What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

Ah - well, I think you are refering to my leaving off of 'actuality' in the definition.
This is bacause, again, I would need to qualify what is meant by actual.

Actual often is meant as 'that which is apparent of the physical world' as I take our definition - which excludes the more subjective experiences, such as thought and consciousness - as your original proposition.

My exclusion of 'actual' for our definition of the universe was to allow for the total inclusion of the effects of the brain (thought, etc..) and such in 'the totality of all that exists'. Thus the other problematic is the term 'exist'.

OK, now we're 'actually' getting somewhere. This is the most crucial point of my argument for absolute truth and why I've said that humans know practically nothing. For the word actual is in fact mandatory. It itself delineates truth, because it negates human interpretation (mental artifacts), human affects.

Indeed, i inuited this from the start:

(pg43 of this thread) What I see here, the point of contension between us, is what I call 'orientation'; one either is oriented upon the Object, or one is oreinted upon the Subject.

That which negates human interpretation are the 'rules' to 'what is real', or what is True.


Here's why:

The potential exists between any two humans for each to formulate a distinctly different hypothesis as to the truth of any objects particulars. This then illustrates one possible source of lies (falsehoods) and must be eliminated to achieve absolute truth which in my definition is devoid of human artifacts and is the raw unfettered actuality (reality) of existence. Hence my earlier statement, 'Absolute truth is that which exists without us.' It is not any humans responsibility to bend absolute truth to meet their inability in understanding but rather to bend their understanding to meet absolute truths actual existence, otherwise we live a life of illusion. This then is why there are several theories of truth criterion, whose aim is to negate the inabilities of human perception. The very nature of truth is the actual state of affairs. Lies and falsehoods are the only things realized when the absolute truth is ignored through human perception. This is not to say that absolute truth is impossible to realize. It is only to say that our current evolutionary status precludes its realization. If one is to embrace the possibilities of quantum mechanics then it is clear that humanity is capable of realizing absolute truth.

...and this is one reason also why I left out of our working definition the term 'actual', because the logic is that if the universe is all that exists, then everything that exists in the universe must also exist. Thoughts and such must also exist. if these also exist, as part of the true universe, then they must represent, like all else, the true functioning of the universe.

If this is the case, then we have a probelm. If human consciousness is likewise true, and can only represent itself another part of the whole true functioning universe, we have, as you point out, the necessity for 'rules' of what is allowed to be truth. Since, it seems, our thoughts seem to belie what could be true of the universe.

So the inevitable conclusion that must arise from this probelm is:
can there be something that is not a part of the universe, separate, which allows human consciousness to have a sufficient purchase upon the universe so as to be able to come to ideas of the universe that are true or false?
So -
either, there does exist a true element that is not a part of our defined 'true' universe that allows us our 'truth' ,
or
our truth, because our mental funtioning is a true element of the universe, and not a seaprate element or based in or having access to a separate element, then it must represent only a particular truth, a 'humanly defined' truth. Not any 'actual' truth as we might want to 'believe' is 'actual'.

[Mark Question]

Hence my earlier statement, 'Absolute truth is that which exists without us.' It is not any humans responsibility to bend absolute truth to meet their inability in understanding but rather to bend their understanding to meet absolute truths actual existence, otherwise we live a life of illusion. This then is why there are several theories of truth criterion, whose aim is to negate the inabilities of human perception. The very nature of truth is the actual state of affairs. Lies and falsehoods are the only things realized when the absolute truth is ignored through human perception.

is your "earlier statement" with those words of yours also a theory, answering "why there are several theories of truth criterion"? (absolute truth)theory about (truth criterion)theories about (truth)theories?

[lancek4]

Hence my earlier statement, 'Absolute truth is that which exists without us.' It is not any humans responsibility to bend absolute truth to meet their inability in understanding but rather to bend their understanding to meet absolute truths actual existence, otherwise we live a life of illusion. This then is why there are several theories of truth criterion, whose aim is to negate the inabilities of human perception. The very nature of truth is the actual state of affairs. Lies and falsehoods are the only things realized when the absolute truth is ignored through human perception.

is your "earlier statement" with those words of yours also a theory, answering "why there are several theories of truth criterion"? (absolute truth)theory about (truth criterion)theories about (truth)theories?

Yes, I tend to agree. The basic fact of differing theories might goto show thhat there is not an asolute truth
But then really the issue is whether people see the Object with an inherent ability to give itself to our knowledge, and vice versa. This is the argument that sees what SOB and I have come accoss as the 'actual' as the human endeavor, the potential of the past and present to grant us or lead us to the Truth inherent in the Object. As if there is an Absolutly True Object 'out there' that we may gain one day.

