One other point, We have to decide what we are truly discussing here: 1) Knowledge? 2) Truth? 3) Belief? For each thing is a different idea. For example, knowledge can be based per individual (Scientific knowledge, common sense, book knowledge, "life" knowledge etc.). And as I stated before, no matter the descriptive word put before knowledge, it is still knowledge. Truth on the other hand is decided (as FQ pointed out) more by a "Societal" or even individual thought/consensus (i.e. religions for spiritual truth, science for scientific truth, personal truths etc.) Then you have belief which (imo) tends to be formed by the building blocks of the other two (belief and truth) and is focused much more on an individual. This is why I mentioned FQ, it depends entirely on the type of truth you would be using to determine truth. And what kind of beliefs or knowledge you would be using to determine it as well.
Allow me to be a bit of a Kant. "General knowledge" isn't just a matterof each person sharing something which they've learned to be true. General knowledge is synthesised; which means that we don't just share knowledge, we actively work out what is true by checking that we've all seen the same thing, putting two and two together, and coming up with a valid, likely conclusion about the world. Meaning, in this context, I have to see Chen Bing win the UFC, confirm with you that you saw it too and it wasn't just one of my Glorious Quan delusions, and fromt hat we can synthesise knowledge as to Chen Bing's actual, international standing in the fight scene. As opposed to, you tell me he, or someone else, is great.... and I have to believe it.
I'm just going to tell you this once, because you may be new to internet forums. Once you get pwned, it's over for that fight. Continuing to pass bickering remarks with no relevance to the thread makes you seem petty.
Well, this is such a huge area. Truth, generally, is a simple function statement - is there a tiger in the cave? Or not. That's how our language evolved - practically. Knowledge is another matter. The basics in philosophy are that we can have personal knowledge - like, of God, or of our own love. Knowledge we share with others, on a social basis, is stll subjective in this sense - we don't have objective knowledge; that's a misunderstanding of simplistic modern thinking. We have synthetic knowledge - putting your two together with my two, and seeing that there is indeed a four... that way we build a "map" of the world which clearly corresponds to the world. A belief, clearly, is something we think might be true, or think is true, but can't prove. That in itself is difficult, because "faith" isn't simply a matter of belief in that semse - for example, Thomas Aquinas believed that men could rationally prove to themselves via argument that God exists; but only experience the truth via the mystery of faith. But if we cut through all the philosophy, and do as Wittgenstein suggeted - just ask if it's true or not in our usual, common sense view of the world, as in, well, is it true, did you really win the UFC? Then we won't go too far wrong. There's a limit to how much we should use philosophy to justify the idea that any old piece of bs could be true.
FQ, I think we are nearly on the same page. But I must say this post is so far off topic and went into philosophy I don't want to continue posting under it. When it comes to why most of us are on these forums it is to share knowledge we may not otherwise have access to. Or to discuss the same knowledge we may have under different circumstances. Knowledge of any MA is vast and extensive and no one can claim to have all the MA knowledge. So that is why I am here, to learn from others etc. But bickering and whining to the point of sounding like grade schoolers is what made me take numerous breaks from the forums. Ultimately most topics in the Tai Chi and IMA section going absolutely no where fast b/c people want "Proof" of this "Truth" of that etc. I am not saying that proof nor truth is a bad thing, nor should they not be sought out (especially when people make outrageous claims). But it gets to a point where people just do that to "push other people's buttons" and sometimes this seems like what you (FQ) do intentionally. Well I for one feel that when it comes to MA (Of any type) the Proof/Truth that you ask from most people can NEVER be proven on a Computer (whether it be forums, word of mouth, video etc.) If -you- want the proof or truth seek it out yourself, rather than asking others to do it (imo) in an impossible way. If you want proof that a MA works and the UFC is your "proving grounds" then you prove it yourself. After all this is where this discussion was going, I could tell you till I am blue in the face that "So and so" said/did this, but as you pointed out until you and I both see it/exp. it. You won't have proof. Many others may not agree with you using the UFC as your "Proving grounds" for numerous reasons. So that means they may need to seek out their own proof/truth. It is easy to sit behind a computer and ask for truth/proof. It is an entirely different beast to have the courage to seek it our for yourself. Sorry for the off topic. I am done with this thread.
In other words: *Sob... please stop asking questions.... please, you're ruining threads by asking people to provide evidence for what they say... sob.... And, and, and well... well you haven't entered the UFC, have you? No! Well then! How dare you question anything we claim then!* Well, let's say, Taoquan, that men should be judged by their peers. I'm happy to let UFC fighters question the claims of other UFC fighters. But I'm more than qualified to question people who simply offer BS. More than qualified. You couldn't be more wrong - or more guilty yourself of that which you accuse others of.
More than happy to talk otherwise FQ, but I don't want to keep putting IMA and Tai Chi threads so off topic. PM me if you really want to discuss more.
Yeah, funny this obsession with "discussing these issues in private". What is it that you fear? All this "we're making it off topic" is nonsense - it's about not wanting people to publicly question stuff. I want to question it all. In public.
