lancek4 wrote:I would tend for the 3rd option: both are absolutly true though they cannot comprehend how that could be. And 4: both are merely belief - but we cannot comprehend how both 3 and 4 could be true.
This is an example of you not understanding me. I did not mean for you to pick from the four as if only one can be correct, they are all correct. I meant that in all cases of two 'supposed' truths that oppose/disagree with one another as argued by two different individuals one of the four conditions I've outlined is always true. Which of the four is true depends upon a particular situation and can not necessarily be discerned. Only an observer knowing all absolute truths could possibly discern which of the four are in fact true in all cases, with some exception. The abs truths that are 'local,' that mankind are all to familiar with, because they're a part of his foundation (they date way back) are, of course, easily discerned and thus one could attest to which of my four conditions are correct, but it would be the one that knows the abs truth and knows he knows.
Additionally, I believe that I see something of your psyche in your answer, whereby you believed it was a multiple choice question and had to pick an answer, and with regard to the specific conditions you selected, both 3 & 4, or more specifically the one's you did not choose, both 1 & 2, give me this insight.
You did not choose the conditions where one man was right and the other was wrong. This is a testament of your relative point of view designed to make yourself never wrong as compared to another, so you can selfishly do what ever it is you please and not feel guilty, and not have to answer to the other. This is the epitome of arrogance, where there is no humility. This is a problem of the world and is why we shall definitely kill ourselves off. Because if you do not acknowledge an absolute truth that keeps you in check, stopping you from making grave mistakes, and are left to do what ever you want, you shall have the opportunity to do what is not actually in your or anyone else's best interests, and may actually destroy some of the very essence of life, that which is absolute. In essence you cannot treat something that's absolute, relatively as there is potential to utterly destroy the absolute, and here I'm talking of those things that are absolutely necessary for, you and everyone else's, life to flourish.
I will attempt another description of the situation:
Your Ab truth of water boiling example:
Indeed water boils; our description of the phenomenon has only accidental correspondence with our terms of it.
Not true, it is a matter of observation and is actually a perfect case to analyze the two things we are struggling with, the Relative and the Absolute.
Here's you relative truth:
Man A from Europe says water boils at 100°
Man B from the USA says water boils at 212°
Man C from the science community says water boils at 373°
Your relative depends upon scale, language, words, and numbers all of which is mans bullshit!
Here's the way the absolute truth is stated:
A liquid boils at the point at which heat causes the vapor pressure of the liquid to equal the environmental pressure surrounding the liquid.
This is absolutely true, it is independent of peoples relative scales, language, etc. No one can effectively argue against this fact of nature, physics, and absolute truth, unless their point of argument is to loose. We're talking about the act as represented by the words above, the words have absolutely nothing to do with the actual absolute truth of the event. Whether humans know it, don't know it, they exist, none of that matters as water and other liquids under these conditions shall continue to do this.
Keep in mind I am refering to a scheme of truth; water boiling is a description of a portion of that scheme we refer to as science - as if I can segregate my self into different arenas of knowing that do not inform one another. .
Total mumbo jumbo, the mish mashing of words that are not necessarily congruent, and/or rationalization to qualify one's distorted belief system!
But this all goes to my point:
We answer only to our scheme; it is our consciousness functioning in correspondence with the actual motion of the universe; the universe is either granting us total knowledge of itself at all times (because we are actual-natural-universal at all times) or what we have as knowledge is entirely self contained in itself, as an effect of our being an actual-natural-universal aspect of the universe functioning -- consciousness as the effect of our adaptated- developed behavioral-mechanism called the brain/neurological system of humans. Human Consciousness 'does what it does', and its 'doing' is to 'make sense' of the world. This making sense is just what it does. The sense made has only the correlation to any object within the making of sense.
Thus I say again: in that we think we are getting somewhere or going nowhere we are effectively contained within our 'sense-world' through an active denial that allows us to know and understand the universe as some 'actually absolutely true' Thing that we are learning more of everyday. Thus: we are indeed separate from the universe sufficiently enough to 'know' that we are harming our envoronment, and
At the same time, separate enough to 'create' our own World, to 'make' sense, to have truth-value.
Total mumbo jumbo, the mish mashing of words that are not necessarily congruent, and/or rationalization to qualify one's distorted belief system!
And, having such an idea does not ethically compromise me, on the contrary, it makes me more ethical becuase I am not cooerced by fear nor concerned with speculation, but only in doing what I can to benefit myself, family and humanity in general as we all are living at this moment, as I am able to comprhend this moment of humanity (which is admittedly limited despite my best efforts).
Total mumbo jumbo, the mish mashing of words that are not necessarily congruent, and/or rationalization to qualify one's distorted belief system!
