bad song you can't get out of you head. It just repeated over and over "The Answer".

I drew it and the nagging thought was gone.

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:It just came to me one day. It was nagging me like a bad song you can't get out of you head. It just repeated over and over "The Answer".

I drew it and the nagging thought was gone.

You're not seriously saying that The Answer and The Truth are a drawing, are you?