Give a reason

You should always have reasons for your beliefs. When you have them, be ready to explain them because people are going to ask. If they don’t, they ought to because an unquestioned reason is just a statement, the foundation of unreliable beliefs. Is unreliable bad? Yes, unreliable is bad.


3 thoughts on “Give a reason

  1. I’m thinking I would like to disagree, kind science-person; as in order to look-up the word “reason,” I have to think about where my dictionary is, look over to it, lean-over, pick it up, etc. etc. “r-e-A-s-o-n” …”motive for cause, blah blah” – alas, I already knew that in my own heart… heart is also where my poetry comes from.
    I haven’t been asked of my reasons in quite a while. When I do tell them, they back away slowly; people don’t want reasons, they want their own unreliable beliefs to be stroked.

    1. I think I agree with you, but it depends on the belief and it’s consequences. If someone says, “I’m gonna take this last shot and I don’t care what happens,” most people wouldn’t question him, even if he was pretty drunk. Some people would drink with him. They’d even drunk to him. They’d “stroke his unreliable belief” as you say. But, and this is what I mean, if he everything was the same except he was walking out the door bar door with his keys in his hands, then reasons for taking that shot matter. Reasons for not caring matter.

  2. Not sure if this went through last night – computer took a nose-dive while trying it…
    “…when we think about what constitutes a diverse, natural setting…” Interesting on two parts: A: the other thoughts I was having while reading all this: which I’m sure you reading my these here words [sic] you’re having your own memories & hopes to filter them through first; unless you’re well-trained not-to, I suppose.
    And B: Was remembering the “City of Z” book (specifically “The Green Hell” chapter[!]); combined-with another Amazonian writ about how the jungle birds sounding more like a screaming cacophany more than tweeting! What do we really know of nature, or life, any more? We can sure zip through those cat-pictures, but how well do we interact with systems that can react & interact again more than three or four iterations? We are being walled-in!
    “Houston engulfed by smog” RE: “Houston engulfed by the smog of its values.” [sic “RE: ‘Houston engulfed by the smog of its values.'”]
    “…we have technology!” How might one truly measure success if each action has an equal-and-opposite reaction? We go nowhere; gain nothing: doomed to heat-death. Can we really make an improvement in any form?
    “…psychological benefits … of pictures, and videotapes of nature” I wonder if they suffer, like me, that they only see nature’s beauty from afar; seeing it in person only makes me wonder why I can’t interact with it better: depression, stupidity, nurture? No-wonder we like to look at it, (& porn); “looking” doesn’t require growth or adaptive strength.
    Sorry didin’t read it all; maybe later.

    You appear to have sufficiently-placed interests for this: Here’s my non-professional intro:
    This is a letter-by-letter geometric code, (no spaces), using a 27-letter alphabet with 27 letters in the first, most-accepted, more-obvious “sentence” – followed-by the 27th letter; (possibly a hierarchical array). Three instances of 27; 27 is 3-cubed… code is base-three.
    The letters can be placed in a cube, (9-by-9-by-9), or wound through a torus so the same, or cube-form “matching”, letters pair-up. A cut-out of the torus topology gives a stylized human hand form. Viewing this hand from various angles shows the shapes of the letters used.
    Also used is a tetrahedron – (this lowest-order completely-symmetrical 3D object balances the unsymmertry of the hand-shape).
    The code is newly-found in a very-old and very well known document.
    Also related: Newton’s “apple”? (Yes, he may’ve studied this); Plato’s cave; the Great Pyramid of Giza?; Alladin’s lamp?; consciousness linked-to physical reality.
    See the video “First Light”
    Note there may be real danger here in that there may be created a near-4D understanding &/or conclusion that the Universe is absolutely-mechanical or a paradise is found within one’s mind thus never “returning.” It is said that Alan Turing died of a “poison rainbow apple,” that may be a very descriptive way to point to this knowledge. (A warning is given that one must be spiritually-mature for this; perhaps this is why.)
    Best of luck to you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s