Watch, listen, learn.

I know those lessons all too well.

I was going to write something. But I kept getting distracted by that icons amazingness.

I do my best.

A closed mouth gathers no feet. :P

...but then nobody hears you. :P

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

...according to that phrase, you'll still a fool, you'll just be a quiet fool.

*still be

Maybe, maybe not. I think it takes more wisdom to keep quiet than to pontificate about something you don't know. And even if that isn't the case, a quiet fool has a chance to learn whereas a loud one would be too busy filling the air with useless noise.

I think it depends on the open-mindedness of the fool. If you don't know about something, you have the chance of being corrected. You don't need to be quiet in order to learn, and there are times where you can only learn through asking questions, or admitting fault. If you're a loud fool who only fills the air with nonsense, then you're likely closed-minded and unwilling to consider opposing points of view in order to better your own stance. If you're more open-minded, you can still be a fool who spouts inconsistencies, but at the very least, you will consider the opposing point of view before deciding to agree or disagree with it, and you don't always have to disagree. Fool or not, speaking can still be constructive, so in my opinion, it's not wise to just stay hushed unconditionally, out of the fear that you may not be correct and look like a fool.

Nothing to do with what you posted... Just there to poke you because you said I could do so. That way, you contact me back and give me news and all !

This such a great observation. I try to live this way, but I end up mostly catching myself making quick judgements or following trends without realizing it. Can't let that discourage me though!

Very true! Though I always seem to be just a little bit on the gullible side of that line.

Or.. as the saying goes... a mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open. }:=)

Now a skeptical mind, that's where it's at~

I understand the true meaning of skepticism to be what I have described.
Skepticism ≠ stubborn refusal to consider.

I would not disagree!

Seems like a whole lot of people missed that memo...

I'm liking this concept- my only possible beef being that I've spent so much time observing in order to get as much info as I can, that sometimes the decision never gets made! Or, I end up wondering if I'm just living in the "observer's seat" while everything passes me by because I don't really feel a part of it, or even that I'm welcome there. This is not my current state, by the way- it's something I've run into a lot, though.

Try this one: "so much of what we do is based on what we're afraid of..."



I like yer brain.

It is through practice that the distinctiveness muddies... particularly in unverifiable areas.
Good job demonstrating your own point, by the way. :}

I am pretty open minded, but not one to believe everything, but also understanding that there are things in this universe I simply do not know.

It takes being shown that you are wrong to learn the most important lessons.

Wise words.

Even a gullible mind can learn.

But the lessons tend to the painful.

12/11/11

Uh-oh. . . Skadjer made the Gears in Scorch's head start spinning...

Makes sense to me! :)

Would there be another way to word it? As such:

"Always accept everything as true until proven false."

Would it be "gullible" to always accept - without consideration that it might be proven false?
And isn't it true that to have a closed, skeptical, mind is to always believe it's false until proven true?

But WHAT, exactly, is "proof"?
And can you prove a negative?

Is it possible what is negative in your world; is positive in mine?
Is the door, in your world, locked; while, in my world, I hold the key?

Can you prove your world even exists and is not just some type of construct, or stage play, like in the Wizard of OZ, Eyeborgs, or the Matrix movies?
Constructed by the powers that be, such as the Wizard, Machines, Computers, Extraterrestrials, or Government?
Is Hollywood trying to tell us something? Who created our world? And who is the key master?!?

What if it turns out our entire world is an Estate, Granted by our Creator, who's Son DIED for our sins so we may KEEP the Estate or create our own?
And that we have a CHOICE to BE the Beneficiary who lives in abundance, and reaps the rewards, or merely be the Trustee who deals with all the crap and is ultimately responsible (as his Son was) for the Estate/Trust.

Would this mean Trust Law is the SUPREME law of the land and Jurisdiction over all others?

Aren't we the CREATOR/GRANTOR of our own world?
And, as the GRANTOR of our own Estate and Trust; don't we have a CHOICE to BE the Beneficiary? Or NOT to BE the Beneficiary?

To BE? Or NOT to be?
That IS the question! :)
The world is but a stage, and we are merely the players/legal personas, so which SCENE and ROLE do you choose to play?

If we choose NOT to BE the Beneficiary, and Executive Administrator, of our own Estate; doesn't this allow OTHERS to Trespass and take control of our world then entice us to BE the sacrificial Trustee who needs permissions, licences, pays fines, taxes, go to jail, etc?
How does this happen? Isn't there a Trustee who swore an oath of Office to SERVE and PROTECT our Estate, Public Trust, and BENEFICIARY?

