What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

Is not the 'truth' of everyone being equal a compromise? If I stop at a stop sign, have I not compromised my truth of moving forward , for the sake of the greater 'good'?

[chaz wyman]

I think more to the point: The result of the discussion of truth is evident of most discussion that has to do with true things. The discussion always leads to a compromise or a negotiation of truth, such that the truth is thus what a defined majority or consensus deems.

What is this then ? What is this truth that 'they' establish? Say for example 'all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights...'. What truth is this? How did it come about? Or perhaps a most siginifcant question: from where did does it arise? From observation? From utility?

Or the most operative: what relation do I have to this truth? Am I an object defined by a conflation of objects? Or am I that which establishes the conflation ?

Is that which is contradictory, that is, reason that reaches contradiction, de facto false?

... or what kind of truth is it that admits to any compromise?

Oh shit! That's it , isn't it? The issue here.

That's what I like about you Chaz; your not afraid to bring things right down to the line.

So what are we talking about. Are all humans created equal? What are we talking about ? Lead it onward.

I just think that the truth is not in any sense "out there". Were there no humans then there would be true. Nothing would be true without persons to ask what is true. Plato was dead wrong. There is not ideal forms; except those that we generate in our minds.
Truth is about the relationship between me, you and others and the things that we object to our scrutiny.
Thus truth is not just contingent on that which is the case. It is also contingent upon our perception of those objects of our interest.
But whilst we can agree upon what we think is true, we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. If you want to know about 'absolute' ask SoB and his delusions. Objective truth is nothing more than the consensus of predefined criteria (arbtrary always), and universal can never be established until the end of time.

[chaz wyman]

Lol ! That's great. But Scientology is so great. And then when I add my Mormanism to it , not only do I get to be clear but I get my own universe after I die. And then I sprinkle some Buddhism on top and I get peace of mind about it all. Ahhh the smorgasbord of realities. I'm glad I live in a time where I have such freedom.

You're neglecting Zen.

[Arising_uk]

Lol ! That's great. But Scientology is so great. And then when I add my Mormanism to it , not only do I get to be clear but I get my own universe after I die. And then I sprinkle some Buddhism on top and I get peace of mind about it all. Ahhh the smorgasbord of realities. I'm glad I live in a time where I have such freedom.

Dianetics is bad for you in the long-run. If you like this kind of stuff try New Code NLP as it does not allow religious brainwashing, has very little dubious psychology(i.e. Engrams), and is about outcomes and choice. It also has a bunch of killer techniques. You could even become a 'clear' if you wished.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Is not the 'truth' of everyone being equal a compromise?
No, it's an understanding, a realization, if you're capable of fathoming it's depths.

If I stop at a stop sign, have I not compromised my truth of moving forward
Quantify 'stop' and 'moving forward.'

, for the sake of the greater 'good'?
More correctly, for the sake of your self, and thus everyone.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think more to the point: The result of the discussion of truth is evident of most discussion that has to do with true things. The discussion always leads to a compromise or a negotiation of truth, such that the truth is thus what a defined majority or consensus deems.

What is this then ? What is this truth that 'they' establish? Say for example 'all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights...'. What truth is this? How did it come about? Or perhaps a most siginifcant question: from where did does it arise? From observation? From utility?

Or the most operative: what relation do I have to this truth? Am I an object defined by a conflation of objects? Or am I that which establishes the conflation ?

Is that which is contradictory, that is, reason that reaches contradiction, de facto false?

... or what kind of truth is it that admits to any compromise?

Oh shit! That's it , isn't it? The issue here.

That's what I like about you Chaz; your not afraid to bring things right down to the line.

So what are we talking about. Are all humans created equal? What are we talking about ? Lead it onward.

I just think that the truth is not in any sense "out there". Were there no humans then there would be true. Nothing would be true without persons to ask what is true.
Incorrect, truth was born of man finally realizing that his beliefs, were incorrect (false). Truth then, was meant to be a place holder for all that man currently, at any particular moment, believes; that which is 'in' his head, that is in fact, actually false, as compared to that which is actually 'out there,' that his understanding shall one day come to realize.

For instance the belief that the earth was flat, was false (untrue), it was 'in' mans head, but by this time man knew that the truth was 'out there,' as it turned out he ventured 'out there' and found the truth, that in fact the earth was spherical. If he had never ventured 'out there' he would have never known this truth, as 'out there' was the only place it could be found, as truth is not to be found in his head.

