Found on Facebook


But
NOT
in
ALL
CASES!

Tags

  1. illusion
  2. opinion
  3. better truth

Comments


Mark de LA says
Perchance the Facebook conversation is more extensive while not resolving much.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-09-10 10:00:37 16181
if i understand your comment, it still does not negate my perpetual thesis on this cartoon  ...
source: mark's comment ... read here for context
It is a cartoon & an optical illusion is contained in the cartoon. The implication of the message only has truth in the illusion part of the optical illusion. The idea behind it that two people can have different perspectives & both can be right is canceled out by the fact that the drawing is an optical illusion & does not even approach anything you will find outside the drawing.
I guess you are saying that because the drawing contained an illusion, that deception negated any proof contained in the drawing of the idea that "two people can have different perspectives & both can be right".  I agree it did negated ("cancelled") that particular proof.  But it did not negate or cancel my particular thesis that seeing trough the illusion (deception) was a better view of the  cartoon. 

I have carried this on here, not to be right, or show you to be wrong ... but as an honest exercise in understanding the meaning of messages.  Please interpret it in that way.
If you believe that something that cannot exist in real life can be seen through to some kind of truth - you win!

The only truth in this cartoon of an optical illusion is that the optical illusion has two states: 4 prongs & 3 prongs & that some people will see it one way & some will see it the other way or perhaps see no illusion at all (which is wrong since the cartoon has no point that way). This is just an update to the much older story of the 4 blind man & an elephant which has some degree of philosophical validity.


Seth says
MR 2012-09-10 10:48:23 16181
seth 2012-09-10 10:00:37 16181
if i understand your comment, it still does not negate my perpetual thesis on this cartoon  ...
source: mark's comment ... read here for context
It is a cartoon & an optical illusion is contained in the cartoon. The implication of the message only has truth in the illusion part of the optical illusion. The idea behind it that two people can have different perspectives & both can be right is canceled out by the fact that the drawing is an optical illusion & does not even approach anything you will find outside the drawing.
I guess you are saying that because the drawing contained an illusion, that deception negated any proof contained in the drawing of the idea that "two people can have different perspectives & both can be right".  I agree it did negated ("cancelled") that particular proof.  But it did not negate or cancel my particular thesis that seeing trough the illusion (deception) was a better view of the  cartoon. 

I have carried this on here, not to be right, or show you to be wrong ... but as an honest exercise in understanding the meaning of messages.  Please interpret it in that way.
If you believe that something that cannot exist in real life can be seen through to some kind of truth - you win!

The only truth in this cartoon of an optical illusion is that the optical illusion has two states: 4 prongs & 3 prongs & that some people will see it one way & some will see it the other way or perhaps see no illusion at all (which is wrong since the cartoon has no point that way). This is just an update to the much older story of the 4 blind man & an elephant which has some degree of philosophical validity.


Well "winning" against you has never been what this dialogue has been about to me ... it has been about trying to agree with you about the best truth possible about that cartoon.   So that if you contribute to that better truth about the cartoon, it would make me very happy ... you may not believe that, but it is nevertheless true.

A representation portraying  a metaphor about "real life" can be communicating truth whether the thing pictured can exist in "real life" or not.  Is that not true?   I think this cartoon is such a representation.  Don't you?

I had to step out of the story being told by the cartoon to see the deception that made the story work.  Otherwise i actually would have been confused as to whether it could have existed in "real life" or not.  I claim that if a reader did not (or could not) do that, they would come away from that picture with a faulty understanding.   Hence understanding the cartoon from that angle made for a better truth of the cartoon.  In that sense this is (as you say) a alternate to the old story of the elephant and 4 blind men ... even adding my perspective, as the 5th blind man, above and out of the picture.

Can we agree on that? ... and/or do you have an even more profound truth about this that i have missed?

