(...continued)

<<That would not be straying from the subject.>>

If the subject is Muslims and their Koran, then it's not about Yuyutsu, what she thinks, believes or knows, etc.

<<I was telling you WHAT I know (if I know), not THAT I know>>

Suppose even that I don't really know, then it's still the WHAT [I don't know] which I write about, rather than the THAT. In other words, you took my words out of context.

<<That makes no sense if you want to defend religion. Unless, again, you’re just targeting the gullible.>>

I'd be a fool to write to those who don't want to listen.

<<I have made no such threats.>>

It's still unclear whether you intend to purposely interfere in my conversations with others, trying to impose your epistemology even when the issue of knowledge has not come up in our conversation.

<<It makes perfect sense.>>

Perhaps, but not to me. As I said, I lost the context long ago.

<<we assess claims all the time.>>

Not all the time and not all claims.

<<My entire life...used to be a life surrounded by nothing but Christians and religion.

Christians by claim: were they really willing to sacrifice their life on the cross if necessary for the love of God and others?

<<I suppose you wouldn’t consider these people “yours” then>>

Are you proud of how your enciclopaedists' propaganda was successful in confusing a young religious person? The guy seems to understand the process of religion, but fails to recognise that this is what 'religion' historically referred to before Western-"enlightenment" claimed that this process (which he acknowledged) does not exist, hence the word is vacant.

<<The fact that it is as direct as my experiences can get,>>

Sorry, "as direct" is not "direct".

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<I lost the thread long ago...>>

You only have to go back 2-3 days to understand the context of what I said yesterday. If you can’t hold the context of a question that was set within the last couple of days, then this is going to be a very long conversation indeed.

<<Communication thus is bound to be partial and distorted...>>

Ah, so it’s not that it's entirely unreliable; you're claiming that there is some other realm/dimension/level/plane accessible by using some means other than the mind, and the mind tricks us into thinking that the other realm/dimension/level/plane isn't important or doesn't exist?

If this is the case, then how could you tell the difference other than by appealing to these “direct experiences” that you have no way of distinguishing from a neurological event?

<<But even one such counter-example is sufficient to disprove that "you have to know what is good before you can aim to be it".>>

Context is the key.

Here, I've done half your work for you by tracking down where it all started:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199999

Start tracing.

<<They could perhaps be wrong … but they could be right too … which is sufficient to disprove what you said.>>

Out of context, yes. But that hardly means much, given how utterly unreliable it would be. Someone who aims to do good should also care about whether or not what they're doing is actually good, and someone who cares would not rely on your list of other possibilities.

<<First, most of the time I don't say "this is a fact"...>>

You don't have to. That's been my whole point. Go back and trace this line of discussion if you want to respond to it. Stop wasting my time.

<<Second, even when I use the word 'fact' … I could well refer to a fact which I don't know...>>

So this is your new tactic to get around your burden of proof? You would still have an implicit burden of proof. But moving on...

<<(most of the time this is indeed the case, but that's another story).>>

Continued…

…Continued

Oh no, if you’re trying to wriggle out of your burden of proof, then it’s a part of THIS story. Please do share.

<<If the subject is Muslims and their Koran, then it's not about Yuyutsu…>>

Correct. That’s where implicit language comes into the mix.

<<Suppose even that I don't really know, then it's still the WHAT [I don't know] which I write about...>>

Removing the implicit claim to knowledge changes the context entirely. I have taken nothing out of context. Nice try, but I am not to blame for your obfuscation.

<<I'd be a fool to write to those who don't want to listen.>>

Uh, uh, uh... It’s not about not listening. I already cleared this up a while ago:

"...there’s a difference between being open to other perspectives and just gullibly accepting them…" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199803)

<<It's still unclear whether you intend to purposely interfere in my conversations with others…>>

If you “interfere” with the discussions of others with your unfounded claims about what religion is, then I probably will. I don’t know. I’m not that calculating.

<<…trying to impose your epistemology even when the issue of knowledge has not come up in our conversation.>>

Knowledge has been implied continuously and even claimed twice:

AJ: "You wouldn’t be lying by portraying what you believe to be knowledge as opinion."
Yuyutsu: "But I wouldn't be telling the whole truth either."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199779

"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 I said, I lost the context long ago.>>

I wouldn’t call two days “long ago”. Here’s where it starts: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#200070

The things I do for you…

<<Not all the time and not all claims.>>

Of course not all claims, because we can’t know every claim. But we do assess them all the time because they are implicitly expressed as assumptions in everything we say. If I say that I own a dog, you would take what I said at face-value because you know that dogs exist (well you're probably not so sure, but anyway...) and people sometimes own them as pets.