If a man is born without any senses, he is deaf, dumb, blind and without smell or touch, he is completely with'in' himself and knows absolutely nothing of any truth, whatsoever. If suddenly a miracle cure of medical science restores all of his senses, he may now for the first time venture 'out there' to finally be acquainted with the truth that had always been 'out there' all around him, just waiting to be understood. Of course along this journey, he shall presuppose, anticipate, what truths lie around the next bend, and in so doing, he shall have beliefs born from within his own head, that only what's 'out there,' around the next bend, shall illuminate, as to in fact, the actual truth of the matter.

Plato was dead wrong. There is not ideal forms; except those that we generate in our minds.
Truth is about the relationship between me, you and others and the things that we object to our scrutiny.
Thus truth is not just contingent on that which is the case. It is also contingent upon our perception of those objects of our interest.
Incorrect, if you are not interested as to whether or not your wife is screwing your neighbor, in truth, she still may be, if in fact she is in truth, your interest matters not.

But whilst we can agree upon what we think is true,
What you think is true, matters not!

we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object.
Incorrect, if you are sitting in your home as the subject and you are oblivious to the true object of fire approaching your home, you still burn up and die whether you admit this relationship or not.

If you want to know about 'absolute' ask SoB and his delusions.
Your argument defeats itself, as such, it is you that is delusional. You state your case, as if in fact, it's absolute, yet you say there can be no absolutes!

Objective truth is nothing more than the consensus of predefined criteria (arbtrary always), and universal can never be established until the end of time.
Incorrect, universal merely means, from the outside in, as opposed to, from the inside out.

[MJA]

Is not the 'truth' of everyone being equal a compromise? If I stop at a stop sign, have I not compromised my truth of moving forward , for the sake of the greater 'good'?

Have you truly stopped,
And how would you measure yourself?

=

[chaz wyman]

Lol ! That's great. But Scientology is so great. And then when I add my Mormanism to it , not only do I get to be clear but I get my own universe after I die. And then I sprinkle some Buddhism on top and I get peace of mind about it all. Ahhh the smorgasbord of realities. I'm glad I live in a time where I have such freedom.

Dianetics is bad for you in the long-run. If you like this kind of stuff try New Code NLP as it does not allow religious brainwashing, has very little dubious psychology(i.e. Engrams), and is about outcomes and choice. It also has a bunch of killer techniques. You could even become a 'clear' if you wished.

It's bad for you in the short run too. When my brother was about 18, naive, on the streets of LA, then fleeced him for his last $40.

[MJA]

Is not the 'truth' of everyone being equal a compromise? If I stop at a stop sign, have I not compromised my truth of moving forward , for the sake of the greater 'good'?

As equality is compromised by inequity,
Truth is compromised by untruth.
Surely we all know what stands in our Way!

=

[lancek4]

Lol ! That's great. But Scientology is so great. And then when I add my Mormanism to it , not only do I get to be clear but I get my own universe after I die. And then I sprinkle some Buddhism on top and I get peace of mind about it all. Ahhh the smorgasbord of realities. I'm glad I live in a time where I have such freedom.

Dianetics is bad for you in the long-run. If you like this kind of stuff try New Code NLP as it does not allow religious brainwashing, has very little dubious psychology(i.e. Engrams), and is about outcomes and choice. It also has a bunch of killer techniques. You could even become a 'clear' if you wished.

but see, I can pick and choose what truth is for me, so I choose to leave out the bad parts of scientology, keep the getting a universe of my own from Mormanism, after I die, and then I get peace of mind from Buddihsm. Oh and I like that I go to heaven from general Christianity. And I get to become a Master through zen.

couldnt have it better. Now a days we get to choose our beliefs that make us happy and make sense to us regardless of whether or not they are true; because everyone has thier belief of what is true.

[lancek4]

Is not the 'truth' of everyone being equal a compromise? If I stop at a stop sign, have I not compromised my truth of moving forward , for the sake of the greater 'good'?

As equality is compromised by inequity,
Truth is compromised by untruth.
Surely we all know what stands in our Way!

=

Is not the thing that is untrue therefore ture in its untruth?

[MJA]

Is not the 'truth' of everyone being equal a compromise? If I stop at a stop sign, have I not compromised my truth of moving forward , for the sake of the greater 'good'?

