Truth.

[crow]

The one most interested in a guarantee of truthfulness, is the one least capable of providing it.
True? False? Does it matter?

Ideas may be neutral. Or paradoxical. Sometimes true, sometimes not.
Schrodinger's cat knows things about this. Smart cat, that.
Either, and, or...

[§Transcix]

Clearly nobody is saying that logic is useless, and logic requires truth to work, truth in fact and / or truth in hypothesis. I mean this in the sense that, though one may well choose to lead with their heart before their head, the very notion of leading or going anywhere in the first place involves concepts and ideas, knowledge about one’s self and one’s environment, understanding as to how certain causes have certain effects, even in so simple of terms as that comprehending one has a body to manipulate, one has arms to maneuver things with, and instant coffee is made by pouring hot water onto it in a mug, all this leads to a successful sip. In other words, as a painting cannot exist without a painter, so too can a choice not exist without a chooser--the chooser must grasp the essential gist of both themselves as well as the situation in order to be able to have any real freedom of choice at all. I think the point of this thread is the extent to which logic dictates, insofar that our individual paradigms and experiences are concerned, that we must operate according to intuition, instinct, educated guessing, or the like, rather than totally infallible understanding. I just wanted to clarify this premise, I feel it's very important.

[crow]

...I just wanted to clarify this premise, I feel it's very important.

What I think is very important, is to leave ideas alone, and respond to them without interpreting them as - very often - something they are not.
People say things, write things, because that is what occurs, when it occurs. There is usually no claim to truth, implicit, in these communications. They are responses to stimuli.
Too many people see - and use the term - argument to refer to a thought, a sentence, a comment, demanding then that it be backed-up somehow.
Such people seem not to understand that not everybody argues.

The thinking-mechanism of a human may be accessed directly, via a far shorter path, than starting at the rectum, and delving laboriously upwards.
Then after interrogating the thought-mechanism, to delve laboriously downwards, to exit the rectum, once more.
And that is a somewhat visual representation of what I so often witness, on the internet.

It is up to nobody else to supply either truth, or credentials, to random readers of words.
If truth is, indeed, required, it must be sought by the one seeking it. It can not be supplied, especially to a cynic.
Or the argument will be endless, unproductive, and entirely without point.

[Time Curator 23]

Ideas may be neutral. Or paradoxical. Sometimes true, sometimes not.

Yeah, though some ideas are forever and always true, no matter what.

The one most interested in a guarantee of truthfulness, is the one least capable of providing it.

What do you mean?

[§Transcix]

It seems both Crow and I adhere to the old adage that "whosoever shall seek to save their soul shall lose it", except we go about it in opposite ways.

[crow]

Ideas may be neutral. Or paradoxical. Sometimes true, sometimes not.

Yeah, though some ideas are forever and always true, no matter what.

The one most interested in a guarantee of truthfulness, is the one least capable of providing it.

What do you mean?

I mean the one who demands it doesn't understand that it can only come through one's own efforts.
Nobody can 'give' anybody truth. The one who demands it must provide it, for himself. Or accept it, at face value.

[analrapist]

This is like science, if you don't try to prove your results in an organized fashion you get bad results, and then you are not able to find the right answer.