Coverage

[^_^]

I'm kind of branching this off of the Bin Laden thread; i don't want it merged because I don't want it to be all about Bin Laden. But the point of this thread is the following...

It's about coverage. Media coverage and the fact that we might only know as much as we can see (or well, have a "general idea" of what is going on in the world.) What I'm trying to say is that as "ordinary citizens" do we know as much about the world as we think we do? Relying on news sources such as TV and newspaper? Or do we have a somewhat general idea. There are millions of controversial things that we do not know about our country that we probably should (e.g. who blew up the towers, who killed JFK, is Tupac dead [ :biggrin:], etc.)

How much of this new coverage could be created to flower things down for the average citizen to a point to where the story itself is almost completely different than the truth. How much could be true; or really, what sources should you trust? If you read an article from Fox News saying A, but CNN says B, then where does a person draw his conclusion from about a subject that he is not very familiar with?

So the conclusion i've come up with, is that one can only know the facts about things that impact his/her life personally. Things that affect you directly (as well as few things that affect you indirectly). Because we don't need a media source to tell us what is happening in our own life.

If you think of the same thing from a marketing standpoint, the manufacturer will want a product to look like A, but after all of the vectors take control of it, it looks like Z. So how much about any general situation can we confirm as even 60% true? Speculation and the compilation of various different news sources is driving me crazy :bang:

[TheGodEmperor]

ahahahaha ELITE is a utilitarian empiricist

although theres nothing wrong with the belief that we can only know what we have experienced

but then....is the earth round or flat? You have probably experienced neither, so how can you know? Can you trust the educational coverage you've been given?

maybe that was a bad example, but I'm just trying to say that although such an outlook is admirable, in today's world, it is practically not functional

[oLi]

I can relate to this by seeing how much ordinary freestylers know about freestyle while I know more.
Feels like I'm president of the world sitting on all hidden secrets   :3some:

[a;sdlfkjas;df]

it comes out in time.  there's a reason history books are not immediately current

although, with some of the more sensitive issues (e.g. pat tillman), the discrepancies are due to information releases

[Adi]

Did any of you watch the newest National Treasure movie where a Black Book exists. The book has all the nation's secrets and only the President has access to the book.

[TheGodEmperor]

Did any of you watch the newest National Treasure movie where a Black Book exists. The book has all the nation's secrets and only the President has access to the book.

I gave up on that series after the first, which was passably decent  :biggrin:

but you can't take any movie that has Nicholas Cage in it seriously...he just cracks me up

[^_^]

ahahahaha ELITE is a utilitarian empiricist

although theres nothing wrong with the belief that we can only know what we have experienced

but then....is the earth round or flat? You have probably experienced neither, so how can you know? Can you trust the educational coverage you've been given?

maybe that was a bad example, but I'm just trying to say that although such an outlook is admirable, in today's world, it is practically not functional

well, not neccessarily something so fundamental; i mean, it's like saying i can't believe in an elephant because i've only seen pictures of them. science is proven, but of course, i'm not really looking at it from a scientific perspective. i'm thinking about more social aspects of life. although, sure, i've never done any research on scientific matters so trusting my textbooks is my only option.

but, at the same time, a history textbook must be trusted; but really, there are various instances when history textbooks talk about uncertainties. even science textbooks talk about uncertainties (like reasons for tetrad formation)

but science aside, speaking strictly about the accounts of events that occur around the world, we'll always be on the outside looking in on things that we really don't understand. how many things can you say you have a 100% understanding of (again, not things like math or science). obviously, i have a 100% understanding of the things that happen to me in my life (with regard to why and how i do things; i can't account for why i get affected by things indirectly, nor can most people, but i just know that i do.)

we can only know and see the surface, if that; i think getting into the thick of things requires direct involvement.

[TheGodEmperor]

ahahahaha ELITE is a utilitarian empiricist

although theres nothing wrong with the belief that we can only know what we have experienced

but then....is the earth round or flat? You have probably experienced neither, so how can you know? Can you trust the educational coverage you've been given?

maybe that was a bad example, but I'm just trying to say that although such an outlook is admirable, in today's world, it is practically not functional

well, not neccessarily something so fundamental; i mean, it's like saying i can't believe in an elephant because i've only seen pictures of them. science is proven, but of course, i'm not really looking at it from a scientific perspective. i'm thinking about more social aspects of life. although, sure, i've never done any research on scientific matters so trusting my textbooks is my only option.

but, at the same time, a history textbook must be trusted; but really, there are various instances when history textbooks talk about uncertainties. even science textbooks talk about uncertainties (like reasons for tetrad formation)

but science aside, speaking strictly about the accounts of events that occur around the world, we'll always be on the outside looking in on things that we really don't understand. how many things can you say you have a 100% understanding of (again, not things like math or science). obviously, i have a 100% understanding of the things that happen to me in my life (with regard to why and how i do things; i can't account for why i get affected by things indirectly, nor can most people, but i just know that i do.)

we can only know and see the surface, if that; i think getting into the thick of things requires direct involvement.

would you consider direct intellectual involvement to be direct involvement?

[^_^]

if your intellectual involvement is derived from being the primary source, then yes of course. but learning and excersising your intellect oftentimes involves repititional learning

[TheGodEmperor]

if your intellectual involvement is derived from being the primary source, then yes of course. but learning and excersising your intellect oftentimes involves repititional learning

not necessarily

consider this: we can only truly know something if we can view it without bias. How can we view something in which we are involved without bias?

[^_^]

i dont consider my own life something that i "view." it's something that i navigate. i can't really be biased towards myself, but i could see how one could consider a self-biased way of life. i do truley understand my life (not neccissarily why or how [again, not the meiosis aspect..] i came to exist [but that's a spiritual thing. spiritual involvement in itself can change the course of any perspective])

but then you consider that same fact; how many things do you neccissarily view without your own personal bias?

[TheGodEmperor]

i dont consider my own life something that i "view." it's something that i navigate. i can't really be biased towards myself, but i could see how one could consider a self-biased way of life. i do truley understand my life (not neccissarily why or how [again, not the meiosis aspect..] i came to exist [but that's a spiritual thing. spiritual involvement in itself can change the course of any perspective])

but then you consider that same fact; how many things do you neccissarily view without your own personal bias?

my answer would be nothing

therefore anything we view, or anything we are involved in is imbued with an element of bias

so are you saying that your ultimate purpose is existance? Or is it to be sure in your knowledge that you exist?

You lose a lot of loaded words: what is understanding? If you truly understand your life, what does that mean about the larger sphere of existence? Is all exterior understanding reliant on your understanding of yourself? In creating your own understanding of yourself, you create yourself. When you create yourself, you create Man. It is a fundamental principle of existensialism. Who fashions your understanding, if you do not believe that you do?

Assuming you create yourself, this action of self-creation wiuld entail a separate being fundamental to all understanding that could comport itself with its place in the world in order to gain a comprehension of that place. How does that fundamental being, or Dasein, come to be? Are we reliant on some Prime Mover? If so, is It immanent or transcendent?

You see, your statement opens up all kinds of other issues. I could go on for ever