As equality is compromised by inequity,
Truth is compromised by untruth.
Surely we all know what stands in our Way!

=

Is not the thing that is untrue therefore ture in its untruth?

Reminds me of a dog I once saw chasing his tail.
ruf ruf

=

[lancek4]

Red=SoB; (sorry I had to adjust it for the 3 embedded quotes thing)
blue=lk4, and the post outside the box.
I think more to the point: The result of the discussion of truth is evident of most discussion that has to do with true things. The discussion always leads to a compromise or a negotiation of truth, such that the truth is thus what a defined majority or consensus deems.

What is this then ? What is this truth that 'they' establish? Say for example 'all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights...'. What truth is this? How did it come about? Or perhaps a most siginifcant question: from where did does it arise? From observation? From utility?

Or the most operative: what relation do I have to this truth? Am I an object defined by a conflation of objects? Or am I that which establishes the conflation ?

Is that which is contradictory, that is, reason that reaches contradiction, de facto false?

... or what kind of truth is it that admits to any compromise?

Oh shit! That's it , isn't it? The issue here.

That's what I like about you Chaz; your not afraid to bring things right down to the line.

So what are we talking about. Are all humans created equal? What are we talking about ? Lead it onward.

I just think that the truth is not in any sense "out there". Were there no humans then there would be true. Nothing would be true without persons to ask what is true.
Incorrect, truth was born of man finally realizing that his beliefs, were incorrect (false). Truth then, was meant to be a place holder for all that man currently, at any particular moment, believes; that which is 'in' his head, that is in fact, actually false, as compared to that which is actually 'out there,' that his understanding shall one day come to realize.

For instance the belief that the earth was flat, was false (untrue), it was 'in' mans head, but by this time man knew that the truth was 'out there,' as it turned out he ventured 'out there' and found the truth, that in fact the earth was spherical. If he had never ventured 'out there' he would have never known this truth, as 'out there' was the only place it could be found, as truth is not to be found in his head.

If a man is born without any senses, he is deaf, dumb, blind and without smell or touch, he is completely with'in' himself and knows absolutely nothing of any truth, whatsoever. If suddenly a miracle cure of medical science restores all of his senses, he may now for the first time venture 'out there' to finally be acquainted with the truth that had always been 'out there' all around him, just waiting to be understood. Of course along this journey, he shall presuppose, anticipate, what truths lie around the next bend, and in so doing, he shall have beliefs born from within his own head, that only what's 'out there,' around the next bend, shall illuminate, as to in fact, the actual truth of the matter.

Plato was dead wrong. There is not ideal forms; except those that we generate in our minds. Thank you; yes....

Truth is about the relationship between me, you and others and the things that we object to our scrutiny.
Thus truth is not just contingent on that which is the case. It is also contingent upon our perception of those objects of our interest.
...with stipulation...

.
Incorrect, if you are not interested as to whether or not your wife is screwing your neighbor, in truth, she still may be, if in fact she is in truth, your interest matters not.

But whilst we can agree upon what we think is true,
What you think is true, matters not!

we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. ...
go on with your bad self...

Incorrect, if you are sitting in your home as the subject and you are oblivious to the true object of fire approaching your home, you still burn up and die whether you admit this relationship or not.

If you want to know about 'absolute' ask SoB and his delusions.
Your argument defeats itself, as such, it is you that is delusional. You state your case, as if in fact, it's absolute, yet you say there can be no absolutes!

Objective truth is nothing more than the consensus of predefined criteria (arbtrary always), and universal can never be established until the end of time.
Incorrect, universal merely means, from the outside in, as opposed to, from the inside out.

Indeed there are constants of some universe that enter into our knowledge, such as 'there are things that can catch fire'. The constant is that we merely exist; there is no disputing that somehow there is an interaction amoungst things of the universe.