Continued…

…Continued

If I say that I travelled back in time, then you would assess that by contrasting it with what you already know and exercise an extreme amount of scepticism as a result.

<<Christians by claim: were they really willing to sacrifice their life…>>

Now you actually HAVE committed the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.

They all sincerely believed they would, yes. Whether or not they actually would have (had the time come for them to do it) is impossible for either of us to say.

<<Are you proud of how your enciclopaedists' propaganda was successful in confusing a young religious person?>>

Firstly, it wasn’t just one person there, there were over 11,000,000 other search results - which is why I provided you with a link to a Google search instead of a link to the video.

Secondly, you still have not demonstrated that there was any ill will or intent in the change of the definition of ‘religion’. The best you’ve done so far is slander others with claims of an injustice having been committed, while artfully dodging your burden of proof there.

<<…this is what 'religion' historically referred to before Western-"enlightenment" claimed that this process ... does not exist..>>

Where (during the Enlightenment) is the claim that this process doesn’t “exist”? How is such a claim fundamental to the Enlightenment?

<<Sorry, "as direct" is not "direct".>>

Sorry, but if experiencing anything closer is impossible or indistinguishable from mental illness, then referring to my day-to-day experience as "direct" is completely acceptable; especially in relation to actually being a brain in a vat and inventing this entire reality in my own mind, should that be the case.

Dear AJ Philips,

<<you're claiming that there is some other realm/dimension/level/plane>>

No, I'm not aware of the existence of anything but the physical world, which likely includes the "mind" itself.
Even if the world could be divided that way, it would make no real difference.

The mind, being of the world, can only inform us about the world, but although the world exists, existence itself is an illusion.

<<Context is the key.>>

True.

So will you kindly tell me what the context is; why I keep receiving a rain of so many questions to answer; what reason(s), if any, should I have to answer them; and what reason(s), if any, should I have to go back reading 38 pages of stuff I'm not even interested in?

Otherwise you risk receiving answers one by one to the questions you've written rather than to what you may have had in mind.

<<Someone who aims to do good should also care about whether or not what they're doing is actually good>>

But must knowing what is good be the answer? The only way? Why? Perhaps you are just making an excuse here because you enjoy knowing and it's your hobby?

Further, as knowing anything is not truly possible, how less so knowing what is good, then why try?

Further, even if truly knowing was possible, does it worth the price?

<<Please do share.>>

All I meant is the above, that since the mind interposes itself and since the mind controls the senses, objective information can't tell us anything about the truth, so we truly don't know anything, including what we say because we get the information through our unreliable mind (including its memory and language functions).

<<If you “interfere” with the discussions of others with your unfounded claims about what religion is, then I probably will.>>

That was not answering my question. I repeat:
"It's still unclear whether you intend to purposely interfere in my conversations with others, trying to impose your epistemology even when the issue of knowledge has not come up in our conversation."

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<If I say that I travelled back in time, then you would assess that by contrasting it with what you already know and exercise an extreme amount of scepticism as a result.>>

Only if I cared enough whether or not you travelled back in time.

<<They all sincerely believed they would, yes.>>

While they admire the ideal, only very few of the Christian creed delude themselves that they would in fact be willing to lay their life on the cross if needed for the love of God and others.

<<Where (during the Enlightenment) is the claim that this process doesn’t “exist”? How is such a claim fundamental to the Enlightenment?>>

Implicit in the definitions of those who wrote the first English dictionaries, had they either believed that the religious process exists OR respected those who hold that belief, then they wouldn't use the word which those who believe in that process use among themselves to describe it, to describe something else.

<<Sorry, but if experiencing anything closer is impossible or indistinguishable from mental illness, then referring to my day-to-day experience as "direct" is completely acceptable; especially in relation to actually being a brain in a vat and inventing this entire reality in my own mind, should that be the case.>>

Once you had even a glimpse of anubhava, you could no longer even conceive of yourself as a brain, no matter where that brain is located. The fact that you do, indicates that you don't know who you are, thus never had an anubhava. For me, how that is possible, for anyone not to know who they are, is very strange because I remember knowing myself at the age of 1.5 years, but apparently others tell me that they don't, which for me it's as if they told me that the sky is green and the sun shines at night.