Objective Reality

Glen M. Sizemore gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 24 22:06:15 EST 2004


Your descent into what is traditionally called "madness," and its acutely
public nature (i.e., you post on the freakin' internet) have become, I
admit, mildly fascinating to me. Before VALIS starts beaming "information"
into your brain right through your aluminum foil hat, Ken, drop the
"science" for a moment and tell me a few things. How old are you? Where were
you born? Where did you go to school? What is the extent of your formal
education? Did you ever have a girlfriend? Do sports? Have friends? Did you
have any siblings? Do they keep contact with you? Where do you live now? I'm
serious, Ken. Normally I wouldn't suggest someone post this sort of stuff on
an NG like this but, let's face it, unless you are institutionalized, you
will continue to enlighten us ad nauseam, and I have become truly interested
in the answers to the questions I posed.

"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uCT_b.20532$hm4.13425 at newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> The current 'tummult' with respect to
> same-sex 'marriage' is such that it's
> become apparent that I have to clarify
> what's in, and not in, NDT with respect
> to Objective Reality.
>
> I'm 'tired', so I'm just going to get the
> discussion started in this post.
>
> NDT =does not=, and =cannot= be
> invoked in =any= way that 'sanctions'
> 'arbitrary' correlations with respect to
> Truth.
>
> Just be-cause two pepole have different
> "biological mass" with respect to this or
> that, does  not permit NDT to be used
> to 'declare' that there, supposedly, is
> 'no objective reality'.
>
> With respect to "marriage", Truth is that
> the 'state' of there being a Man and a
> Woman who want to "form a union in
> order to give birth to offspring", Needs
> a Unique name.
>
> Why not let that be "marriage", as that
> word has addressed Truth for centuries?
>
> You know?
>
> Calling "green" "yellow" doesn't make
> "green" "yellow".
>
> Using NDT as a 'means' to enable
> 'moving away from' Truth, 'just'
> 'moves away from' Truth.
>
> Why take the Unique name from the
> Unique thing?
>
> It's =Completely= Nonsensical to do
> such.
>
> Why am I commenting on this?
>
> I've been watching this sort of 'creeping'
> ab-use of NDT's position as it's built-up'
> over the years.
>
> Tonight, on TV News, I heard a lot of
> folks bashing others by invoking "pre-
> judice".
>
> It is =NOT= 'prejudice' to assign a
> Unique word to a Unique thing.
>
> NDT =CANNOT= be invoked
> in attempts to 'deny' Objective Reality.
>
> Folks who attempt to do so 'move
> away from' Truth, Declaring that
> they do so.
>
> It should not be necessary to Amend
> The Constitution of The United States
> of America in order to Force folks to
> Honor Truth.
>
> If folks cannot find it in their 'hearts'
> to Honor Truth, then nothing will
> Sustain This Nation.
>
> And those who 'move away from'
> Truth will have 'accomplished' that
> End.
>
> I'll continue the discussion of why
> seeing, and Honoring, Truth Matters,
> tomorrow.
>
> Meanwhile, don't do this sort of
> 'behavioral relativity' stuff and call
> it "NDT".
>
> It's not.
>
> NDT's understanding is a "double-
> edged sword".
>
> Ab-use it, and one 'only' 'denies'-Self.
>
> K. P. Collins
>
>





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list