Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Jumping to Concussions in a Rush to Judgement


Mike
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mike said:

But what I have tried to say many times here is that, when it comes to applying critical thinking skills to PFAL, I finished that stage of my life about 24 years ago.

I applied critical thinking to VPW, TWI, PFAL, and the Bible long ago, when I first was witnessed to. 

I was trained to be a critical science thinker, and right at my start, before I took the class, people were laughing at me for my excessive critical thinking.  I was famous for bringing paper and pen to twigs. I brought long lists of questions to meetings that would have a ministry leader visiting. 

While many around me were making lifelong decisions, I was cranking away at critical thinking. 

Slowly, over the course of years, the PFAL books and collaterals passed my tests.  I adopted all sorts of attitudes during my critical thinking years, and often I was perceived by leaders as on the edge of tripping out with my questioning. I pressed on, in spite of frequent pressures to just join in and quit being so intellectual.

There were phases in my critical thinking years where I was quite angry at VPW.  It was a roller coaster at times, but by 1998 it all settled down to me accepting the collaterals as my bottom line for inquiry. It was a careful unemotional decision that was carefully built over a course of over 26 years.

So when it comes to the issue of the collaterals being at the center of my life, I am no longer trying to be objective.  That whole phase is over for me.

 

 

*/*/*/*/*

 

 

I have never seen an advocate of critical thinking skills have a plan for what to do when something PASSES THE TESTS, and the critical testing phase of it is over.  What is there to criticize when something passes all the critical thinking tests? 

Our culture, and especially academic culture, strictly forbids seekers from being finders.  I reject that myopic point of view.  A seeker must be prepared to change the game once the sought truth is found. Otherwise, such a seeker is not looking for truth, but for novelty.

When a truth is arrived at, confirmation bias is not the big disease that academia sees it as.  In science confirmation bias is technically called “Normal Science” and it is a good mode of inquiry.  Confirmation bias is good when you are sure of something, but you don’t know HOW sure.  Sure can be led to more sure, with the right kinds of inquiry perspective.

So, my rut is non-civil conversation, and progress would be us first all recognizing and respecting our differing positions.  From there we may be able to work out some applications of exploratory, non-adversarial, conversations that can help those wo left TWI years ago, and those who are in TWI-4 and coming out into the light.

 

It is so good to get this out of your own mouth written where it is visible.

I mean every reader here has an idea that you no longer apply critical thinking skills to VPW and PFAL.

But to get from your own mouth that it was 24 years ago the last time you applied critical thinking skills to PFAL.  That is helpful to document.  We see how true it is believe me.

I have tried numerous times to engage you in these critical thinking skills, but every single time you evade any points I make for various reasons.  First, it was anti idol hate.  Then it was too quickly “snapping” to love and hate.  Then is was a ridiculous analog / digital analogy.  Now you are belittling critical thinking points calling them a “food fight”

In reality it is the “ostrich” factor.  The “ostrich” has some kind of instinctual response to bury the head in the sand when anything it doesn’t want to look at is around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

I may have my terms a little confused.  It may be there is a better name already to describe what I mentioned.  I am very familiar with Kuhn (long story), but I am very unfamiliar with the term "confirmation bias."  

I have a much better handle on the other terms I used.

Thanks, and you have a Merry Christmas.

And the New Year can mean some new modes of communication.

 

To get you started....

Confirmation bias, a phrase coined by English psychologist Peter Wason, is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms or strengthens their beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed.[2] Confirmation bias is an example of a cognitive bias.

Some psychologists restrict the term "confirmation bias" to selective collection of evidence that supports what one already believes while ignoring or rejecting evidence that supports a different conclusion. Others apply the term more broadly to the tendency to preserve one's existing beliefs when searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory.[6]

Confirmation bias is a result of automatic, unintentional strategies rather than deliberate deception.[8][9] Confirmation bias cannot be avoided or eliminated, but only managed by improving education and critical thinking skills.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Definition_and_context

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

How do you know? Have you experienced death?

Those questions move off into a new topic; one I'd prefer to discuss later.

The "no consciousness after death"  notion was offered as an example of academic prohibitions on arriving at an end truth. 

HOW I arrived at that truth matters not, in my proving the point that academia frowns on the idea that anyone can know anything important for sure, in principle.

We can discuss how I arrived at that some other time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

To get you started....

Confirmation bias, a phrase coined by English psychologist Peter Wason, is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms or strengthens their beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed.[2] Confirmation bias is an example of a cognitive bias.