I think, SOB, this is you position. Yes?

[Mark Question]

It's raining but I believe that it is not raining?

[lancek4]

Hence my earlier statement, 'Absolute truth is that which exists without us.' It is not any humans responsibility to bend absolute truth to meet their inability in understanding but rather to bend their understanding to meet absolute truths actual existence, otherwise we live a life of illusion. This then is why there are several theories of truth criterion, whose aim is to negate the inabilities of human perception. The very nature of truth is the actual state of affairs. Lies and falsehoods are the only things realized when the absolute truth is ignored through human perception.

is your "earlier statement" with those words of yours also a theory, answering "why there are several theories of truth criterion"? (absolute truth)theory about (truth criterion)theories about (truth)theories?

Yes. This is the inherent problem with knowledge: it is relative. Yet somehow I still hold that there is an Asolute. Which was the problem we are investigating.

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance If you'd rather PM me with your answer, that's fine. I have no reason to be anything other than discreet, and shall be forever bound by my word.[/quote]

I just found out what 'PM' meant - At the time I first read this, I thought you were indiacting "post-modernism-ing" you. lol.. even though it didnt quite jive with the rest of the paragraph.

So I wanted to tell you I appreciate the jesture. It reveals something of your nature and intent in this forum.

[lancek4]

Evolution based on survival of the fittest is not an assumption, my friend.

'Survival of the fittest' was not spoken by Darwin, but my someone else.

Malthus came up with the idea that human population grows exponetially (x^10) but food production (plants) exands algebraically (bad term -my fault, but it means (x+x), so he came to the conclusion that human population would soon outgrow its ability for nature to feed it. This idea was significant in Darwin coming to his theory of 'Natural Selection of Aquired Traits'.

It is not 'survival of the fittest'. That was an incorrect and popularized summation that someone (ignorant) else made who did not understand what Darwin was saying. The facts of Natural Selection is that species evolve within envoronmental pressures which favor particular traits, and thus such traits are 'selected for' given the particular environmental niche, be it that a niche is created due to the response of the specie and so new species are developed, or whether a specie is created due to the constraints within the niche. Such a selection occurs through the individual into the species and has very little to do with 'fitness', as if the species who is more fit will subdue and destroy the less fit. Competition for resources is a envoronmental factor.

This type of idea, of 'survival of the fittest', was probaly based around the subsequent idea of 'social darwinism' which was a distortion of Darwin's ideas used to promote a particular ideology and probably racism.

Sorry Bob, if you are still paying attention to this thread, but you should be educated about a thing before you fling it about so.

[lancek4]

Humankind's history of needless killing is one of my pet peeves. Sure I understand it from a neanderthal's perspective, but modern man?????

Please use the term "mankind" instead of the pretentious "humankind," and why should needless killing be one of your pet peeves? Mr. Charles Darwin would have said that one of your pet peeves is the only reason you are here to have any pet peeves at all.

This makes no sense. In what way would a Neaderthal needlessly kill? Only to our modern standards, maybe, but then even through these I do not think we could apply 'needless killing' to anything Neaderthals did.

And then: what? such needless killing of neanderthals are responsible for SOB having his pet peeve of needless killing ?? what??

Darwin would not have suggested anything of the sort. that is just plain stupid. even if neanderthals killed needlessly. and even if neanderthals are in human genetic lineage, which is disputed.

Are you saying that an abhorance against needless killing is genetically inherited? that it is an aquired trait that has been selected for?

This would both argue against SOB's position of thought and consciousness being of a different element than such zenotype or genotype could be responsible for manifesting, and simulaneously deny what you (Bob) is proposing by this quip by suggesting that all these proposed related items are related due to the fact that they are unrelated - in that SOB's pet peeve (needless killing) is responsible for his pet peeve (needless killing is wrong), the event of needless killing has no baring upon what one's opinion of the event may be, let alone if a neaderthal 15000 years ago needlessly killed.

Needless killing itself (random, non-malicious, murder -phsychopathology) might even draw supporters. There is no necessary relation between the event of killing and the event of his abhoring it. He may abhor it merely because he doesnt like even the thought of the color red, or that he is a vegitarian. If he were to go after the needless killer then some neccessary relation might be drawn in the simple relation of someone killing someone because they killed. The second may have killed the first merely because he likes to kill people who kill people.
Such a quip is based in the same ignorance that claims social darwinism is relevant - which only the most ignorant point to to justify thier social and ideological priviledge.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Ah - well, I think you are refering to my leaving off of 'actuality' in the definition.
This is bacause, again, I would need to qualify what is meant by actual.

