 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
When designing a test, it's also important to figure out what is
really being tested. In other words, there should be a way of
determining what is really the truth based on what answer you get from
the person being tested. An example of this is questioning two people
where one always lies and the other always tells the truth. It's easy
to get an answer to any question posed to this duo, but that doesn't
mean that you've got any more _information_ than you did before you
asked - it just means that you've got the answers they gave you. In
that particular logical problem, however, there are ways of phrasing
the question and intepreting the answer such that you can get some
real knowledge.
>Vivekanandaji asked each guru/swami/teacher he met, "Have you seen
>God?" When they all said "no," he was out of there in a hurry. Then he
My first thought on this above statement is that I've never seen any
guru/swami/teacher give an answer of just "no". If you don't believe
me, try it for yourself - ask the same question that Vivekananda is
purported to have asked, and see what sort of answers you get.
The second thought that came to mind was: is this question a proper
test for what he was searching for? Put another way, does this
question have any bearing on the matter, and how should the answers be
interpreted? Consider a somewhat parallel task - you are trying to
find the most spiritually enlightened person on the planet. If you
decide that the proper question to ask is "are you the most
spiritually enlightened person on the planet?", consider what the
answer will show you. If someone really is the most spiritually
enlightened person on the planet, I will imagine that he/she will
reply no. On the other hand, someone who is just a simple faker will
undoubtedly reply "yes".
If I had to find said person, I would probably reject anyone who just
said "yes", and I would further question anyone who didn't.
-Vivek
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|