Some psychologists restrict the term "confirmation bias" to selective collection of evidence that supports what one already believes while ignoring or rejecting evidence that supports a different conclusion. Others apply the term more broadly to the tendency to preserve one's existing beliefs when searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory.[6]

Confirmation bias is a result of automatic, unintentional strategies rather than deliberate deception.[8][9] Confirmation bias cannot be avoided or eliminated, but only managed by improving education and critical thinking skills.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Definition_and_context

Can I upvote this twice?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

Those questions move off into a new topic; one I'd prefer to discuss later.

They're only off topic if you're planning to build a strawman.

 

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

proving the point that academia frowns on the idea that anyone can know anything important for sure, in principle.

That's absurd. You haven't proven anything even remotely close to that and can't because it's not a provable point, it's a personal opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This posting flurry has overwhelmed me, in the sense that as I am slowly composing a text to catch up on responses, 3 more posts go up that I don't see.  Some of these get lost in the "scroll up" and it all gets too confusing. 

I still have a few posts from much earlier to catch up on.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mike said:

Those questions move off into a new topic; one I'd prefer to discuss later.

The "no consciousness after death"  notion was offered as an example of academic prohibitions on arriving at an end truth. 

HOW I arrived at that truth matters not, in my proving the point that academia frowns on the idea that anyone can know anything important for sure, in principle.

We can discuss how I arrived at that some other time.

Really? Are we not talking about heuristics and epistemology? How (H-O-W) we know or don’t know?

My question is right on topic.

 

I’ve seen this deflective tactic before. I’m not disappointed, because I don’t expect more from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Really? Are we not talking about heuristics and epistemology? How (H-O-W) we know or don’t know?

My question is right on topic.

I’ve seen this deflective tactic before. I’m not disappointed, because I don’t expect more from you.

What I was talking about was academia forbidding the kind of surety I enjoyed.
I gave an example of what is forbidden.


The way they forbid it is to demand I prove it in a way they understand and accept. I tell them that is not the way I came to become sure of it.  They say (to the effect) we do not accept those kinds of proofs, only our types of proofs. 

That, results in a prohibition of me building on that truth with them.

Ok. I'm done demonstrating why I believe academia forbids seekers from being finders.

NOW, we can move on to the other discusion of how can we know for sure that there is no consciousness immediately after death.  I mean hours after last breath.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike said:

What I was talking about was academia forbidding the kind of surety I enjoyed.
I gave an example of what is forbidden.


The way they forbid it is to demand I prove it in a way they understand and accept. I tell them that is not the way I came to become sure of it.  They say (to the effect) we do not accept those kinds of proofs, only our types of proofs. 

That, results in a prohibition of me building on that truth with them.

Ok. I'm done demonstrating why I believe academia forbids seekers from being finders.

NOW, we can move on to the other discusion of how can we know for sure that there is no consciousness immediately after death.  I mean hours after last breath.

 

As in Luke 23:43? The criminal would be unconscious in paradise with the master?

Edited by Nathan_Jr
Got. To. Make. It. Fit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mike said:

What I was talking about was academia forbidding the kind of surety I enjoyed.
I gave an example of what is forbidden.


The way they forbid it is to demand I prove it in a way they understand and accept. I tell them that is not the way I came to become sure of it.  They say (to the effect) we do not accept those kinds of proofs, only our types of proofs. 

I thought you said you were trained as a critical science thinker?

Then as a critical science thinker you should know that over the course of centuries science had acquired tried and true methods of arriving at was true and what was false. It's not a matter of them demanding to prove something the way they accept and understand; it's a matter of probing it according to the methods that have proved time and time again that they arrive at the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike said:

What I was talking about was academia forbidding the kind of surety I enjoyed.
I gave an example of what is forbidden.


The way they forbid it is to demand I prove it in a way they understand and accept. I tell them that is not the way I came to become sure of it.  They say (to the effect) we do not accept those kinds of proofs, only our types of proofs. 

That, results in a prohibition of me building on that truth with them.

Ok. I'm done demonstrating why I believe academia forbids seekers from being finders.

NOW, we can move on to the other discusion of how can we know for sure that there is no consciousness immediately after death.  I mean hours after last breath.

 

 

First off, you're using forbidden wrong. They have their way of probing things and you have yours. Courts only accept evidence and testimony under certain condition, that doesn't mean it's forbidden for people to heresay. You can witness heresay on the streets all the time and even in court under certain circumstances.