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-09-11 09:47:51 16181
MR 2012-09-10 10:48:23 16181
seth 2012-09-10 10:00:37 16181
if i understand your comment, it still does not negate my perpetual thesis on this cartoon  ...
source: mark's comment ... read here for context
It is a cartoon & an optical illusion is contained in the cartoon. The implication of the message only has truth in the illusion part of the optical illusion. The idea behind it that two people can have different perspectives & both can be right is canceled out by the fact that the drawing is an optical illusion & does not even approach anything you will find outside the drawing.
I guess you are saying that because the drawing contained an illusion, that deception negated any proof contained in the drawing of the idea that "two people can have different perspectives & both can be right".  I agree it did negated ("cancelled") that particular proof.  But it did not negate or cancel my particular thesis that seeing trough the illusion (deception) was a better view of the  cartoon. 

I have carried this on here, not to be right, or show you to be wrong ... but as an honest exercise in understanding the meaning of messages.  Please interpret it in that way.
If you believe that something that cannot exist in real life can be seen through to some kind of truth - you win!

The only truth in this cartoon of an optical illusion is that the optical illusion has two states: 4 prongs & 3 prongs & that some people will see it one way & some will see it the other way or perhaps see no illusion at all (which is wrong since the cartoon has no point that way). This is just an update to the much older story of the 4 blind man & an elephant which has some degree of philosophical validity.


Well "winning" against you has never been what this dialogue has been about to me ... it has been about trying to agree with you about the best truth possible about that cartoon.   So that if you contribute to that better truth about the cartoon, it would make me very happy ... you may not believe that, but it is nevertheless true.

A representation portraying  a metaphor about "real life" can be communicating truth whether the thing pictured can exist in "real life" or not.  Is that not true?   I think this cartoon is such a representation.  Don't you?

I had to step out of the story being told by the cartoon to see the deception that made the story work.  Otherwise i actually would have been confused as to whether it could have existed in "real life" or not.  I claim that if a reader did not (or could not) do that, they would come away from that picture with a faulty understanding.   Hence understanding the cartoon from that angle made for a better truth of the cartoon.  In that sense this is (as you say) a alternate to the old story of the elephant and 4 blind men ... even adding my perspective, as the 5th blind man, above and out of the picture.

Can we agree on that? ... and/or do you have an even more profound truth about this that i have missed?
I've just about wrapped up most of my thoughts on this cartoon. You should probably (or not) say you agree with me when you do.  Most of what you said I have said previously.  Something that RS mentioned in something I was reading is that the Ego is in the thoughts of the subject he is contemplating. E.g. a car goes by & I have a thought about it - occultly my Ego & that of the thoughts are in that car. I know I have badly expressed it. It was in ch 4 or 5. http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/WorlSensSpir/WoSeSp_index.html ...  I noticed that when I was driving home from the navy yard in 1971 to my apartment.  My "I" was not in the car until I "woke up" close to home.  Same goes for most of the RWG & politics. Same goes for this cartoon.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-09-13 07:53:07 16181
MR 2012-09-13 00:09:12 16181
seth 2012-09-12 23:05:27 16181
source: Mark above
The RWG seduces your "I am" (Ego) into being in a state not present to your surroundings or even in a rational discussion, IMHO. It is somewhat akin to not having presence of mind. It is somewhat akin to watching TV.  I have done many an exercise to being present to "I am" & enjoying a TV program & so far it seems impossible. 
I agree .. I am lured into rwg by an over sensitive and defensive ego.  That is certainly not being present to a rational discussion nor being present to the matter at hand.

I'm thinking that when I watch TV I still can be present to my surroundings ... that is if I define my surroundings as being the lager cultural environment that includes  the production, the content of the show, and its relationship to its audience.   But usually when i watch TV i am zoning out and being distracted .... so i guess that is what you are referring to.  Was it? ... or were you getting at something deeper than that?  Does your being present to you "I am" only include your own immediate senses both physical and spiritual and no prior knowledge of your culture?
Direct experience has nothing to do with rationality & has little to do with mind. It just IS!
Something active like swimming or performing daily tasks allows for the Ego to be there in my experience. I can say I am doing this ... etc. (Mostly I don't talk to myself for those moments) Being in the TV drama with the story & thoughts of others going through my mind dosen't allow ME to be in MY experience. That's why most people watch TV. To escape their own lives.