The question is, again: how do you know this. If I put my hand in a fire, it hurts it burns. The terms that come to my sense of knowledge have nothing to do with this aspect of existence. The terms 'fire', 'burn', 'pain' have no necessary correlation to the event or object except that they have arisen in knowledge as such. The issue is how these terms relate and correlate to what we know as true. The separation of 'fire' and 'plastic' to our knowledge is merely a situating of relations into a particular scheme of truth. In fact, there could be no meaning of 'fire' without the term 'plastic'. We cannot recourse to some history and say that this proposition is incorrect, that there was a time when there was no term 'plastic' because when you do so (rebut in this way) you are recoursing to the scheme of truth that segregates knowledge (terms) into a particular relation, which is the scheme of truth. In other words, when you say 'in the past', the term 'past' is being used as a segregated item in-itself to relate to another item 'plastic', as if these terms refer to specific temporally placed, actual-real, objects in-themselves. Indeed further, as I speak here, I am relying upon a particular scheme of truth to dis-place 'temporal' from its usual position in our scheme - because 'temporal' will usually and automatically refer to the object in-itself that is this supposed item in space-time. Likewise, when I say 'space-time', the usual meaning in our particular scheme of truth will habitually be taken to refer to a particular thing in-itself. Where an absolute thing in-itself exists for meaning, there is necessarily a correspondent 'culmination' or 'reckoning' or 'grand truth' that lay in wait for our progressing knowledge.

The point is that there are no object in-itself that we can know 'absolutely'. To refer to some 'absolute' truth necessarility posits the object in-itself that we can know, and completely denies the limitation of knowledge.

The seeming referent that applies 'wife screwing your best freind' to an actual in-itself object is merely a state of existing that is being confered to knowledge. It does not mean that the event has any particular actual meaning; if it did, everyone who's best freind was screwing thier wife would react the exact same way. The meaning of the event is only true to the extent that it is segregated into a general scheme to create meaning that avoids inherent contradiction of experience.

Now, this is all small talk.

So, as I say; where there is an absolute true object, there is correspondant positing of 'getting somewhere', of progress.

But what we see when we come to terms with the limits of knowing, is that because the true object only exist within and for the positing of progress, which is to say, there is no object in-itself that can be known in its 'essential truth', such a posting merely justifies the positor, and has no real correlation with the proposed progress 'in-itself', but only in as much as the shceme of truth justifies the consciousness that posits it.

Hence, we look into our 'base of knoweldge' (the panoramic surficial depth that is knoweldge), so to speak, and see that every culture, every civilization, every group that has existed has a total meaning of the universe: its truth. And that thier truth was total; it was True. Thus, it is not that this 'objective truth' of yours (sob) is True in some essential progressive way, as if we have learned some essential in-itself knowledge from the 'past', and that we are now so much more knowledgable that the past cultures: this is our Truth. Our Truth explains everything in reference to justifying itself as The Truth.

Technology and science exist as components our our existing, part of our human 'nature', inseparable from our knowledge. there is no 'what if'. It is only in the segregation of knowlegde that we justify our being through the scheme of truth that grants us reality: the absolute truth.

There is no spearating a plant from the medium in which it grows. If one does so then the plant de facto no longer grows and therefore does not exist.

so the real issue at hand becomes ((which N (sorry; bleeding threads) addresses but in short-sighted in his position, and likewise Kierkegaard:)) how is it that i am able to know This? How can This be true?

Thus irony. And thus the conversation that Slavoj Zizek has a handle on and attempts to reconcile. This is where the substantial conversation begins.

When we come to terms with the mythology that we pose at every turn of our asserting a particular reality, then we can begin to remove the 'idols' from our fancy. We can (hopefully)find a better way to speak of the trascending object than to mythologize it into the absolute object. We can step aside from such well-tread discussions that depend upon the object in-itself. And we can then (maybe) find this 'ubermensche', this individual who has 'gone over' what we know as the 'true humanity'.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Red=SoB; (sorry I had to adjust it for the 3 embedded quotes thing)
blue=lk4, and the post outside the box.
I think more to the point: The result of the discussion of truth is evident of most discussion that has to do with true things. The discussion always leads to a compromise or a negotiation of truth, such that the truth is thus what a defined majority or consensus deems.

What is this then ? What is this truth that 'they' establish? Say for example 'all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights...'. What truth is this? How did it come about? Or perhaps a most siginifcant question: from where did does it arise? From observation? From utility?

Or the most operative: what relation do I have to this truth? Am I an object defined by a conflation of objects? Or am I that which establishes the conflation ?

Is that which is contradictory, that is, reason that reaches contradiction, de facto false?

... or what kind of truth is it that admits to any compromise?

Oh shit! That's it , isn't it? The issue here.

That's what I like about you Chaz; your not afraid to bring things right down to the line.