Actual often is meant as 'that which is apparent of the physical world' as I take our definition - which excludes the more subjective experiences, such as thought and consciousness - as your original proposition.

My exclusion of 'actual' for our definition of the universe was to allow for the total inclusion of the effects of the brain (thought, etc..) and such in 'the totality of all that exists'. Thus the other problematic is the term 'exist'.

OK, now we're 'actually' getting somewhere. This is the most crucial point of my argument for absolute truth and why I've said that humans know practically nothing. For the word actual is in fact mandatory. It itself delineates truth, because it negates human interpretation (mental artifacts), human affects.

Indeed, i inuited this from the start:

(pg43 of this thread) What I see here, the point of contension between us, is what I call 'orientation'; one either is oriented upon the Object, or one is oreinted upon the Subject.

That which negates human interpretation are the 'rules' to 'what is real', or what is True.


Here's why:

The potential exists between any two humans for each to formulate a distinctly different hypothesis as to the truth of any objects particulars. This then illustrates one possible source of lies (falsehoods) and must be eliminated to achieve absolute truth which in my definition is devoid of human artifacts and is the raw unfettered actuality (reality) of existence. Hence my earlier statement, 'Absolute truth is that which exists without us.' It is not any humans responsibility to bend absolute truth to meet their inability in understanding but rather to bend their understanding to meet absolute truths actual existence, otherwise we live a life of illusion. This then is why there are several theories of truth criterion, whose aim is to negate the inabilities of human perception. The very nature of truth is the actual state of affairs. Lies and falsehoods are the only things realized when the absolute truth is ignored through human perception. This is not to say that absolute truth is impossible to realize. It is only to say that our current evolutionary status precludes its realization. If one is to embrace the possibilities of quantum mechanics then it is clear that humanity is capable of realizing absolute truth.

...and this is one reason also why I left out of our working definition the term 'actual', because the logic is that if the universe is all that exists,
The above highlighted is written such that it sounds like it precludes the possibility of multiple universes; Parallel Universes; A Multiverse, and I'd never knowingly agree to that. I think it would be better to say that: "As far as humans believe they know, the truth of their universe, consists of all things that actually exist." I believe that negates all possible means of ambiguity, in the name of truth. If you can think of others, please advise.
then everything that exists in the universe must also exist. Thoughts and such must also exist.
I don't see thoughts existing in the truest since that concrete objects do. They are abstractions and do not necessarily parallel the truth of actual existence. The way is see it is that if our science has yet to understand the nature of thoughts and consciousness then how could you possibly say they exist. I mean look how close they are to us, they are that which allows us to ponder them. If we can't know them then how can we possibly come to terms with an asteroid that's 5 billion light years away. I personally believe they do not actually exist, because I believe that they are merely reflections of that, that truly exists. Do both the reflection and the object exist, or is it just the object of the reflection that exists?
if these also exist, as part of the true universe, then they must represent, like all else, the true functioning of the universe.

If this is the case, then we have a probelm. If human consciousness is likewise true, and can only represent itself another part of the whole true functioning universe, we have, as you point out, the necessity for 'rules' of what is allowed to be truth. Since, it seems, our thoughts seem to belie what could be true of the universe.

So the inevitable conclusion that must arise from this probelm is:
can there be something that is not a part of the universe, separate, which allows human consciousness to have a sufficient purchase upon the universe so as to be able to come to ideas of the universe that are true or false?
So -
either, there does exist a true element that is not a part of our defined 'true' universe that allows us our 'truth' ,
or
our truth, because our mental funtioning is a true element of the universe, and not a seaprate element or based in or having access to a separate element, then it must represent only a particular truth, a 'humanly defined' truth. Not any 'actual' truth as we might want to 'believe' is 'actual'.

[SpheresOfBalance]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance If you'd rather PM me with your answer, that's fine. I have no reason to be anything other than discreet, and shall be forever bound by my word.

I just found out what 'PM' meant - At the time I first read this, I thought you were indiacting "post-modernism-ing" you. lol.. even though it didnt quite jive with the rest of the paragraph.