How about when you read a book ... say a Steiner book ... are you also not in your experience?
What do you think? I'm still unclear on it. I'm usually in the thoughts which I am deriving from the material I am reading. I noticed the other day that I could still the inner voice & it's ADHD material mixture of memories, argument etc. by reading a book.

Seth says
source: Mark above
Something that RS mentioned in something I was reading is that the Ego is in the thoughts of the subject he is contemplating. E.g. a car goes by & I have a thought about it - occultly my Ego & that of the thoughts are in that car. I know I have badly expressed it. It was in ch 4 or 5. http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/WorlSensSpir/WoSeSp_index.html ...  I noticed that when I was driving home from the navy yard in 1971 to my apartment.  My "I" was not in the car until I "woke up" close to home.  Same goes for most of the RWG & politics. Same goes for this cartoon.
I can see how, when i contemplate an object my thoughts are, in a sense, in that object ... the more my thoughts can model the object, the more practical are my contemplations.  That was something that i learned from RS's pamphlet about practical training in thought.

You say,  "same goes for the RWG" ... well, while i don't know if you and i are talking about the same RS teaching, i am not at all sure how to apply that to the RWG.  I mean when I am doing RWG  about politics, my thoughts are not entirely in the political questions ... rather they are also modeling the ego of the person I am fighting with.  Which of course means that I would not be doing practical thinking about political questions ... instead i would be making an error in practical thinking. 

I gather that you still reject the idea that a better truth, or at least an addditional truth,  about the cartoon was how it was drawn to deceive.  According to RS's teachings, you apparently want to keep your thoughts in the illusion the cartoon portrays ... and feel that stepping out of that illusion would be breaking the rules of the media.  Well i can understand that thought ... if that in fact was your thought .... was it?


Mark de LA says
The RWG seduces your "I am" (Ego) into being in a state not present to your surroundings or even in a rational discussion, IMHO. It is somewhat akin to not having presence of mind. It is somewhat akin to watching TV.  I have done many an exercise to being present to "I am" & enjoying a TV program & so far it seems impossible. 
source: ... I gather that you still reject the idea that a better truth, or at least an addditional truth,  about the cartoon was how it was drawn to deceive.  According to RS's teachings, you apparently want to keep your thoughts in the illusion the cartoon portrays ... and feel that stepping out of that illusion would be breaking the rules of the media.  Well i can understand that thought ... if that in fact was your thought .... was it?
... many points of view works for me, better truth is BS.  Arguing from analogy (the cartoon) instead of reality is on the poor side of logic & rationality, imho.



Mark de LA says
As a slight elaboration You (your Ego, "I am") are in your thoughts & the thoughts are in the object.


Seth says
source: Mark above
... many points of view works for me, better truth is BS
"Many points of view" and "better truth" do not refer to exactly the same thing.  A "better truth" implies, not only that "many points of view" exist, but also that they have been considered and integrated into a complete whole with no valid view excluded.

This came from my rejection of "absolute truth".  My premise is that nobody can ever experience an "absolute truth" ... hence talking like they can is an error in thought or in some cases a lie.   To reconcile that with the actual value of truth, i have attempted to fix the concept by coming up with my term "a better truth" which I still believe more accurately describes the situation.  I presume that, rationally, you are denying the premise by alleging the existence of "direct experience". Are you? But on subjects where direct experience is not present (even supposing that it does exist) there can still be a better truth of the matter.  So that comprehension and acceptance of my term does not depend on acceptance of my premise or the existence of direct experience.

To mock it and call it "BS", without explanation, is just plain RWG.  I think it is time you acknowledged that ... don't you?

Mark de LA says
The adjective "better" applied to truth is oxymoronic similar to saying you have a better potato or a better turd. It also implies that you have the ability to judge what is better or worse in the domain of truth - which I question. I don't care what argument or rationality you apply after using the better adjective. I don't care what you use to disabuse yourself of your "absolute" hangup.
The direct experience is another method of apprehending or experiencing existence. Once you apply logic, emotion & rationality to direct experience you have descended back into your mind BS etc.


