RE: Magic as a three-fold process; an un-fuckable recipe for manifesting anything you desire.
Dave. I couldn't agree more with your position. But I have a point to make about both you and colored-contents positions. It seems to me that rocking-dave is objectively true in his assessment. But contrastingly, colored-contents post is fairly subjectively-true-enough to live a decent life by. How do y'all regard antinomies like these? I see them from a Neutral Data POV. The data that both of your messages are composed of exists in the same exact way. On digital screens encoded by ones and zeroes as well as in the neurochemistry of biological systems of information with subjective limits in perception. This is an objective observation that can be had if done so from a "zen-like" Neutral Data POV. The data that is common ground between all three of our subjectivities is simply termed Datalogic.
Now here's the plug: I have a post, my first one here from a few weeks back that has a Logical theory that I think may be the Neutral Datalogical Common Ground that I hopefully have conveyed here through text. If I could get honest feedback (like y'all gave) on that Paper in the post titled DMTheory, I think it could be at the very least something that bridges gaps that usually happen due to simple ego blind spots that we all biologically share. And by unifying categorical distinctions in a simple and logical aka falsifiable basis of and for Reality itself.
At any rate thank you for both speaking your mind. Not like you needed my approval. Great dialogue is the result of sincerely speaking your truth and actually listening to the other in pursuit of knowledge and in acquisition of wisdom.
Namaste
Well, I think it's quite important to make a clear differentiation between truthfulness and usefulness. Even if a certain belief is objectively useful (and disagree this is the case here), this is by no means evidence that the belief is correct. So to me there is no antinomy here.
Why do you think this is a useful point of view? If you want to evaluate truth in the context of reality, there are many things that cannot be neutral - they are either correct and incorrect and the fact that we are expressing them trough language with the help of technology does not change the fact that we are attempting to describe and understand reality as best we can.
There are indeed things that are subjective, but those are always concepts that we have come up with that usually don't have a direct tie with reality like morality, beauty or happiness. But if you describe a process like magic here that is supposed to have a direct effect on reality, than your description is either correct or incorrect in the point of view of reality. And that's what matters to me.
What's the utility of using your suggested neutral data point of view in those cases? Isn't it detrimental to our ability to discern between correct and incorrect?
Agreed :)