Does anyone else suffer from my problems?
Where I mishear or misread something.
The latest incident is a BBC website article, where I initially read.
Call to exclude pupils with ASD.
It actually read.
Call to test excluded pupils for ADHD.
I often watch DVDs with subtitles. And when I'm unsure of what was said or written I rewind and listen/read again. And the second time round it's different.
I misunderstand stuff all the time because I see the world so differently and I’ve understood enough of how a lot of people see the world to not bother to try and understand what they’re saying most of the time and my interpretation is usually much more fun so I prefer to stick with that, unless it’s important for me (or them) to understand and then I’ll put in the effort, otherwise it’s just me, myself and I in my little world
BlueRay said:I see the world so differently and I’ve understood enough of how a lot of people see the world to not bother to try and understand what they’re saying most of the time and my interpretation is usually much more fun
Well, there you go, BlueRay. Exactly. You see the world so differently. The corollary being, other people see the world so differently to you. And if you can't be bothered to try to understand what they're saying, and prefer to interpret things in a way that is more fun for you, then that's probably why you don't get other people's viewpoints.
Of course they do, we ALL do and I don’t have to try to understand people, I generally do, and unless we’re in a conversation of some kind, I don’t waste my time thinking about how other people see the world, I just accept them as I find them and get on with living. And I’ve rarely, if ever, failed to understand another person’s point of view because I don’t stop until I do understand it. That’s how I live, I keep going ‘until’ ~ so if I’m in a situation that requires me to understand another person’s point of view, in work say with a client, then I don’t stop ‘until’ I do understand it, it’s as simple as that really.
If that's the case, then why do you so often present your own beliefs and perspectives as universal truths ('Poverty doesn't exist,' et al)?
These aren't universal truths. They're your beliefs. Which makes them no truer than anyone else's.
I have my beliefs, too. I try to present them as 'In my belief' or 'In my opinion'. I don't accept that they're the only ways of seeing things.
Because they are Universal Truths. Poverty doesn’t exist. It’s a mind set. If I asked you to show me poverty, what would it look like? You could show me a table or a chair but you couldn’t show me poverty.
This is a universal truth. What isn’t, is poverty. That is simply an individual’s belief about their situation and it can change at any time. A table isn’t suddenly going to change, if for example you brought a chair into the room. But poverty or the idea of it might change if you throw a bag full of money into the mix.
If a person ‘believes’ they are living in poverty (i.e. they have the mindset that they are living in poverty) then it’s very difficult for them to get out of what appears to be actual poverty. The subconscious mind, accepts without judgement and whether it’s ‘True’ or not, that which the conscious mind believes and it will bring into the person’s experience, that which they believe. So if a person believes they’re living in poverty then that’s what they will experience in their outer life. They can’t not. This is a universal truth.
Anybody who has belief’s is suffering in one way or another because believing our beliefs is the only cause of suffering.
Isn’t it pretty obvious that when you’re talking, you’re talking from your perspective? How else can you talk unless you’re reciting the thoughts or veiws of somebody else and in that case, I would say yes, make that obvious. Otherwise we can safely assume that when somebody is talking, they’re talking from their own experiences, points of view, etc etc.
p.s. I don’t have any beliefs. I either know something or I don’t, I don’t have beliefs. I found them to be not only the cause of my suffering but pretty pointless as well, even if they didn’t cause me to suffer.
There's very little that is actually "a universal truth". When I was a youngling, I went through the phase like most (all?) teenagers do, of thinking that I knew pretty much everything. As I've gotten older, I've realised that actually the things that I know which are absolutely uncontroversially true are probably very few and far between. Furthermore, I probably couldn't even identify what they were.
It stems from the big fish in a small pond situation that children/young adult adults find themselves in.
People who realise that they don't know it all, and that there are very few things that are uncontroversial universal truths tend to start realising that around 30 - 40. If they're not past that stage by 40 then I wouldn't hold much hope of them ever coming out of it.
That's not the issue here though. The issue here is one of the basic rules of educated discord - you have to define your terms, and try and reach an agreement on a shared definition of those terms. Otherwise you're just wasting your time because you'll be arguing till you're blue in the face and probably not even over the same thing.
So no, you can't show somebody "a poverty", because poverty is an abstract concept. What the concept of poverty means depends on how you define it. But actually there is no such thing as chair, or dog, or table either, because table, chair and dog are abstract concepts too - they are terms that describe a class of things. As it happens, there's a sufficiently well shared concept of what tables, chairs and dogs are, that people can generally identify and agree on things that are instances of those classes. But you can't see "chair" because "chair" doesn't exist, you can only see particular instances of things which belong to the class chair.
So I can see my computer table, because that is a particular thing, and I can identify it as a table because it shares the attributes which one usually associates with tables.
For something to be true, it must be true for everybody, all of the time and it can never change. If it could change, then it was never true, it simply appeared to be true, and truth seekers don’t bother with these.
There are many universal truths, ask Einstein, if you want someone clever to tell you and if you want to see or know those truths, you simply make the decision to do that and at some point on your journey, you will discover or become aware of the universal truths. They’re there or should I say, here. Just because a person isn’t aware of them, it doesn’t mean they’re not there and they have nothing to do with knowledge. As far as knowledge is concerned, none of us knows anything. Knowledge and science is always updating.
You’re right, there is no such thing as a chair but we can all agree what a chair is, but poverty is an experience that a person has when they believe the thought that they’re living in poverty.