Seth says
MR 2012-09-12 11:35:37 16181
The adjective "better" applied to truth is oxymoronic similar to saying you have a better potato or a better turd. It also implies that you have the ability to judge what is better or worse in the domain of truth - which I question. I don't care what argument or rationality you apply after using the better adjective. I don't care what you use to disabuse yourself of your "absolute" hangup.
The direct experience is another method of apprehending or experiencing existence. Once you apply logic, emotion & rationality to direct experience you have descended back into your mind BS etc.

Yes,  the adjective "better" cannot be legitimately appended to the binary state called "true" that is used in the mathematical approximation of reality  that is commonly called "classical logic".  Were it to be so appended in that context then it would be "oxymorinic".   Obviously then we are not talking about that kind of truth when we say we always seek a better truth and not some god's-eye-view that  could be called an "absolute truth".

As i have already specified, the existence (or not) of "direct experience" can be totally factored out of this consideration.  Did you have some rational complaint with the way i did that? ... please see above.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-09-12 15:41:23 16181
MR 2012-09-12 11:35:37 16181
The adjective "better" applied to truth is oxymoronic similar to saying you have a better potato or a better turd. It also implies that you have the ability to judge what is better or worse in the domain of truth - which I question. I don't care what argument or rationality you apply after using the better adjective. I don't care what you use to disabuse yourself of your "absolute" hangup.
The direct experience is another method of apprehending or experiencing existence. Once you apply logic, emotion & rationality to direct experience you have descended back into your mind BS etc.

Yes,  the adjective "better" cannot be legitimately appended to the binary state called "true" that is used in the mathematical approximation of reality  that is commonly called "classical logic".  Were it to be so appended in that context then it would be "oxymorinic".   Obviously then we are not talking about that kind of truth when we say we always seek a better truth and not some god's-eye-view that  could be called an "absolute truth".

As i have already specified, the existence (or not) of "direct experience" can be totally factored out of this consideration.  Did you have some rational complaint with the way i did that? ... please see above.
You just constructed a strawman argument which ruled yourself out of the argument.
Thank You.
Please do NOT continue.
This is not the droid your are looking for.
Move along somewhere else.



Seth says
MR 2012-09-12 18:02:03 16181
seth 2012-09-12 15:41:23 16181
MR 2012-09-12 11:35:37 16181
The adjective "better" applied to truth is oxymoronic similar to saying you have a better potato or a better turd. It also implies that you have the ability to judge what is better or worse in the domain of truth - which I question. I don't care what argument or rationality you apply after using the better adjective. I don't care what you use to disabuse yourself of your "absolute" hangup.
The direct experience is another method of apprehending or experiencing existence. Once you apply logic, emotion & rationality to direct experience you have descended back into your mind BS etc.

Yes,  the adjective "better" cannot be legitimately appended to the binary state called "true" that is used in the mathematical approximation of reality  that is commonly called "classical logic".  Were it to be so appended in that context then it would be "oxymorinic".   Obviously then we are not talking about that kind of truth when we say we always seek a better truth and not some god's-eye-view that  could be called an "absolute truth".

As i have already specified, the existence (or not) of "direct experience" can be totally factored out of this consideration.  Did you have some rational complaint with the way i did that? ... please see above.
You just constructed a strawman argument which ruled yourself out of the argument.
Thank You.
Please do NOT continue.
This is not the droid your are looking for.
Move along somewhere else.


Well fine, if direct experience has nothing to do with your objection to a better truth, as i presumed, then what is your rational objection to it?

Seth says
source: Mark above
The RWG seduces your "I am" (Ego) into being in a state not present to your surroundings or even in a rational discussion, IMHO. It is somewhat akin to not having presence of mind. It is somewhat akin to watching TV.  I have done many an exercise to being present to "I am" & enjoying a TV program & so far it seems impossible. 
I agree .. I am lured into rwg by an over sensitive and defensive ego.  That is certainly not being present to a rational discussion nor being present to the matter at hand.