Second, you run down academia, the people that developed the very methods Saint Vic used to prove his points in PLAF.

Edited by So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mike said:

I have never seen an advocate of critical thinking skills have a plan for what to do when something PASSES THE TESTS, and the critical testing phase of it is over.  What is there to criticize when something passes all the critical thinking tests? 

Hi, my name is Oldskool and you now know someone who is an advocate of critical thinking skills and I know just what to do when the test is passed...It results in faith when applied to scripture. It never means its above question -- faith and inquiry are not mutually exclusive. Truth is truth...it should stand to questions at any point without folding, getting defensive, or whatever. Problem is when you apply critical thinking to wierwille and compare it with scripture (not wierwilles' version of scripture) wierwille usually doesnt stand as true. Sure, he has some truth...but a little leaven leaveneth the entire lump...not my words...but I have no problem repeating them in this context. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Im inclined to agree with you on this one..but I would rather save it for later.

Do you mean:
Inclined to believe "it" is a good example of a doctrine forbidden academic surety?

Or do you mean:
Inclined to believe "it" is a doctrine that has surety that is good enough for you?

( where "it" refers to "zero consciousness after rigor mortise" )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

Do you mean:
Inclined to believe "it" is a good example of a doctrine forbidden academic surety?

Or do you mean:
Inclined to believe "it" is a doctrine that has surety that is good enough for you?

( where "it" refers to "zero consciousness after rigor mortise" )

None of the above...simply what I quoted. That death is a state of unconsciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Mike said:

where "it" refers to "zero consciousness after rigor mortise"

Not to be picky either, but theres a couple hours between a person's last breath and rigor mortise...I do not think there is conscioness during that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mike said:

I have arrived at knowing that there is no consciousness after death as an absolute truth.

Im not so sure I would call it an absolute truth. There is so much I don't understand on the topic that I refuse to close my mind off to other possibilities...for me it's a faith issue based on my limited understanding of scripture. There's God saying that man will die once he sins. Why would there be a need for resurections and all that stuff if everyone is alive already. I have faith in God's Word that dead=lack of consciousness or existance. Does that mean I understand everything on the subject or what actually happens when a person dies? No. So with that said, there's much to be understood that I simply don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, chockfull said:

I can have a civil conversation.  It is just that there seems to be boundaries you put around it.

Anything negative about VP you refute then later try to claim you don’t idolize him.

You have some kind of weird vision about yourself that you are the reincarnation of Luke the physician sent to give an “accurate and loving “ account of TWI history.

The current written history of TWI consists of two channels:  sanctioned and unsanctioned.

Sanctioned - Mrs VPW book which only covers before 1980s.  I was around when this was being written and my feedback is it was highly coerced.

The Way Living In Love - the ONLY literary record of VPs KoolAid snowstorm story which was fact checked to be false by multiple sources.  It was removed from sale in the bookstore at some point and can’t be bought there anymore.  

Unsanctioned - 3 published books 

Look in T bones footnotes for publishing links

All 3 unsanctioned books detail personal stories of negative overall impact in life of TWI.

Then there’s you - the only thing you have contributed with your false self vision is a running critical commentary as you are inching your way through one of those books that you previously self censored for years and are now challenged by us to actually read it.

 

I can have a civil conversation.  It is just that there seems to be boundaries you put around it.
I try to minimize my boundaries; everyone’s got some. -

 

Anything negative about VP you refute then later try to claim you don’t idolize him.
-Not anything; but yes, some few things.  
I walk away from anything refuting the written collaterals, especially if the methods used to probe the collaterals differ extremely from my chosen methods.

But pretty much all else I can discuss, assuming I have some solid knowledge. There are topics where I don’t feel qualified to discuss much.

I take note of my ignorance the best I can, because I am a total expert on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, having read a couple articles on it.

 

You have some kind of weird vision about yourself that you are the reincarnation of Luke the physician sent to give an “accurate and loving “ account of TWI history.
-No, I am only trying to imitate him and what he did.

I am NOT trying to write anything God-breathed;  just accurate and balanced, and thorough enough.

It looks like an unvarnished history of the Church’s history was a good thing in Luke’s time. I think the same thing is important to do for TWI, especially now that the primary witnesses are dying off fast.

I do not want to do this alone. I want others to jump in and help me with this. I don’t want to be the chairman of that committee, because that is an area I have no solid knowledge.