BlueRay said:There are many universal truths, ask Einstein,
And that is where you are wrong. Very little of what people call "scientific fact" is in fact incontrovertibly true. Einstein would be the first person to tell you that. Scientific theories are just hypotheses which, by consensus, are agreed to be the best known explanation for particular phenomenon. But by their nature, scientific hypotheses / theories are falsifiable. That is to say it is possible to potentially find instances where what the hypothesis / theory predicts something that turns out to be not what is actually observed to happen.
Case in point. There was this young whippersnapper called Isaac Newton who postulated his "Universal law gravitation". He was able to provide strong experimental evidence for his hypothesis, and others were able to repeat his results, and also his law to make predictions of other phenomenon which matched the predictions. So Newton's hypothesis of gravity became an accepted theory. That was fine until a few hundred years later when another young whippersnapper called Albert Einstein came along and said "Newton's universal law of gravity is all fine and dandy, but actually it doesn't work in these circumstances. Instead I propose Einstein's general relativity to replace Newton's law as a better model".
But we already know that Einstein's model is wrong, because it doesn't match with our best understanding of the microscopic world of the makeup of matter called "The Standard Model". And all our experimental evidence to date suggests that the standard model is correct. So that tells us that neither general relativity, nor the standard model are correct, because they don't consistently predict the same outcomes. In other words, we know that much of the basis of modern physics is wrong, because our two best models don't play together.
But that's fine, because we can still use these models to predict much that is of use, but we know that they are not the be all and end all and universal truths, because actually we know that they are wrong.
BlueRay said: but poverty is an experience that a person has when they believe the thought that they’re living in poverty.
And again, this is where you are wrong. What you are asserting is not the universal truth that you believe it is. What you claiming is that if you define poverty in the way that you like to define it, which I can absolutely guarantee you is not a definition with any consensus behind it, then that is true. So it is not true that poverty doesn't exist because it's all a figment of your imagination, because the majority of people in the world don't accept that definition.
Who’s taking about scientific theories? If you study Einstein’s work, you’ll find that much of it was never published. One, because the public would never believe it and two, because it wasn’t at that point known to him, that it can be scientifically proved.
Here’s just one universal law. What a man thinks and believes is true about him, will manifest into his outer, physical experience. You don’t have to ‘believe’ this and it’s very easy to put it to the test in your own experience.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. You can define poverty in any which way you want but you will NEVER make it true. It is simply a mindset. Nothing more. And again, I don’t believe anything. I don’t have beliefs. I either know something or I don’t. To believe, is to doubt, and if I had a doubt, I don’t know if it, so I simply don’t know.
But if somebody believes in poverty. That it exists as an actually ‘thing’, they will give you proof. Look, this person has no money so they’re poor, etc etc and so when they have less money than they think is on or above the poverty line, that they’ve decided exists, they will instantly think they’re poor, and that will be their outer experience. But not everybody defines themselves by how much money they have so it meaningless in that sense, to look at their outer situation and judge it by means of how much money they have or don’t have. If they had no money, they would just think, I have no money. They wouldn’t think they’re ‘poor’ because they don’t equate how much money they have with who they are.
BlueRay said:No, that’s not what I’m saying. You can define poverty in any which way you want but you will NEVER make it true. It is simply a mindset. Nothing more. And again, I don’t believe anything. I don’t have beliefs. I either know something or I don’t. To believe, is to doubt, and if I had a doubt, I don’t know if it, so I simply don’t know.
Well, here we arrive at the contradiction.
You saying that poverty is simply a mindset is simply *YOUR BELIEF*. And yet you don't have beliefs. Except clearly you do. Hence your statement "I don't have beliefs" is clearly contradicted.
No. I’m saying, for somebody to live in poverty, they must first of all believe that poverty even exists. They must ‘believe’ that poverty is an actual ‘thing’. For example, they must think it is so real, that it could actually happen to them one day. And from what they’ve heard and read about it, it’s a terrible thing. It would be like you would have the belief that you could actually end up as being one of these things one day. You could end up being a poor person. You could actually find yourself living in poverty, it’s so real.
But how would you know? So to give evidence to your belief, you might say, if I can’t afford to pay my bills and buy food, then I must be poor. I’m living in poverty. If I have food for one day, I can’t be poor, I have to have no food on at least seven days in a row to make me poor. A poor person. Somebody who was once rich, I presume, and now they’re poor. Just like that, in the drop of a hat. Or whatever you decide would make you ‘poor’.
If you don’t ‘believe’ that poverty exists, beyond a mindset, you can’t believe in it therefore it doesn’t exist. How does it exist? Just because I have little money and eat from food banks and some people might say, according to their beliefs and parameters of poor etc, that I’m living in poverty, doesn’t mean I am, because I’m not. And according to some people’s parameters, I’m living in absolute luxury. I’ve got a lovely warm, in fact, often sweltering (because I don’t always tell when I’m too hot) house. I’ve got a bed and settle etc, all the usual things that provide a comfortable life at home. I’ve got a heart, overflowing with love and gratitude, I see beauty everywhere. I couldn’t see myself as living in poverty, if you put a gun to my head and said you must believe it. I just don’t measure myself and who I am or think I am by how much money I’ve got. It’s not a measure of who I am. I hold other things more dear. Such as love, kindebess, generosity etc etc. All the things that hold the most value to me. Me not having money is just me not having money. I don’t add a judgement to it but some people do and that’s perfectly ok for them. Of course it is. Whatever makes you happy.
So to me, who doesn’t believe that poverty exists, beyond a mindset, it just doesn’t exist. I know it doesn’t. And if you can show me where it is or how I get it or whatever, please do.