I'm thinking that when I watch TV I still can be present to my surroundings ... that is if I define my surroundings as being the lager cultural environment that includes  the production, the content of the show, and its relationship to its audience.   But usually when i watch TV i am zoning out and being distracted .... so i guess that is what you are referring to.  Was it? ... or were you getting at something deeper than that?  Does your being present to you "I am" only include your own immediate senses both physical and spiritual and no prior knowledge of your culture?

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-09-12 23:05:27 16181
source: Mark above
The RWG seduces your "I am" (Ego) into being in a state not present to your surroundings or even in a rational discussion, IMHO. It is somewhat akin to not having presence of mind. It is somewhat akin to watching TV.  I have done many an exercise to being present to "I am" & enjoying a TV program & so far it seems impossible. 
I agree .. I am lured into rwg by an over sensitive and defensive ego.  That is certainly not being present to a rational discussion nor being present to the matter at hand.

I'm thinking that when I watch TV I still can be present to my surroundings ... that is if I define my surroundings as being the lager cultural environment that includes  the production, the content of the show, and its relationship to its audience.   But usually when i watch TV i am zoning out and being distracted .... so i guess that is what you are referring to.  Was it? ... or were you getting at something deeper than that?  Does your being present to you "I am" only include your own immediate senses both physical and spiritual and no prior knowledge of your culture?
Direct experience has nothing to do with rationality & has little to do with mind. It just IS!
Something active like swimming or performing daily tasks allows for the Ego to be there in my experience. I can say I am doing this ... etc. (Mostly I don't talk to myself for those moments) Being in the TV drama with the story & thoughts of others going through my mind dosen't allow ME to be in MY experience. That's why most people watch TV. To escape their own lives.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-09-12 21:56:15 16181
MR 2012-09-12 18:02:03 16181
seth 2012-09-12 15:41:23 16181
MR 2012-09-12 11:35:37 16181
The adjective "better" applied to truth is oxymoronic similar to saying you have a better potato or a better turd. It also implies that you have the ability to judge what is better or worse in the domain of truth - which I question. I don't care what argument or rationality you apply after using the better adjective. I don't care what you use to disabuse yourself of your "absolute" hangup.
The direct experience is another method of apprehending or experiencing existence. Once you apply logic, emotion & rationality to direct experience you have descended back into your mind BS etc.

Yes,  the adjective "better" cannot be legitimately appended to the binary state called "true" that is used in the mathematical approximation of reality  that is commonly called "classical logic".  Were it to be so appended in that context then it would be "oxymorinic".   Obviously then we are not talking about that kind of truth when we say we always seek a better truth and not some god's-eye-view that  could be called an "absolute truth".

As i have already specified, the existence (or not) of "direct experience" can be totally factored out of this consideration.  Did you have some rational complaint with the way i did that? ... please see above.
You just constructed a strawman argument which ruled yourself out of the argument.
Thank You.
Please do NOT continue.
This is not the droid your are looking for.
Move along somewhere else.


Well fine, if direct experience has nothing to do with your objection to a better truth, as i presumed, then what is your rational objection to it?
I've already completed my argument & it is not likely to change by you trying to force an agreement or disagreement on the subject. Better & truth just do not fit together.


Seth says
MR 2012-09-13 00:12:04 16181
seth 2012-09-12 21:56:15 16181
MR 2012-09-12 18:02:03 16181
seth 2012-09-12 15:41:23 16181
MR 2012-09-12 11:35:37 16181
The adjective "better" applied to truth is oxymoronic similar to saying you have a better potato or a better turd. It also implies that you have the ability to judge what is better or worse in the domain of truth - which I question. I don't care what argument or rationality you apply after using the better adjective. I don't care what you use to disabuse yourself of your "absolute" hangup.
The direct experience is another method of apprehending or experiencing existence. Once you apply logic, emotion & rationality to direct experience you have descended back into your mind BS etc.