 

The current written history of TWI consists of two channels:  sanctioned and unsanctioned.
Right.  GreaseSpot is the major shareholder in the unsanctioned text at this time, IMO. 

An unsanctioned history, if well written enough, could get recognized by TWI-7 a few decades from now.  It could also get recognized by thousands of proPFAL grads right now, as well as those grads not proPFAL.

 

Sanctioned - Mrs VPW book which only covers before 1980s.  I was around when this was being written and my feedback is it was highly coerced.
-Her history is useful, and part of the mix, but it has nothing to say of POP or the Schoenheit Paper or RnR

 

The Way Living In Love - the ONLY literary record of VPs KoolAid snowstorm story which was fact checked to be false by multiple sources.

-I would insist it be kept in the mix, even though I don’t buy the fact checking, and debated it several times here.  

HOWEVER, the 1942 snowstorm is NOT in the collaterals, and therefore not critical that I maintain belief in it. 

It wouldn’t be crossing my boundaries to think VPW made mistakes in his recounting the stories. I sometimes merge memories and get facts of my past incorrect

.

 It  [The Way Living In Love] was removed from sale in the bookstore at some point and can’t be bought there anymore.  

-I would suspect the REASON it was removed has nothing to do with the snowstorm(s) being fact-checked here. 

Far more probably is the USUAL POLICY of removing anything in TWI history that “are no longer standing with the ministry.”   When I worked in Tape Duplicating there would be a memo a couple times per year to “pull” the old SNT teaching tapes of an new ex-Way minister. We sold by mail and at large events many popular “back issues” of the SNT tapes.

Another probable reason for its removal is Elena Whiteside “no longer standing with the ministry.” 

Another probable reason is Elena objected to it being sold.

 

Unsanctioned - 3 published books 
-Reading one; not in a rush for the others.

 

Look in T bones footnotes for publishing links
-I save some of his links. Who knows when I get the time for them. …when I think I need them for something.

 

All 3 unsanctioned books detail personal stories of negative overall impact in life of TWI.
-Familiar with them, and a few others. I had some of the impact on my twig in 1980 that I have reported here several times.  I personally have seen problems here and I pitched in to help, as I am doing now.

 

Then there’s you - the only thing you have contributed with your false self vision is a running critical commentary as you are inching your way through one of those books that you previously self censored for years and are now challenged by us to actually read it.
-There are several inaccuracies in your several assertions there. Let’s leave it at I have done things and had experiences you know not of… yet.  I’ll keep trying to bridge the gaps and fill you in on where my head is at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mike said:

I walk away from anything refuting the written collaterals, especially if the methods used to probe the collaterals differ extremely from my chosen methods.

May I ask why you are here? We discuss the collaterals often enough but the list of error is long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

May I ask why you are here? We discuss the collaterals often enough but the list of error is long.

I disagree on the number of genuine errors detected, because I disagree with the methods and attitudes with which that detection process was conducted.

GreaseSpot is the only large, free speech networking hub for grads of PFAL. 

It's a little like Twitter's monopoly on politics, and how Facebook has the the monopoly on finding old friends from many decades ago.

There were previously, when I first started posting, many more active proPFAL posters here, and every now and then they check in.  Many of them now may be Read-Only Audience or ROA. 

Also in the ROA audience may be many more proPFAL people who never or rarely posted. I get PMs from a small number of them, and I suspect there are many more.

For many years GreaseSpot was the only place to get grad news, and it still functions as that kind of service, even though Facebook recently took small a chunk recently.

GreaseSpot champion's Free Speech and the previously silenced "Other Side" to TWI's official news and notices. I think that GSC's motto to this effect is still posted somewhere. When I started posting my icon motto was "offering the OTHER other side."

I view GSC as where a large body of PFAL grads, networking in many ways.  I think many of the gripes and grievances expressed here are valid. I also think this kind of blowing the whistle has gone way too far and it promotes fictions that are harmful to my grad brothers and sisters.  I think we still have something to offer people in PFAL, and once again challenge the devil's grip on the kingdoms of this world. I don't see much of that challenging these days, and I think I know why and the solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

What methods of probing are acceptable to you?

Pretty much the same methods we were taught to work the ancient Scriptures (often tattered remnants), where it is assumed that the originals were perfect revelation.  I admit that is an unusual method, but that is where my search led me and said "this is the end of the rainbow."

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...