Danny,

Sure, that makes sense to me. But still, that expert's opinion needs to be judged as another opinion, not as "the truth." Note how I said, "sure?" Now looking at it, I'm thinking, "well, maybe not," as there are equally good reasons why an "expert's" opinion may not be superior, such as "confirmation bias" and such. Of course when you mention "just some average guy" that has it's own set of limitations, like the fact that the average I.Q. (by definition) is 100. But then, most Keynsians are probably in the higher part of the curve, so go figure. Shit man, I don't know that "sure" makes any sense either.

Nelle...

- NonE

sorry, my funds are better spent elsewhere.

Paul,

I am firmly convinced that there is no "the Truth." There are many truthes, depending upon many things, and what is true for one party in a situation does not necessarily make it true for the other(s).

I like your point that "we all just need to come to conclusions we can't be certain of." I do believe you have hit my nail directly on the head.

- NonE

you should read some Deirdre McCloskey NonE: she says that adding 'the truth' doesn't add anything. (and gosh darn it, she uses a lot of Polanyi but apparently doesn't use his idea of 'truth' as a transcendental, inexplicable ideal that unites a community of scientists

It is interesting to me that you suggest, as the best "solution", that a third party "expert" reviews FDR for cult characteristics, yet already largely adopt the view that it IS a cult, before such third party assessment has been made.

In fairness, Nelle had a therapist review a single podcast and got a "deeply disturbed" characterization, but that can hardly be seen as any sort of a proof whatsoever since it's a single podcast out of more than thousand and lacks the larger context of ideas coherently presented in his books. As far as I'm concerned it's as good as useless.

That said, the "best solution" that is proposed here is I think flawed, partly for some of the already mentioned reasons:

1. "Expert" isn't necessarily a mark of authority

2. The possibility of FDR members and Stef claiming that the expert himself is "corrupt" or at least fails to understand the ideas behind FDR.

I would expand on these reasons a little.

1. Why is it even sensible to say that an "expert" isn't necessarily a mark of authority? What would the objective criteria be for determining whether (s)he is or isn't? And most importantly, if agreement on that criteria is unlikely (which is possible), what does that leave us with?

I think it leaves us with individual judgment the conclusions of which solely apply to him or her and his or hers own beliefs, feelings and actions exclusively.

But if this is the case and if this is as close as we can possibly get to objectivity or universality, then having a third party "expert" do a review becomes pretty useless since it will obviously due to the above not resolve the conflict in anyone except those who either have blind faith in everyone called an "expert" or just happen to agree with said expert based on personal criteria.

This also ties in to the second point, that FDR members could claim that they were misunderstood and remain unconvinced.

So I think it's worth considering precisely what does this leave us with, and I think it is this:

There are only individuals and their individual judgments and reasoning, individual feelings, individual experiences.

Each individual is the ultimate and final arbiter of what he accepts as proper methodology for determining the truth of any particular statement.

Each individual thus remains the sole arbiter of what he accepts as the final truth - it becomes truth to him.

And I would venture to infect you with a small bit of my own methodology solely as a matter of seeking agreement. If you agree then we share that specific bit of methodology. If not then, well sayonara!

That bit is this: Self-contradiction invalidates. Inconsistency is self-contradiction.

Do you agree? As stated above, if you do then we adopt the above as a methodology on which we both agree upon and would thus accept the logical conclusions that come from the application of solely that method.

If you agree I simply have these questions for you:

Are you contradicting yourself? Are you being consistent?

This is what you can ask yourself for every bit of belief, every statement or theory regarding the determination of whether FDR is or is not a cult. If you become at any level aware that you are contradicting yourself or being inconsistent yet deny that to yourself and adopt a statement as true despite, then you are being dishonest and only you can know for sure, some part of you, that you're being dishonest. Nothing else really matters.

I can apply the same method myself, reach my truth and be content with that.

I doubt a better solution will ever exist, or at least a better framework for creating solutions, than what I described above. It goes straight to the point: you.

If some other people reach different conclusions than you, there is only one single possibility: either they are being dishonest or you are being dishonest, but you can only know for yourself with certainty, not themselves. Thus you probably already know the answer or will eventually. In any case, respect for a different opinion (or "truth") of another is required for some harmony to occur.

Regards

Hi Memeverse,

I believe that this is neither here or there in terms of your argument, but for the sake of letting the facts be known, my therapist in fact looked at quite a few podcasts, the books, and went through many threads (perusing the site on many occasions). She did this because when I came to her, I was a member of FDR, and she wanted to thoroughly understand what I was a part of (at my request).

Thank you.

Fair enough. Still it's just her opinion. It was by your judgment enough to form an opinion of FDR that you did. Whether you're honest to yourself about it or not only you know.

Regards[/quote]
Memeverse, Hi, with respect, surely the 'opinion' is based on actual facts thereof and must be the 'Truth',oh and welcome to limi.

Yes, the opinion is hopefully based on facts. Actually not even hopefully since human beings I believe do have a tendency, especially at young age, to form opinions based on actually perceived facts from reality.

But cognitive biases and emotional instability tends to create impetus for dishonesty with yourself and thus adoption of opinions which the already perceived evidence contradicts, or even opinions which contain an internal inconsistency or contradiction by itself. It's conceivable that Nelle's therapist perfectly honestly felt that what she said about what she saw is the truth. It's also possible that she is dishonest herself or that the evidence was inconclusive.

jawol(48) wrote:

welcome to limi.

Thanks.. though I'm not sure I'll stick around for long.

According to my own fact-based opinion so far FDR is a more valuable place for me, no offense. And since LiMi participants couldn't be sensible enough not to position LiMi as a defacto counter-current to FDR supporting everything from reasonable argument to most excessive attacks on FDR, the situation is that between FDR and LiMi it is an either-or proposition.

And for me, FDR overall carries far more weight so far.

Thanks Conrad!

- NonE :-)