Yes,  the adjective "better" cannot be legitimately appended to the binary state called "true" that is used in the mathematical approximation of reality  that is commonly called "classical logic".  Were it to be so appended in that context then it would be "oxymorinic".   Obviously then we are not talking about that kind of truth when we say we always seek a better truth and not some god's-eye-view that  could be called an "absolute truth".

As i have already specified, the existence (or not) of "direct experience" can be totally factored out of this consideration.  Did you have some rational complaint with the way i did that? ... please see above.
You just constructed a strawman argument which ruled yourself out of the argument.
Thank You.
Please do NOT continue.
This is not the droid your are looking for.
Move along somewhere else.


Well fine, if direct experience has nothing to do with your objection to a better truth, as i presumed, then what is your rational objection to it?
I've already completed my argument & it is not likely to change by you trying to force an agreement or disagreement on the subject. Better & truth just do not fit together.

I'm not asking about the cartoon ... yes that discussion is finished.  

I just wanted to inform you that i do not know your rational objection to my concept of a better truth.  If you don't want to explicate it that is fine ....  but not explaining your rational objections to it; and yet mocking and ridiculing it at whenever the opportunity arises for you ... just feels bad to me.  

In particular why does better and truth not fit together ?   When a tailor makes a suit and we try it on we say this or that suit fits better than the other one.   How well a statement describes reality is the same ... some fit better than others.  What is wrong with that?

Mark de LA says
Seth (somewhere above): ... I'm not asking about the cartoon ... yes that discussion is finished.  

I just wanted to inform you that i do not know your rational objection to my concept of a better truth.  If you don't want to explicate it that is fine ....  but not explaining your rational objections to it; and yet mocking and ridiculing it at whenever the opportunity arises for you ... just feels bad to me.  

In particular why does better and truth not fit together ?   When a tailor makes a suit and we try it on we say this or that suit fits better than the other one.   How well a statement describes reality is the same ... some fit better than others.  What is wrong with that?
... I'm just tired of this discussion since whatever I put out is ignored or side-tracked.  Your feelings of being mocked or ridiculed are mostly stuff you are generating on your own. Additional descriptions & more input is not necessarily BETTER - just more & sometimes that ends up being confusion and WORSE! Better is a judgement which may or not have a following of others in agreement. I expressed that in the idea of a "better turd" ... how do you know one turd is better than another? Better, best, worse, & some illiterates use "more better", superior, etc. are just adjectives which are mostly used by adverts & people to persuade but are too general to be of any value to me.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-09-14 05:10:36 16181
source: mark above
Your feelings of being mocked or ridiculed are mostly stuff you are generating on your own.
Well yes, that is always the case.  But honestly mark, go back yourself, do a search for better truth here, and you will see that in almost every case where i have used that term it was followed by some kind of content-free rejection from you ... with frequently some kind of personal jab.  Sometimes a person's behavior is better seen from the outside ... and yes, of course, that applies to me as well. 



Your judgement not mine! I reject things which you state as fact without reason.  I reject things which are just a contradiction of what I said without further context. etc. NOPE!


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-09-14 05:33:25 16181
source: what i think is the essence of mark's objection

Better is a judgement which may or not have a following of others in agreement. I expressed that in the idea of a "better turd" ... how do you know one turd is better than another? Better, best, worse, & some illiterates use "more better", superior, etc. are just adjectives which are mostly used by adverts & people to persuade but are too general to be of any value to me.
... in other words, you just don't like it.   Sorry, just joking.

But seriously ... when we talk of truth ... or metaphorically of how something fits ... we are always talking about a judgement.  And as all judgements go ... it will be  personal and subjective ... and will vary from person to person.  There just is no removing that personal aspect from truth ... that is the assumption here that must be accepted ... or not.  A better truth accepts the fact that there is no absolute truth which anyone can know ... there is no judgement that you can make except your own.  If you believe in an absolute truth of the matter that you can know, then a mere better one perhaps won't cut it for you ... but, mark, it is all you are ever going to get ... unless, of course, you want to lie to yourself.
You missed the point. Take an English course & come back to this one.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-09-14 05:50:00 16181
Incidentally, you don't need to couple a rejection of absolute truth with a disbelief in God ....

