Verisimilitude in Non-Conversant-style Screeds
“The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what’s true.” – Carl Sagan
Just as our concepts of what is accurate and what lacks validity can remain constant without further nurturing of inwardly-designed development processes, it is vitally important that we accept that these points cannot be overlooked in terms of communication and perception.
A wise person will know that his thoughts, developed as they may be along their own system of parallel checking (or research based mergers), may not seem palatable to the “outside mob”.
**The truth may be itself unflawed or with understood meaning, but without the veneer of verisimilitude, unprovided by the concept itself, the endeavour will likely be heard only be deaf ears.
A wise person presents their thoughts not only as they are, but as acceptable “nodes” along the idea process. The audience may be incorrect, but this does not mean that alternate solutions will be accepted; if your audience is blind, you would not provide pictures to teach them.**
It is also worth acknowledging the potential possibility of hypocrisy in your words. I think if people profess to follow a stringent path of pro-cranial activity and a skeptical basis for the status quo of our spoon-mouth society, it is an excellent idea to treat their own ideas in a similar fashion. It is a good idea to register that if one person may develop seperate yet equally (if not more) fulsome values, it is possible that other people may likewise find themselves in a similar situation.
**A conflict with one’s valued-statements and those of others does not mean they hold different values; rather, they may simply have started from the same intellectual premise but diverged into potentially more accurate advanced concepts or methods of arriving at same. **
How would a person make sure they put across their ideas well?
How should they behave towards others who disagree?
Should they assume others conform to the standards that you do not?
Does a epiphany of thought entail singularhood?