Can't we just hold it?

Can't we just hold it?

Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to 'hold'.

It appears to me that many young people consider that 'to be negative is to be cool'. This leads them into responding that 'X is false' when responding to an OP that states that 'X is true'.

When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of 'Y' they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed 'Y'.

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of 'reject or accept', when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone's default position.

Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I claim that 'hold' is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

Do you accept, reject, or hold judgment regarding my claim?

What you're stating here as i see it is a very vague view on my view of extreme agnosticism. The following is just stating my point of view on this matter.
(note that i am agreeing with ur point, just stating my personal observations on the subject)

Speaking from my somewhat limited experience, i can say holding it is possible yet the worst choice among the three.

It is the most rightous one of the three, as in the most logical one to make if our main intrest is precision of information (now, do we just want to be "right" ? )
It is the most demanding and exhausting choice, one cannot "learn" from anything if they have doubt about it.
And you're statement is basically overlooking knowledge, or assumption, or belief (works on all three).
It is innate in us to have to decide on whatever the subject is, or else we would not learn from it, as it is innate in us to learn from everything (especially at a young age).

To put it in other terms, i believe that knowledge false or true is way more appealing to us than the question. it is much harder to live by/believe in a question that it is to believe in the answer to that question. And belief here is simply another form of some memory about assumptions/realisation/decisions. and to some degree knowledge is what drives us (we come accross the mind-in-a-vat problem here, but that's another subject).

The conclusion i came accross after years of trying to adobt this method of thinking, is that a "maybe" or "holding" as you put it, is the most mentally demanding of those 3, and still i never get it right simply because the human mind(or maybe just mine) doesn't remember the questions, it only remembers them as answers to something else.

So i guess my answer to that question is very simple:
"we can, but who would want to live that way" at least in a social world.

of course speaking my own point of view.

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
Freud and Darwin are frauds.
God made me.
You are driving too fast.

When faced with these statements does it matter which of the three buttons 'accept, reject, or hold' that you push?

Just what impact does a decision of 'reject or accept' have on my future considerations?

It is my assumption that such a decision causes me to either stop or at least to slow down any further consideration of the matter. It appears to me that many of our conclusions are 'worked out' within our unconscious, especially while we sleep.

Our educational system is designed around the basic premise that the students will accept what is told to them and that this acceptance is very important for their future welfare and for the welfare of the community.

quote:

---

Our educational system is designed around the basic premise that the students will accept what is told to them and that this acceptance is very important for their future welfare and for the welfare of the community.

---

Well, i did agree with the rest, but here i may present a counter-argument on the matter.

it might be because the education system did not benefit me in any way, but what i was talking about before is that as i see it,
The human creature is a "compulsive" thinker. Thus if a question presents itself , not once, nor twice but in more common terms. The mind will not rest until it presents that "creature" with a knowledge they can assume, or remember (in lighter terms).

Anyway the whole point i was presenting is that it is very possible, and skepticism is a very valid concept (to me of course), to improve oneself,
But the argument of the whole matter is that each time u are presented with the question, That is if u're living in iraq, and they're bombing ur ass, u will always have to listen to ur mind trying to work out an answer, since it is probably the only way to be able to accept anything.

Your mind will eventually present you with an answer (maybe because it's tired from thinking about the subject, so the purity of the thought process is destroyed and you assume whatever suits your other senses, as in if you're living in america, and u'd be thinking about the question if there are WMDs in iraq. the most "suitable" and by suitable i mean in no way "right" answer would be that yes, "what they're doing is within reason".

Now what i've just been trying to explain that the mind is not a perfect organ. It is flawed (after all we're only human), and is affected by society more than anything else.

You might consider it as "peer pressure" (on bigger terms of course) but the fact of the matter is that we ALL know subconsciensly it's better to be happy than right.

And the answers we most commonly choose without much thought are answers that are most suitable to our condition.

What i've just mentioned above is a very common issue in society, and has been the driving essense of our world (whether the crucifixion of christ, world war 2, or any religion). Now i am not saying it is good or bad.
But that's how 99% of our minds work, and that's how "society" functions.

I believe it is up to whoever chooses to believe or deny anything to not push other people to follow him/her.
basically this is the rise and fall of our human society, but without it we'd be extinct.

As much as i hate to admit it, social living (or basically the followers syndrome as i put it above) is what made Man invincible (as in the whole species) in terms of the other earth creatures/ Still it might lead to our downfall as well.

I am not looking for an answer to the question here, I prefer to try understand the questions than find an answer.

I do believe in keeping the answers to ourselves, and to only share the thought process behind it.

and here it all falls down of course (am i right on this subject, or is it just my opinion)
It might be best to only answer such questions with probabilities, that way there's never a definite eternal answer to anything, if we choose to force our mind to make decisions in terms of what is most probable, without the word "right" or "wrong" in our dictionary.

But that's just crazy talk (at least to everyone i've known so far)

So then you see what i mean by all this that people see the word "right" as in what is best for "me" , "us", "our community". Not in what's best for this species.

As long as the human creature wants to be social, it will always divite itself into groups.
Cause as much as people would like to believe otherwise. We all are NOT the same ( different doesn't mean better or worse)

We also have the option to let go, but since the ego survives on fight and questions and answers,I understand how you have missed this choiceless choice.

quote:

---

We also have the option to let go, but since the ego survives on fight and questions and answers,I understand how you have missed this choiceless choice

---

ego is the folly of Man