Re: OT: Big Brother taking over EU...

<s_dubrovich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:af64a610-f1d9-493f-bac2-eb0476451550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 9, 6:14 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<s_dubrov...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


news:fdcd063c-6e16-494d-8a2b-73945123d1e4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

If it is true, can you be paranoid?

Wiktionary conveniently says: 2. Exhibiting extreme and irrational
fear or distrust of others.

The key words there, in my mind, is "of others."

Yes, well you are changing the meaning of the phrase for sake of
argument..

"Exhibiting extreme and irrational fear or distrust." Big difference, IMO.
"of others" requires the paranoia to be of people. It also defines who is
defining the paranoia for the individual perceived to be paranoid. Removing
"exhibiting" also changes the meaning quite drastically.

It is by "others",
specifically your "rationality" or "irrationality" versus the
"rationality"
or "irrationality" of a group of others, that the definition is defined.

Well, ideally the definition is without condemnation by a
dispassionate third party.

1) What if the paranoia is of dog's, or spiders, or imaginary Werewolves?
Is the paranoia not still paranoia, even if the fear isn't of people, i.e.,
"of others"?
2) What if the individual isn't "exhibiting" those characteristics? Is the
paranoia not still paranoia? Of course, it is....

The key is to whom does the truth eventually flow. Can he who is correct
in
truth be declared paranoid for his beliefs if those beliefs are
accurate?
If a billion people say something is true and one guy opposes, then he
is
declared irrational, or paranoid, or provoking fear, or attacking the
state,
or blaspheming a religion, etc.

But this is vigilante judgement, with a high probability of vigilante
justice.

Um, huh?... Are you saying the individual has some legitimate and
enforceable recourse against the group of billions who wronged that
individual? Under what system? What planet? Sign me up... It doesn't
exist in America.

But, if truth eventually confirms his
perspective, were his extreme and irrational fears, as perceived by
those
billion, actually confirmation of paranoia? No, they can't be for those
unproven or unconfirmed truths were actually truths or became truths
which
confirms his rationality. But even then, the billion will still refuse
to
have their now proven false beliefs classified as mass delirium or mass
delusion.

I doubt that my feelings or opinion will budge the billion one nit.
So for economy of threat risk assessment, I move onto other threat
assessments.

Yes. But, do you willingly suppress the expression of your - assumed to be
correct and truthful - beliefs, because you can't budge the billion? Or, do
you continue to express your belief - believing you will be vindicated - and
accept their wrath and condemnation until they're proven wrong?

The definitions are
biased in support of the beliefs or the faith, or the largest group, or
the
most authorative group, e.g., psychology. The definitions aren't based
on
truth, or logic, or science, or the individual's perspective as they
should
be.

I'd add here that small 't' truth, or logic, or science are no saviors
here either.

I'm not sure what you mean by "small 't' truth"...

There is only one truth. Basic logic proves this:

1) It is true, that that which is true is true.
2) It is true, that that which is false is false.
3) A set of all that is true, or "truth," includes everything known to be
true and everything known to be false, per 1 and 2.
4) If another set exists, and that second set is:
4a) ... indistinguishable from the first set, then the second set is
equivalent to the first set. Since they are identical, there is no need to
distinquish each set from the other, via small 't' etc. Therefore, there is
only one truth.
4b) ... distinguishable from the first set, then the second set is a subset
of the first set. The first set encompasses all that is true, or "truth,"
so the second set can't include something external to the first set to
become distinguishable from the first set, because there is nothing more to
include. Therefore, the second set can only exclude things from the first
set to become distinguishable from the first. I.e., the second set is
subset, and shouldn't be referred to as "truth" with any naming convention.
Therefore, again, there is only one truth.

Not what you meant?...

The first and third are still chained by 'individual's
perspective', whether bias, or knowlege set, or lack of knowlege.
....

And
the second is hampered by whole classes of non-computatibles, as the
Taoists show by mental exercise; 'show me a one ended stick', 'what is
the sound of one hand clapping', etc.

Of course, the "Taoist" questions (Are they really Taoist?...) presumes the
non-existence of an answer, or the question wouldn't have been asked. I.e.,
circular logic, or the contradiction of a rhetorical question. The
question, by design of the asker, also presumes the answerer isn't as smart
as the asker of the question, and that the answerer will make some incorrect
assumptions about the question as limited by their experience. E.g.,
teacher of student, or parent of child, etc. But, of course, with all such
assumptions, you could be proven wrong one day... We now know the egg came
first, with dinosaurs that evolved into birds, such as the chicken, due to
Science. We know that a tree falling without anyone around makes a sound,
again, due to Science.

A) 'show me a one ended stick'

Since the question doesn't require the stick to be naturally occurring or
even that the "stick" is make of wood or plant material..., but only
requires two things: "show me" and a "one ended stick". I'd glue one end of
a two ended stick, yes, made of wood..., to a stick steamed, formed, and
glued into a circle. It'd look a bit like a capital Q. See, even here, you
can see one ended stick... But, it's of black pixels, not wood...

B) 'what is the sound of one hand clapping'

Since the question, as posed, doesn't require the hand to strike itself to
produce the sound, the answer is: the same as two hands clapping. Slap your
hand on your shoulder, buttocks, or someone else's forehead.

HTH,


Rod Pemberton


.

Quantcast