quote:
Dictionaries are like data. You can choose the definition (or data) that supports your view. I suggest that, in a less than intelectually honest effort, you are selecting imprecise definitions to support a failing argument. I find this both disengenious and transparent.
-Then please give me an example of a definition that directly contradicts my definition and supports yours. THEN we can discuss the validity of each. But as of right now you have no "Data" to stand on where as I quite clearly do.
So, I am an intolerant liar. Well done Ringworm, very civilized. It seems that, not only are you incapable of original thought without your dictionary, but apparently, you have reading comprehension difficulties as well.
I never said that other definitions would
directly contradict yours. I merely said that your definitions were carefully chosen by you to support your ever-shifting stance despite other possible dictionary entries avalibale to you.
How could you possibly read what I wrote and turn around and demand that I supply 'directly contradictory definitions'. Either you are an idiot, or you are trying to dodge the point by, less than clever, re-direction.
Getting back to the point, lets look at your chosen definition of FEEL. You chose the fairly narrow definition: Feel is the impression gained by the sense of touch.
In the context of a discusssion about translating action to feel I might have chosen, Feel:To be aware of by instinct or inference.
Or perhaps Feel: To be conscious of an inward impression, state of mind, or physical condition.
You specificaly chose the narrower, less relevant definition to steer the argument in your chosen direction. Very transparent.
quote:
quote:No, I am not stating Intention is the root of ALL action. It is the root of all CONCIOUS THOUGHT turning into action. Intention is the movement of the thought from the higher brain functions to the lower brain functions... IE: Concious mind to subconcious mind. That is FACT. But I gess we should avoid fact since it doesn't support your position and we need to think outside of what is truth.
Once again, a fluff paragraph that says nothing, retracts earlier stements you have made and adds nothing to the original question. Do you just enjoy typing to hear yourself talk?
quote:
First of all.. precisely what statement am I retracting? Or is that just another baseless accusaion? Lie enough times and people will start to believe it?
So now my position is all "fluff". Yet the most you can do is make baseless accusations and not challenge the content. If it's all fluff, then how come you are having such a difficult time addressing the message?
The reason I am having a difficult time adressing the message is because your message changes in each post. First it was " Feel is a reaction'. Then it became "Intention drives action", then it became "The conscious mind drives action", then it became "The subconscious mind drives action". You have drifted further and further into never-never land and never-never addressed any of my points about FEEL. Which by the way, is the topic of this thread. More reading comprehension problems?
Lets try to take it back a step. What exactly is your argument?
My point has been, and remains that FEEL is NOT a REACTION, as you suggested, but rather that FEEL is an acquired state which is simultaneous with action and, once acquired,can replace the need for conscious direction of specific actions.