So what are we talking about. Are all humans created equal? What are we talking about ? Lead it onward.

I just think that the truth is not in any sense "out there". Were there no humans then there would be true. Nothing would be true without persons to ask what is true.
Incorrect, truth was born of man finally realizing that his beliefs, were incorrect (false). Truth then, was meant to be a place holder for all that man currently, at any particular moment, believes; that which is 'in' his head, that is in fact, actually false, as compared to that which is actually 'out there,' that his understanding shall one day come to realize.

For instance the belief that the earth was flat, was false (untrue), it was 'in' mans head, but by this time man knew that the truth was 'out there,' as it turned out he ventured 'out there' and found the truth, that in fact the earth was spherical. If he had never ventured 'out there' he would have never known this truth, as 'out there' was the only place it could be found, as truth is not to be found in his head.

If a man is born without any senses, he is deaf, dumb, blind and without smell or touch, he is completely with'in' himself and knows absolutely nothing of any truth, whatsoever. If suddenly a miracle cure of medical science restores all of his senses, he may now for the first time venture 'out there' to finally be acquainted with the truth that had always been 'out there' all around him, just waiting to be understood. Of course along this journey, he shall presuppose, anticipate, what truths lie around the next bend, and in so doing, he shall have beliefs born from within his own head, that only what's 'out there,' around the next bend, shall illuminate, as to in fact, the actual truth of the matter.

Plato was dead wrong. There is not ideal forms; except those that we generate in our minds. Thank you; yes....

Truth is about the relationship between me, you and others and the things that we object to our scrutiny.
Thus truth is not just contingent on that which is the case. It is also contingent upon our perception of those objects of our interest.
...with stipulation...

.
Incorrect, if you are not interested as to whether or not your wife is screwing your neighbor, in truth, she still may be, if in fact she is in truth, your interest matters not.

But whilst we can agree upon what we think is true,
What you think is true, matters not!

we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. ...
go on with your bad self...

Incorrect, if you are sitting in your home as the subject and you are oblivious to the true object of fire approaching your home, you still burn up and die whether you admit this relationship or not.

If you want to know about 'absolute' ask SoB and his delusions.
Your argument defeats itself, as such, it is you that is delusional. You state your case, as if in fact, it's absolute, yet you say there can be no absolutes!

Objective truth is nothing more than the consensus of predefined criteria (arbtrary always), and universal can never be established until the end of time.
Incorrect, universal merely means, from the outside in, as opposed to, from the inside out.

Indeed there are constants of some universe that enter into our knowledge, such as 'there are things that can catch fire'. The constant is that we merely exist; there is no disputing that somehow there is an interaction amoungst things of the universe.

The question is, again: how do you know this. If I put my hand in a fire, it hurts it burns. The terms that come to my sense of knowledge have nothing to do with this aspect of existence. The terms 'fire', 'burn', 'pain' have no necessary correlation to the event or object except that they have arisen in knowledge as such. The issue is how these terms relate and correlate to what we know as true. The separation of 'fire' and 'plastic' to our knowledge is merely a situating of relations into a particular scheme of truth. In fact, there could be no meaning of 'fire' without the term 'plastic'. We cannot recourse to some history and say that this proposition is incorrect, that there was a time when there was no term 'plastic' because when you do so (rebut in this way) you are recoursing to the scheme of truth that segregates knowledge (terms) into a particular relation, which is the scheme of truth. In other words, when you say 'in the past', the term 'past' is being used as a segregated item in-itself to relate to another item 'plastic', as if these terms refer to specific temporally placed, actual-real, objects in-themselves. Indeed further, as I speak here, I am relying upon a particular scheme of truth to dis-place 'temporal' from its usual position in our scheme - because 'temporal' will usually and automatically refer to the object in-itself that is this supposed item in space-time. Likewise, when I say 'space-time', the usual meaning in our particular scheme of truth will habitually be taken to refer to a particular thing in-itself. Where an absolute thing in-itself exists for meaning, there is necessarily a correspondent 'culmination' or 'reckoning' or 'grand truth' that lay in wait for our progressing knowledge.

The point is that there are no object in-itself that we can know 'absolutely'. To refer to some 'absolute' truth necessarility posits the object in-itself that we can know, and completely denies the limitation of knowledge.