....

....

wait for it ...

....

... but you do need to couple it with the disbelief that you are God .
Change of subject.  I don't think I mentioned God at all in here. The premise & conclusion are crap on this segment.


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-09-14 05:16:55 16181
source: mark above
I'm just tired of this discussion since whatever I put out is ignored or side-tracked.
Perhaps there is a timing problem here.  I think it comes back to the old changing of topic.  If i am talking about one thing and instead of dealing with that one thing you bring up something that strikes me as being completely different, then it is going to strike me as a change of topic and i'm not going to deal with it in that context.  The same, of course goes for you.  That's why, in cases where we are being "serious", we should stick the the same topic. 
When I say I am tired of the discussion ....

/....\ wait for it....
.
.
.
.
.
I mean  I AM TIRED OF THE DISCUSSION .....!

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-09-14 05:04:03 16181
source: mark above
Additional descriptions & more input is not necessarily BETTER - just more & sometimes that ends up being confusion and WORSE!
Yes that is true ... more is not necessarily better.  I certainly am not saying that more is always better.  But when something is incomplete, then completing it is better ... unless of course the imperfection was intentional. 

When something is incomplete, more is not better any more than more is better any other time.


See Also

  1. Thought The 2017 White House correspondents’ dinner with 267 viewings related by tag "better truth".
  2. Thought How to make the world go away ... with 181 viewings related by tag "illusion".
  3. Thought about: mark's thought about Trump's Ghettesburg Address with 106 viewings related by tag "opinion".
  4. Thought Read between the lines ... with 78 viewings related by tag "BetterTruth".
  5. Thought Fascinating Deep State Swamp with 65 viewings related by tag "opinion".
  6. Thought about: maya (illusion) - wikipedia with 15 viewings related by tag "illusion".
  7. Thought Do you see the illusion ? with 9 viewings related by tag "illusion".
  8. Thought 9 years left & counting .... with 8 viewings related by tag "opinion".
  9. Thought Reading Groups To Read For A Better Truth with 7 viewings related by tag "better truth".
  10. Thought A Better Truth with 3 viewings related by tag "better truth".
  11. Thought News in the Light of What's Published with 2 viewings related by tag "better truth".
  12. Thought Time as Illusion with 2 viewings related by tag "illusion".
  13. Thought Peter Ralston's attitude twards representations ... with 1 viewings related by tag "better truth".
  14. Thought about: are space and time an illusion? | iflscience with 1 viewings related by tag "illusion".
  15. Thought The meaning of a communication with 1 viewings related by tag "better truth".
  16. Thought Optical Illusion with 0 viewings related by tag "illusion".
  17. Thought Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America with 0 viewings related by tag "opinion".
  18. Thought Truth & Science with 0 viewings related by tag "better truth".
  19. Thought A Better Truth with 0 viewings related by tag "better truth".
  20. Thought Exercise, Argument or Opinion? with 0 viewings related by tag "opinion".
  21. Thought Better *Is* Better Than Is Or Is Not with 0 viewings related by tag "better truth".
  22. Thought about: yes, your opinion can be wrong with 0 viewings related by tag "opinion".
  23. Thought Liberal Wet Dream with 0 viewings related by tag "better truth".
  24. Thought Why I Disrespect the UN with 0 viewings related by tag "better truth".
  25. Thought about: Omni Brain : The Purple Nurple Optical Illusion with 0 viewings related by tag "illusion".
  26. Thought Coming Ice Age ? with 0 viewings related by tag "opinion".
  27. Thought Things are not always what they seem with 0 viewings related by tag "illusion".
  28. Thought about: thanks Science Bob with 0 viewings related by tag "illusion".
  29. Thought Research on Thought Processes with 0 viewings related by tag "better truth".
  30. Thought Sour Grapes or Fine Wine ? with 0 viewings related by tag "opinion".