So I wanted to tell you I appreciate the jesture. It reveals something of your nature and intent in this forum.
No Lance IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY!
From my earlier perception of your hedging to divulge such information, I posed that option. FOR YOU! Not that I necessarily agree. I believe that truth reigns supreme! As a child I lied, as an adult, these days I never do, intentionally! I have absolutely nothing to hide, Come on do you really believe that after I laid myself on the table for you to examine, crap I even called myself strange, that my intention is to mislead. How many people that you know are even that critical of themselves.

It had absolutely nothing to do with my intent in this forum, This, in and of itself, is a good example of human misconception as derived from human bias, which doesn't necessarily align itself with truth.

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance If you'd rather PM me with your answer, that's fine. I have no reason to be anything other than discreet, and shall be forever bound by my word.

I just found out what 'PM' meant - At the time I first read this, I thought you were indiacting "post-modernism-ing" you. lol.. even though it didnt quite jive with the rest of the paragraph.

So I wanted to tell you I appreciate the jesture. It reveals something of your nature and intent in this forum.
No Lance IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY!
From my earlier perception of your hedging to divulge such information, I posed that option. FOR YOU! Not that I necessarily agree. I believe that truth reigns supreme! As a child I lied, as an adult, these days I never do, intentionally! I have absolutely nothing to hide, Come on do you really believe that after I laid myself on the table for you to examine, crap I even called myself strange, that my intention is to mislead. How many people that you know are even that critical of themselves.

It had absolutely nothing to do with my intent in this forum, This, in and of itself, is a good example of human misconception as derived from human bias, which doesn't necessarily align itself with truth.

It revealed, to me, that you were attempting to engage in the discussion honestly,that your intent was in some way noble, that, I gather, you were giving me the option of sending you a Personal Message instead of posting my answer on the forum if I wanted to, because you saw that perhaps I did not want to admit something on the fourm. And you said you would not judge if I did message you. Thats what I thought when I found out what PM is. Is this a bad thing?

I too have nothing to hide, though. But I appreciated the gesture. But perhaps you had another agenda?

Oh; I see what you are saying - and I was not hedging.

I must uphold the possibility that I could be wrong, that what I see as true may be incorrect. the only way I have of testing my truth is to engage with others. It is not hedging if what I think actually comes out to be the case; it is only that the other person did not succeed in breaking my argument, or seeing a flaw that I have not already encountered.

The truth for me is a working hypothesis, but this hypothesis stems from what I see as an Absolute Truth of the matter. Thus I test my hyposthesis against the truth which informs it, in order that I might not have faith in anything. That is, I test my faith in order that what I know may be true becomes less of faith - if this is possible.

Indeed, this seems to me to reflect your approach also - no? If it is, this is why I have said the point of our contension concerns 'orientation'.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Humankind's history of needless killing is one of my pet peeves. Sure I understand it from a neanderthal's perspective, but modern man?????

Please use the term "mankind" instead of the pretentious "humankind," and why should needless killing be one of your pet peeves? Mr. Charles Darwin would have said that one of your pet peeves is the only reason you are here to have any pet peeves at all.

This makes no sense. In what way would a Neaderthal needlessly kill? Only to our modern standards, maybe, but then even through these I do not think we could apply 'needless killing' to anything Neaderthals did.
I beg to differ. What someone 'wants (desires)' can be different from what they 'need.' Take a lone neanderthal that sneaks up and kills another to steal his food. The killing was needless, as his victim might have freely shared, after which, hunting and gathering together, would allow covering twice the ground thus increasing the chance of success. You also must consider that he may not have been the victor, would dieing have served his need? Because it certainly would have served the others need to survive the unprovoked attack. I see that his want (desire) served his immediate need but it certainly didn't serve his greater need of assured life and success. And man hasn't learned yet, take global warming for example.

And it would seem that you've missed the point, as it had everything to do with how much our intellect has actually grown, not much I'd say!

Also I could argue that all killing, other than self defense, is needless.

And then: what? such needless killing of neanderthals are responsible for SOB having his pet peeve of needless killing ?? what??

Darwin would not have suggested anything of the sort. that is just plain stupid. even if neanderthals killed needlessly. and even if neanderthals are in human genetic lineage, which is disputed.

Are you saying that an abhorance against needless killing is genetically inherited? that it is an aquired trait that has been selected for?

This would both argue against SOB's position of thought and consciousness being of a different element than such zenotype or genotype could be responsible for manifesting, and simulaneously deny what you (Bob) is proposing by this quip by suggesting that all these proposed related items are related due to the fact that they are unrelated - in that SOB's pet peeve (needless killing) is responsible for his pet peeve (needless killing is wrong), the event of needless killing has no baring upon what one's opinion of the event may be, let alone if a neaderthal 15000 years ago needlessly killed.