Because we are in a TCC forum where people may come to learn about TCC, not hear us blabber about nonsensical topics. The OP probably quit reading this thread days ago, yet, here we both still are, so far just me and you. Does what we are talking about have anything to do with "Legs shaking in Meditation" anymore? No. Have we continued on for, what, 8 pages now all about the original question? No. No, off topic is not about "not wanting people to publicly question stuff." But there is a place for it. If I start a face to face discussion about MA and you come in and say "Isn't apple pie a better desert?" You are being rude and disruptive and taking the face to face discussion off topic. It is fine you are questioning things FQ, but you always seem to come in and ask about "Apple pie". Or you attempt to lure people into the discussion you want to have focusing threads solely onto you, then you justify it by saying "I am just questioning." Case in point: Your first post on this thread: aka "The Bait" Then someone "Bites" Taking you to your 4th post where you "Set the hook" Your 5th post: "Let them have some slack" (Oh so humble, especially comparing the "set the hook" post) And "Reel it in": I like how it took you till post #34 to begin to even ask an authentic question. Yet you sit back and say "Hey I am just questioning". No, what you have done on this thread is the same thing you do in every thread: 1) You are wrong 2) I am just saying from my exp. or "humbleness" 3) Nope still wrong 4) Now I question your wrongness to prove myself right 5) Now I push more buttons 6) we are completely off topic That is not sharing knowledge which is what we discussed, this is you trying to prove your own points in all your humbleness. Don't get me wrong, I question sometimes as well, questioning is good and it is a powerful tool. But in my opinion, you are not questioning, in as much as you are out to prove your methods the correct ones. In fact, I am just questioning your own methods. This last post shows your humbleness to a great extent: Once again, so I ask, you are the judge on all that is true? Once again, we find ourselves in this endless loop of you saying what -you- hold to be right and someone else holding on to what they think is right. This really is never ending.
You know, is this not the ultimate expression of making other people's claims all about the character flaws of the people who doubt them? L Ron Hubbard himself explicitly taught his followers to do that. While you're here, writing about how I'm responsible for making you be here, writing, you might just consider taking responsibility for your own choices - such as being here, writing, about how I'm responsible for making you be here, writing. Maybe there's other areas of your life you could conveniently blame on me, too? God knows, you're not repsonsible for what you choose to do.
I never placed responsibility on you that I am here. It seems to me FQ that even though your quote is a writer's creedo to "Never quote out of context" it seems you have taken my posts out of context. I never blamed you for making me be here...I merely pointed out you are one that derails threads. Two entirely different things. I have always taken full responsibility of my life and it seems a little low to try to make such a claim that I am "blaming you for me being here". As I said, my entire posts have been to my argument of how you seem to methodically derail threads. Yes, that is a pet peeve of mine and I accept that and admit it, because I see it as disrespectful to the people putting forth time and effort to keep threads on track. I own up to that.
That's because it's a joke - you know - it's followed by a quote from Old Palden taken completely out of context... Go back, check through them all again. Doyou really think I derail threads, even ones that I start or am interested in... just for... what... to make them all about how terrible I am - like this one? Is it out of some perverse masochism, do you think, or attention seeking? Go back, check, and you'll find that I never make the threads about me - you do, and other people who do what you do. See, welcome to the Matrix Neo... whatever this thread was about, now it's about me, and how bad I am. That's how it works, here in the Matrix, Neo... but you can't see it. How did it become about me, Neo? You made it about me, then blamed me for doing it - which is just another way of making it about me. And that happens to anyone who dares ask that most terrible of questions - is it true? Tell me, Taoquan, who are you really trying to convince that I'm a terrible person - me, or you?
No, I am not trying to convince at all, unfortunately it seems my previous post in our other round about discussion under IMAs is not going to go through. Which is terrible b/c it explained a lot. FQ, I don't see -you- as a bad person, nor your methods. What I disagree with and dislike is how you present them. They come off rude, disrespectful and arrogant, these things are somewhat of my own pet peeves. I -try- to treat others with respect and kindness, giving everyone the "benefit of the doubt" but I am human and get caught up in situations as well. I was just trying to point out how you present things, is what I don't like. Not you, this is NOT personal in anyway shape or form.
Try to understand, even if you don't believe it, that I believe, from my perspective, that there simply is no un-painful way to do it. All I have to do is doubt - that's all - that's all it takes to cause the pain. Sure, it rattles cages. Who is the most upset by that, if not those people who have the most vested interests in us not knowing that they are there? Despite the almost never ending personal insults, I try not to make it personal. I have a flare for the argument, which I use to my advantage - but if you look carefully, almost everythign I do is "fed" by the ridiculous, funny, vainglorious things that others throw at me. Actually, I'm an artist, and what I do is done beautifully.
Well if you can agree with me, then it's only fair that I admit that yet again you've proved me wrong.
Your creepiness aside, you need to consider how much power you give me, if I'm so strong that you can not help but remain attached to me and my words.
