All disagreement I have with people is based on the data we’ve examined…or not examined
All data is processed by the Identity: the sum of our accumulated experience here. From our identity, who we think we are, we process every bit of data that comes our way… in this way, we draw conclusions. From this experiencing and concluded we look at the world and say, “This is how it is…”.
The people I’d like most to talk with, can’t talk
I’d love to talk to the newborn babies… I’d ask them all, “What are you?”
From birth we begin the process of moving from what we are to who we think we are… By the time we’re able to really communicate it’s too late to get, or give, a straight answer
Recently I, and a person who recently suffered a stroke, watched and read the data collected from over 25 years of real life studies on food and heart disease. We came away with different conclusions…
This is just one case of people looking at the world and coming to different conclusions. Isn’t this the way all disagreement comes about? Isn’t this why the world of people is such a fucking mess? Isn’t this the germ of stupidity? The seed of violence?
In a sane world would people disagree about the data? Would we find it necessary to come to conclusions without hands on experimentation? In a sane world wouldn’t people look at data as the data we had.. so far… not necessarily concluding anything but at least operating on the data currently available to us? At least in this way we would likely agree on what to try next… Or, maybe you disagree