Dear Yuyutsu,

<<If going through their minds, then both experience not the same, but each their own mind.>>

Not the same what? You have left this open-ended and ambiguous by cutting out the all-important “lie” that we were talking about and constructing the sentence so that implies a switch to [...not the same] “mind”.

<<I wrote, "if your aim is to be good", not "if you want to know what is good".>>

You have to know what is good before you can aim to be it. You are playing semantics again.

<<Where did I write, "I know that"?>>

Again, you didn’t have to. You implicitly claimed THAT you knew by stating what you thought you knew and refusing to portray it as anything other than knowledge.

"I was telling you WHAT I know (if I know), not THAT I know..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199779)

As for your “redeemer liveth” example, knowledge is still implied because ‘2’ is stated as fact.

<<You are speaking of yourself as "they"?>>

No, I’m not. More semantical games.

<<Finally your subjective experience carries some weight and not just brainy assumptions.>>

What do you mean “finally”? To me it does. It doesn’t mean anything to anyone else and nor am I presenting it as a way of escaping a burden of proof.

<<Suppose I don't know, what business of yours is it?>>

Because you made the claim, and I want to assess the truth of it. That’s the nature of a rational mind. It’s not a red herring and nor does it necessitate a belief otherwise.

Again, do you expect that I just sit back, drool, and mindlessly absorb what you say? You are stating these things as fact. Furthermore, someone may read this and not think to question what you’re saying; by requesting support for your claims, I am providing you with an opportunity to demonstrate them, or highlighting the fact that you don’t in fact know any of this and are probably just making it up.

Continued…

...Continued

<<At the time of having a direct glimpse of myself, I know (I don't mean right now, now I only remember) that I have no limitations, that all is me, that there is nothing but myself.>>

How did you know that?

<<What other word fits better?>>

We make assessments of claims by contrasting them with what we already know. So I’m not sure. Temporal lobe epilepsy maybe..? Schizophrenia..?

<<If you wish to demonstrate the validity of concepts, then good luck...>>

I am not the one making the claims. The burden of proof is on you (even if just on a philosophical level). If you don’t want to fulfill that obligation, or state that you can’t or won’t provide support for your claims, then that’s fine; but it only makes you come across as dishonest (even if just with yourself), so you’re not doing yourself any favours there.

<<Regarding the definition of religion, I already made my point…>>

No, you didn’t. You begged the question by assuming that religious people own the word 'religion' in order to prove that they owned the word.

<<...and I am not interested in proving to you that you behave like a pig.>>

Well that was uncalled for. Now we have the ad hominem fallacy.

I have been quite polite and patient given the semantical games, false allegations, equivocation, red herrings and strawmen that I’ve had to deal with. I have shown you the courtesy of being completely upfront without any attempts to baffle. You speak of me wasting your time, and yet I’m continuously correcting ambiguously or deceitfully worded claims and statements from you. Like this...

<<...but as you claimed that you have a direct experience…>>

Yes, everyone does. At no point have I suggested anything mystical or religious, or that it was “a” direct experience. This was your invention in yesterday's attempt to shut the debate down prematurely. You would sooner be dishonest than to just walk away from a debate? You see, this is what the ego can do. Not behaviour I would expect from an “advanced soul”.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<You have left this open-ended and ambiguous>>

Here we go again. You asked me a question, so I answered. I had absolutely no other intent than to tick it off and get it over and done with, so ambiguous it will remain.

<<You have to know what is good before you can aim to be it.>>

I do not agree.

<<As for your “redeemer liveth” example, knowledge is still implied because ‘2’ is stated as fact.>>

Implied by whom? by you? then suit yourself.

(this is equivalent to someone telling you that they are sick and you implying that they are about to die)

<<To me it does. It doesn’t mean anything to anyone else>>

Why, to me it also does - it tells me that you are not just a robot.

<<Because you made the claim, and I want to assess the truth of it.>>

Then go ahead and assess it, but please don't involve me in that.

<<That’s the nature of a rational mind.>>

So why should I care to feed your rational mind? You are not even compensating me for my time!

<<Again, do you expect that I just sit back, drool, and mindlessly absorb what you say?>>

I don't. As far as I am concerned, you don't need to believe a word I wrote or absorb any of it.

<<I am providing you with an opportunity to demonstrate them, or highlighting the fact that you don’t in fact know any of this and are probably just making it up.>>

Thank you, but I am not interested in either at the moment.

<<How did you know that?>>

At this time I don't know.

<<We make assessments of claims by contrasting them with what we already know>>

First, speak for yourself rather on behalf of "We". Not everyone does that. Second, this is assuming that we want to assess those claims to begin with.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<If you don’t want to fulfill that obligation, or state that you can’t or won’t provide support for your claims, then that’s fine>>

Not that I agree that I have such obligations, but apparently it was not fine with you until now, because I said just that perhaps 100 times and you keep harassing me about it anyway.

<<but it only makes you come across as dishonest>>

That's OK, then I would be in the good company of many saints.

<<No, you didn’t. You begged the question by assuming that religious people own the word 'religion' in order to prove that they owned the word.>>

And then you addressed me as a sleek lawyer - OK, the law is on your side, but justice is not.

<<Well that was uncalled for. Now we have the ad hominem fallacy.>>

I thought you would say so, yet it relates to this particular behaviour of yours rather than to yourself: your use of the word 'religion' hurts religious people and makes it easier for others to justify violence against the religious. Technically or legally, you are not liable, but being aware of the damage yet being so insensitive about contributing to it, is commonly considered how pigs behave (not that those sweet pinky animals actually do it).

<<Yes, everyone does [have a direct experience].>>

No, for example I don't, not at this very moment. Most people, most of the time, experience whatever they experience indirectly through their mind and senses.

But I can understand that you can arrive at this conclusion due to the clumsiness of language. English unfortunately has no word to refer to what I am forced to translate as "direct experience", which involves no via between the experiencer and the experience and is only therefore possible because "both" are in fact the same. The original Sanskrit word is 'Anubhava', http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-Anubhava.html

Jesus, you fellas, get a room.

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<You asked me a question, so I answered. I had absolutely no other intent than to tick it off and get it over and done with, so ambiguous it will remain.>>

So why can’t you just say what you meant if you weren’t trying to obfuscate?

<<I do not agree [that you have to know what is good before you can aim to be it].>>

Please share how this works?

<<Implied by whom? by you?>>

No, Implied by the person who says it.

<<(this is equivalent to someone telling you that they are sick and you implying that they are about to die)>>

No, because that would be drawing something from what they said, that wasn’t necessarily implied. This is the argument from analogy fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy).

When we state something as fact, however, it is assumed (for the sake of brevity) that the person making the statement claims to know it. Otherwise, we add qualifiers such “In my opinion...”.

<<Then go ahead and assess it, but please don't involve me in that.>>

To assess it without further information would be foolish. If you make the claim, then only you can provide more information.

<<So why should I care to feed your rational mind?>>

You shouldn’t. But if you don’t want to appear dishonest, then you should provide support for your claims.

<<You are not even compensating me for my time!>>

I am also not forcing you to be here.

<<I don't. As far as I am concerned, you don't need to believe a word I wrote or absorb any of it.>>

So you expect that others just sit back, drool, and mindlessly absorb what you say then?

<<At this time I don't know.>>

So you did ‘know’ at the time, but you don’t ‘know’ now? If you don’t know anymore, then you must have, by necessity, come to the conclusion that you didn’t actually know at the time either. So why claim that you did?

<<First, speak for yourself rather on behalf of "We". Not everyone does that.>>

Well clearly.

Continued…