What might a Trustee DO if the Grantor/Executor FAILS to enforce the oath of Office of his Trustee-Servant?
Will he breach the Contract-Trust?

Might the Trustee-Servant reverse rolls and take control of the Executor's Office, and Benefit, you abandoned?
Abandoned after you created it by placing your tiny footprints on the application for a legal Berth to hold your Estate, in your name, in your native land, along with a signed, and sealed, Berth Certificate to certify the existence of your Estate in it's Original Berth place.

Are you the GRANTOR? And doesn't your Granted Creation have MANY legal Personas and multiple account numbers attached to it in the land of OZ?
So what will you BE? And what can you DO with this HUGE gift made possible by the Sacrifice of our Creator's Son and your own Creation?
Can you find courage for your lion, occupy your Executor's Office, use your straw man, lubricate your tin man, and command them to DO THEIR JOBS to YOUR Benefit?
SS/BC/BIC/IRC/UCC/USC/CIC/WSSIC/ISBN 0314181121, 0159007763, 0314926690

Just food for thought and, considering such narrow margins, and extremely wide possibilities, have we learned any lessons?
Please forgive me, Thank you, Love you all, and happy holidays!

}:>

Receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others; Not too narrow or conservative in one's thought, expression, or conduct. Now, that sounds like a reasonable person.

it can be clear tho:
devide perception into settled and experimental knowledge and you can easily figure out which amount of critical thinking (debth of doubt) is justified/doable - relative to time and capacities.

focus consists largely of ignorance :3

I disagree.

Let us make a few assumptions: If a fine line divides two concepts, then either those concepts exist on the same scale (ie, there's a fine line between red and pink), or there's a singular criterion that divides something from being one or the other (ie, there's a fine line between a normal person and one with sickle-cell anemia--that line being the recessive gene for it).

Given this, two concepts which are separated by a fine line are mutually exclusive--you cannot be both. Something cannot be both pink and red, and you cannot have both normal hemoglobin and sickle-cell anemia. So the question is, can you be both open-minded and gullible, and can you be both close-minded and gullible?

Gullibility means someone is easily persuaded to believe something. Open-minded means you consider ideas on their merits instead of any preconceived bias or preference, so inversely a close minded individual allows bias and preference to enter into their weighing concepts.

Someone can be gullible and be open minded, or be gullible and close minded. Given this, gullibility is de-linked, or not mutually exclusive with open mindedness. Since The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, then there isn't a 'fine line' between them.

I don't know about your example...it implies that there necessarily is a line between 'red' and 'pink', although that line is arbitrary. It varies from person to person, culture to culture and is so malleable, in so many ways. Not simply by mixing paint differently; something can appear to be pink at the point where light hits it brightest, and maroon where it is in shadow. And as light moves across it, each part of the substance can indeed be 'pink' or 'red', with an arbitrary, undefined line between the two. Nature doesn't require a line.

The physical reality of something is often contextual; the point I just made is somewhat invalid if I consider 'red' as a physical pigment, and the tones it exhibits as reflections of a chemical property, while the substance itself always exists as 'red'. However, the point is extremely odd in the case of other things--for example, the shade of 'blue' in birds feathers is usually a structural colour, an entirely optical property caused by iridescence, or where it's not, it's the result of another, more subtle optical trick, where minuscule air pockets in the feathers scatter light in a specific fashion to create what is, by some definitions, an illusion of non-iridescent blue.

As for sickle cell anemia, in fact, you can (and many people do) have both normal haemoglobin and the sickle cells. It's a partially dominant gene (actually an autosomal recessive genetic blood disorder with overdominance but it's a bit easier to explain this way) and heterozygous individuals, who have one normal, and one mutant version of the gene (more correctly allele, there is no 'sickle cell gene', only a mutated version of the normal haemoglobin gene~), produce both types. It's also been found that this is adaptive; malaria cannot infect sickle cells. Which makes it awfully cool, because in normal circumstances two heterozygous individuals have a 50% chance of creating protected offspring, and only 25% chance of creating the harmful homozygous form. I apologize if you were already aware of this, maybe someone else will benefit from it (because I think science is fun :B). That said, there are lines here! Simply there's now two of them between three possible states.

In the end I actually agree wholeheartedly that there isn't a line between gullibility and open mindedness, but I see it as a little bit more like two seperate concepts that actually merge and blend, a little and a lot, in different situations and in different people. Some people confuse the two, others create a delineation. These are abstract concepts, just like colour is an abstract concept. It's my opinion that ultimately there isn't much point in trying to create a line, but there is point in paying attention to the distinctions between the core concepts...and to paying attention to the implications and extent of the overlaps.