The seeming referent that applies 'wife screwing your best freind' to an actual in-itself object is merely a state of existing that is being confered to knowledge. It does not mean that the event has any particular actual meaning; if it did, everyone who's best freind was screwing thier wife would react the exact same way. The meaning of the event is only true to the extent that it is segregated into a general scheme to create meaning that avoids inherent contradiction of experience.

Now, this is all small talk.

So, as I say; where there is an absolute true object, there is correspondant positing of 'getting somewhere', of progress.

But what we see when we come to terms with the limits of knowing, is that because the true object only exist within and for the positing of progress, which is to say, there is no object in-itself that can be known in its 'essential truth', such a posting merely justifies the positor, and has no real correlation with the proposed progress 'in-itself', but only in as much as the shceme of truth justifies the consciousness that posits it.

Hence, we look into our 'base of knoweldge' (the panoramic surficial depth that is knoweldge), so to speak, and see that every culture, every civilization, every group that has existed has a total meaning of the universe: its truth. And that thier truth was total; it was True. Thus, it is not that this 'objective truth' of yours (sob) is True in some essential progressive way, as if we have learned some essential in-itself knowledge from the 'past', and that we are now so much more knowledgable that the past cultures: this is our Truth. Our Truth explains everything in reference to justifying itself as The Truth.

Technology and science exist as components our our existing, part of our human 'nature', inseparable from our knowledge. there is no 'what if'. It is only in the segregation of knowlegde that we justify our being through the scheme of truth that grants us reality: the absolute truth.

There is no spearating a plant from the medium in which it grows. If one does so then the plant de facto no longer grows and therefore does not exist.

so the real issue at hand becomes ((which N (sorry; bleeding threads) addresses but in short-sighted in his position, and likewise Kierkegaard:)) how is it that i am able to know This? How can This be true?

Thus irony. And thus the conversation that Slavoj Zizek has a handle on and attempts to reconcile. This is where the substantial conversation begins.

When we come to terms with the mythology that we pose at every turn of our asserting a particular reality, then we can begin to remove the 'idols' from our fancy. We can (hopefully)find a better way to speak of the trascending object than to mythologize it into the absolute object. We can step aside from such well-tread discussions that depend upon the object in-itself. And we can then (maybe) find this 'ubermensche', this individual who has 'gone over' what we know as the 'true humanity'.

All that you have said above is total bullshit. You are caught up on language as if it has any power whatsoever as to truth. Truth exists without us, language is just a crude grunting system by an animal to try and approximate what the truth contains, which is why the animal fails to do so, much of the time.

Above I have disproved your and Chaz's: "we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. ..." and so in fear you try and scramble to pick up the pieces of your facade so as to maintain your illusion. You appear to be a man of hollow words, and not a man of actual physical means.

The truth is what is left once you remove mans feeble words and understandings, no matter by what name it's given, or to what degree the man animal understands it. The gruntings of a man, as to meaning (knowledge), has absolutely no bearing on the absolute truth of an asteroid, as it annihilates his gruntings. And only a fool would sit there as it approached, grunting at another man animal, as to it's relationship, of relative understanding as to the absolute truth of the object, as to how they can know it, as after the asteroid event's absolute truth, mans relative subjective understanding shall have vanished, while the absolute truth of all the physical constituents, including the remains of mankinds physical bodies, shall in absolute truth, exist on in some form or another, to infinity. If you don't believe me, ask the ex inhabitants of the Roman city of Pompeii, if their subjective view, had any bearing on the absolute truth, as to the effects of Mt Vesuvius erupting, you may hold the bones to your ears and listen intently, but you shall hear of no relativity between their subjectivity and the absolute truth of the event, it just simply was, as is the nature of absolute truth. The absolute truth simply is, and it's man that tries to understand and put into words, an approximation, of what he believes it is.

It's a fool that speaks of language or understanding as if it's all that matters, as to the absolute truth of any particular matter, as that is the least of what matters, in all absolute truth.

[chaz wyman]

Above I have disproved your and Chaz's:[/color] "we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. ..." and so in fear you try and scramble to pick up the pieces of your facade so as to maintain your illusion. You appear to be a man of hollow words, and not a man of actual physical means.

And your delusion here is exactly why we think you are so stupid.

Every truth you try to demonstrate reinforces the view which Lance and I have asserted, simply because your method inevitably exemplifies that viewpoint. Everything you hold true is based on a relationship between you (the subject) and the thing you think is a truth (the object).