Yes, I should have been clearer. I mean no information about the actual subject matter, but only preheld information about something that you erroneously deem to be the same as the subject matter. I can have no information about the type of man that Marcus is. But because I know he's friends with Bob, whom I think is a cunt, I can prejudge Marcus as a cunt too.
I suppose you could say that even in that case there is information. You know that Marcus is a man, you know his name is Marcus, and you know he's friends with Bob. No information was probably not the best use of language in this instance, but I thought you would know what I mean.
You're also correct about people being able to be prejudice about rape and murder. I was wrong. And I was projecting my beliefs onto it. As, I don't believe in moral relativism. I think if we all listened closely enough to our hearts we could arrive at the same conclusions about what is right and what is wrong. This is why I think that to any who fairly judge rape and murder will deem it morally wrong. But once again, you are right in saying that people can have a prejudice towards rape and murder. I was wrong again. But I think one only needs to understand that causing intentional suffering is wrong to understand that rape and murder are wrong. Many may be for rape or for murder, but this doesn't necessarily mean they have judged it as moral. It may just mean that they value their own pleasure, or their own agenda, more than they value what is morally correct.
You'll have to forgive my last message. It was far less clear than the norm for me, but in my defence it was very late and replying to you was the last thing I done before going to sleep.
To try and reiterate my point. I think that, by definition, prejudice is unfair judgement. It is making a decision about someone or something without giving it the thought or the research it deserves, so I simply cannot imagine how any type of prejudice could ever be acceptable.
Sure, you can quote me on anything at any time, without the need to ask.
And I also hope I never give up. It is pretty exhausting, constantly searching for answers. But, I believe that there is a profound type of intelligence that results from one being true to their own mind and not accepting comfortable truths. If you never accept a piece of information as truthful simply because it's easier to do so, then as you continue to think deeper on your opinions, you will eliminate any contradictions and those opinions will become far more valuable.
I think that most people have so many conflicting opinions in their head. And when you do, looking at a body of information and drawing an accurate interpretation from it becomes all but impossible. So, in all honesty, I think that the most important factor to intelligence is not genetics, but self-honesty.
If you've ever meditated or taking psychadelic drugs you will know that symbols do not solely emanate from the exterior. Upon entering a trance your mind can be flooded with geometric patterns and symbols. We also must remember that everything we see in the world, at least in terms of language, started within us.
I have a theory that language as we use it is an inferior means of communicating. I think it likely we have forgotten much of our power, or better yet, been made to forget. Perhaps we do not need to speak at all to communicate with one another, but we have been doing it so long that we no longer remember how we used to do it, or by what other means we're capable of doing so. Everything physical that I observe, based on a lot of my experiences, certainly appears to be a shitter copy of something spiritually innate within us, and the whole point of the physical seems to be to drive us away from this part of ourselves.
Telephones are but a limited recreation of telepathy, televisions of remote viewing etc. We even have the word "forge" which means to create something of a physical nature, but also means to "copy" something else. Perhaps the language itself is hinting at this theory's potential accuracy.
So, I do think it possible that all answers can come from within. But, I don;t necessarily believe that they would arrive in a linear format, like, "the world is like this because of this." I am not convinced that the spirit is bound to the laws of time as the physical appears to be. And, we know that language is a linear thing. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. So does logic, which we use to try and solve the mystery of life.
But, if you take logic, and you remove time from the equation- what would remain? Without a beginning, middle and end, logic would surely manifest either as an ever-present understanding of all- or, an ever-present curiosity. I hope it would be the former. I feel at times that people think the rational mind is for drawing closer to the truth. But, I do wonder if that is wrong. What if we all understand the truth already, and we use the rational mind to pave the way to the truths that we're more comfortable with?
So to get back to the point. I think a journey inwards to discover the truth would return a very different type of understanding. It needn't be one that we can rationalise, but one that we simply "know." There is too much emphasis on rational thinking in the world today. But logic is just one tool in our toolkit. I think intuition is largely underestimated.
RE: Why I'm Not a Vegan