Needless killing itself (random, non-malicious, murder -phsychopathology) might even draw supporters. There is no necessary relation between the event of killing and the event of his abhoring it. He may abhor it merely because he doesnt like even the thought of the color red, or that he is a vegitarian. If he were to go after the needless killer then some neccessary relation might be drawn in the simple relation of someone killing someone because they killed. The second may have killed the first merely because he likes to kill people who kill people.
Such a quip is based in the same ignorance that claims social darwinism is relevant - which only the most ignorant point to to justify thier social and ideological priviledge.

Also thanks for bringing up the rear but I really wasn't worried about it. You and I are engaged in our own, although public, session. Ultimately I would not have allowed him to derail our conversation. It's all I can do to keep up with you because even though I've been using computers since 1983 I still can't touch type, I hunt and peck which disturbs the rather speedy flow of thinking, thus causing the need for rewrites. So it's really difficult after I've been away for a day and have multiple posts of yours that I have to address.

[lancek4]

gotta use GREEN now to avoid the 4th embed --

[quote="SpheresOfBalance\Ah - well, I think you are refering to my leaving off of 'actuality' in the definition.
This is bacause, again, I would need to qualify what is meant by actual.

Actual often is meant as 'that which is apparent of the physical world' as I take our definition - which excludes the more subjective experiences, such as thought and consciousness - as your original proposition.

My exclusion of 'actual' for our definition of the universe was to allow for the total inclusion of the effects of the brain (thought, etc..) and such in 'the totality of all that exists'. Thus the other problematic is the term 'exist'.

OK, now we're 'actually' getting somewhere. This is the most crucial point of my argument for absolute truth and why I've said that humans know practically nothing. For the word actual is in fact mandatory. It itself delineates truth, because it negates human interpretation (mental artifacts), human affects.

Indeed, i inuited this from the start:

(pg43 of this thread) What I see here, the point of contension between us, is what I call 'orientation'; one either is oriented upon the Object, or one is oreinted upon the Subject.

That which negates human interpretation are the 'rules' to 'what is real', or what is True.


Here's why:

The potential exists between any two humans for each to formulate a distinctly different hypothesis as to the truth of any objects particulars. This then illustrates one possible source of lies (falsehoods) and must be eliminated to achieve absolute truth which in my definition is devoid of human artifacts and is the raw unfettered actuality (reality) of existence. Hence my earlier statement, 'Absolute truth is that which exists without us.' It is not any humans responsibility to bend absolute truth to meet their inability in understanding but rather to bend their understanding to meet absolute truths actual existence, otherwise we live a life of illusion. This then is why there are several theories of truth criterion, whose aim is to negate the inabilities of human perception. The very nature of truth is the actual state of affairs. Lies and falsehoods are the only things realized when the absolute truth is ignored through human perception. This is not to say that absolute truth is impossible to realize. It is only to say that our current evolutionary status precludes its realization. If one is to embrace the possibilities of quantum mechanics then it is clear that humanity is capable of realizing absolute truth.

...and this is one reason also why I left out of our working definition the term 'actual', because the logic is that if the universe is all that exists,
I say this because 'if' the universe is all that exists, then it is 'all', 'everything', 'the totality' that exists. I was not implying multiple universes. Perhaps I was presenting the problem in implication, though.

The above highlighted is written such that it sounds like it precludes the possibility of multiple universes; Parallel Universes; A Multiverse, and I'd never knowingly agree to that.
Niether would I.

I think it would be better to say that: "As far as humans believe they know, the truth of their universe, consists of all things that actually exist." I believe that negates all possible means of ambiguity, in the name of truth. If you can think of others, please advise.
Yes, this is fine, but then we have to define 'know' or 'knowledge'.

then everything that exists in the universe must also exist. Thoughts and such must also exist.
I don't see thoughts existing in the truest since that concrete objects do. They are abstractions and do not necessarily parallel the truth of actual existence.
Does gravity exist? Does the contents, that which allows for, a vaccum, as that 'empty space', in space exist? Does wind sheer exist? Does breath exist? what of color? The thing we call a rainbow?

The way is see it is that if our science has yet to understand the nature of thoughts and consciousness then how could you possibly say they exist.
So does this mean that science establishes what exists?

Im gonna take a step here: Can I know only a part of a world before me? That is, if there is some part of the whole world, the whole existing universe, that I do not know of, how is it that I know of this not knowing of it? What part of existing might this not knowing of this potential knowing be?

Perhaps we should define 'exist'.

I mean look how close they are to us, they are that which allows us to ponder them. If we can't know them then how can we possibly come to terms with an asteroid that's 5 billion light years away. I personally believe they do not actually exist, because I believe that they are merely reflections of that, that truly exists. Do both the reflection and the object exist, or is it just the object of the reflection that exists?

Hence our difference in orientation. I only ask: how can there be something that is part of the universe that is not part of the universe? How could the universe create or have something of itself that is not itself? How can our thoughts refelct something that is not absolutly of the universe?

So what does this mean? This, I see, is the probelm. Not so much if there is oceans of methane on a moon of Jupiter. Whether or not there are moons with oceans, or if there was a BigBang thatystarted it all, or whether God did, has no baring upon what may be True, unless I begin my exploration of that Truth of the matter.

If I am investigating what may be true, I have to consider the possibility that what I know as true, may not be true.

if these also exist, as part of the true universe, then they must represent, like all else, the true functioning of the universe.

If this is the case, then we have a probelm. If human consciousness is likewise true, and can only represent itself another part of the whole true functioning universe, we have, as you point out, the necessity for 'rules' of what is allowed to be truth. Since, it seems, our thoughts seem to belie what could be true of the universe.

So the inevitable conclusion that must arise from this probelm is:
can there be something that is not a part of the universe, separate, which allows human consciousness to have a sufficient purchase upon the universe so as to be able to come to ideas of the universe that are true or false?
So -
either, there does exist a true element that is not a part of our defined 'true' universe that allows us our 'truth' ,
or
our truth, because our mental funtioning is a true element of the universe, and not a seaprate element or based in or having access to a separate element, then it must represent only a particular truth, a 'humanly defined' truth. Not any 'actual' truth as we might want to 'believe' is 'actual'. [/quote][/quote]

Oh yes, and the neaderthal thing - I was just digging into Bob cause one of my pet peeves is people talking about evolution who dont know anything about it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance If you'd rather PM me with your answer, that's fine. I have no reason to be anything other than discreet, and shall be forever bound by my word.

I just found out what 'PM' meant - At the time I first read this, I thought you were indiacting "post-modernism-ing" you. lol.. even though it didnt quite jive with the rest of the paragraph.

So I wanted to tell you I appreciate the jesture. It reveals something of your nature and intent in this forum.
No Lance IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY!
From my earlier perception of your hedging to divulge such information, I posed that option. FOR YOU! Not that I necessarily agree. I believe that truth reigns supreme! As a child I lied, as an adult, these days I never do, intentionally! I have absolutely nothing to hide, Come on do you really believe that after I laid myself on the table for you to examine, crap I even called myself strange, that my intention is to mislead. How many people that you know are even that critical of themselves.

It had absolutely nothing to do with my intent in this forum, This, in and of itself, is a good example of human misconception as derived from human bias, which doesn't necessarily align itself with truth.

It revealed, to me, that you were attempting to engage in the discussion honestly,that your intent was in some way noble, that, I gather, you were giving me the option of sending you a Personal Message instead of posting my answer on the forum if I wanted to, because you saw that perhaps I did not want to admit something on the fourm. And you said you would not judge if I did message you. Thats what I thought when I found out what PM is. Is this a bad thing?

I too have nothing to hide, though. But I appreciated the gesture. But perhaps you had another agenda?

Oh; I see what you are saying - and I was not hedging.

I must uphold the possibility that I could be wrong, that what I see as true may be incorrect. the only way I have of testing my truth is to engage with others. It is not hedging if what I think actually comes out to be the case; it is only that the other person did not succeed in breaking my argument, or seeing a flaw that I have not already encountered.

The truth for me is a working hypothesis, but this hypothesis stems from what I see as an Absolute Truth of the matter. Thus I test my hyposthesis against the truth which informs it, in order that I might not have faith in anything. That is, I test my faith in order that what I know may be true becomes less of faith - if this is possible.

Indeed, this seems to me to reflect your approach also - no? If it is, this is why I have said the point of our contension concerns 'orientation'.

I was worried about the implication of this line of yours: "It reveals something of your nature and intent in this forum."
That's what put me in defensive mode, I absolutely hate being misrepresented, whether actual or perceived as such!

Communication is tough, I thought I wrote my response negating any possible items that would put you on the defensive, but I now see that I was unsuccessful. Sometimes textual forum communication is such a bother, but what else can we do?

[lancek4]

We are cool. No offence taken. Textuals: I agree.
Our argument is enough - as your proposal.