are you saying that: "it is absolute relative"?lancek4 wrote: 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.
Firstly, Moore's paradox has to do with the structure of a single sentence, he's used two. Secondly, the sentence "Yet somehow I still hold that there is an Asolute," conveys doubt of the previous sentence, and does not convey certainty! Notice the highlighted section above. "Yet somehow," raises the question. He's obviously pointing out the contradiction, which is what he seeks to unravel.Mark Question wrote:are you saying that: "it is absolute relative"?lancek4 wrote: 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.
or are you saying that: "there is no absolute. yet somehow I still hold that there is an absolute."?
or something else?
are those two paradoxical? absolute relative can be anything? not absolute relative too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_paradox
I Absolutely agree with you synopsis ans analysis. And it is more than contradictory: it is absurd.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Firstly, Moore's paradox has to do with the structure of a single sentence, he's used two. Secondly, the sentence "Yet somehow I still hold that there is an Asolute," conveys doubt of the previous sentence, and does not convey certainty! Notice the highlighted section above. "Yet somehow," raises the question. He's obviously pointing out the contradiction, which is what he seeks to unravel.Mark Question wrote:are you saying that: "it is absolute relative"?lancek4 wrote: 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.
or are you saying that: "there is no absolute. yet somehow I still hold that there is an absolute."?
or something else?
are those two paradoxical? absolute relative can be anything? not absolute relative too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_paradox
lancek4 wrote: 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.
Mark Question wrote:are you saying that: "it is absolute relative"?
or are you saying that: "there is no absolute. yet somehow I still hold that there is an absolute."?
or something else?
are those two paradoxical? absolute relative can be anything? not absolute relative too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_paradox
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Firstly, Moore's paradox has to do with the structure of a single sentence, he's used two. Secondly, the sentence "Yet somehow I still hold that there is an Asolute," conveys doubt of the previous sentence, and does not convey certainty! Notice the highlighted section above. "Yet somehow," raises the question. He's obviously pointing out the contradiction, which is what he seeks to unravel.
I'm sorry that you feel as though you're complaining. I see it as pure inquiry. And as all the true teachers in my life have said 'the only stupid question is the one not asked'lancek4 wrote:I Absolutely agree with you synopsis ans analysis. And it is more than contradictory: it is absurd.
Yes, 'somehow' i still want to complain "there is an Absolute Truth" of the matter, and that it is not relative. How absurd.
Put it this way, the fact that there's so much debate amongst true philosophers, neither you nor I, as to whether truth can be actually understood, alludes the the proposition that truth is absolute, otherwise why are their so many theories of truth criteria meant to negate the inabilities of human perception?Mark Question wrote: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?SpheresOfBalance wrote: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.
It's not clear how you understand this, as pertaining to our quest. But I don't believe it's a metaphor or an analogy relating to anything I've said. It may say more about your understanding than our meaning. How long have you been monitoring? That might be the problem.Mark Question wrote:It's raining but I believe that it is not raining?
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.lancek4 wrote:gotta use GREEN now to avoid the 4th embed --
...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,SpheresOfBalance wrote: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.lancek4 wrote:[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'.
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.
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?
This argument as started with Chaz was never about me telling anyone that any specific thing was in truth. It's always been about what constitutes truth and whether truth is relative or absolute. For the final time, as far as I'm concerned: Truth is all that actually exists and as such is absolute. As far as what specific objects are or are not in truth that's anyone's 'guess.' If you want to profess that a particular object is in truth fine, but I never wanted to go there, nor shall I. Truth is just the state of anything being real, accurate or actual, as opposed to being imaginary, inaccurate or fictitious. What particular object fits into either category is the job of us humans over much time. Just because like all humans you want it now doesn't mean it's going to happen. So go ahead and profess that a particular thing is aligned with truth or falsehood and I'll just sit back and laugh. Unless of course I agree, which won't come lightly.(you gotta believe this last sentence is true)
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?
I can't believe you don't get this. My point was simply that if no one knows what it is then 'NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IT IS!' Why is that unclear? Crap the mind could provide a portal into a parallel universe for all I know. But again I 'BELIEVE' that thoughts are merely reflections of all the sense information with distortions added due to the inabilities of the human mind to accurately recall the truth that was originally recorded, or due to perceived contradiction, whether real or not. And although this can be seen initially as a determent, it also can allow for change and growth through the trial and error of these 'new ideas' (distortions of recall) that were happened upon. They are not based in truth because they do not necessarily fit the definition, i.e., I'm thinking there is no universe, wait a second I think everything is disappearing... No actually it's still here, I guess that means that all human thought is based in falsehood. So I guess that means that thoughts are the antithesis of truth (the universe)!You can say that the process of thinking, what ever it is, is in truth, but you cannot attest to any particular thought being aligned with truth or falsehood until such time that you apply truth criteria to it. I believe it would be advisable to use all of them on any particular question, as one has a much better chance of success when applying "all" of current human knowledge to the task.
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'.
lancek4 wrote:It is as I said, SOB, you are oriented in the Object.
What is occurring is you have faith in the Object, and because your faith is what allows you purchase on what is true, you are incapable of breaching this truth of yours.
And you have faith in the subject and because your faith is what allows you purchase on what is true, you are incapable of breaching this truth of yours.
Yes I guess that you are correct, that in fact 'ALL' humans merely have 'FAITH' in their 'THOUGHTS.' After all 99.9999999999, ad infinitum of the universe is way out there, and we are just representative of: 0.0000000000, ad infinitum,1 right here such that faith of the universe is all that we could possibly have considering any of our languages, math or otherwise. Of course this means that my thoughts are just as viable as anyone else's. The only difference between my views of absolute truth and others views of relative truth is that their's is much like the pre-Copernican model and is earth, human, ego centric and mine is universe centric. Which unfortunately points to the fact that humans have still not learned that their arrogance shall be their undoing. Once one thinks they've found the answer they tend to stop looking, I shall never fall into that trap, because I 'know' it's absolute and shall continue searching 'knowing' that the human race is just an insignificant infinitesimal spec that actually has not a clue, not that I'll ever reach the absolute truth in my infinitesimal lifetime. One of my proofs of their cluelessness is their treatment of the only form of "the miracle of life" they are aware of in an infinite universe in contrast to the fear of their death; total absurdity, to the point of being psychotic, as evidenced by this documentary
I do understand what you are saying in the posts: do you believe that I understand?
I believe that you understand me from your perspective and that its your perspective that your incapable of breaching. I believe that if you reread my run-on sentences above. It might allow you to breach the limitations of your perspective. But of course I could be wrong, I have been many times before and shall continue to be so, on occasion.
I do not think you do, because instead of continuing pursuing Truth, you stopped at your Truth, instead of what may be Absolutly True. When your Truth was threatened, in that you might have gained a glimpse of what I was saying, you 'jumped back' into the assertion of the Object as a basis of absolute Truth by which to argue the Truth of the Object.
Actually I do not agree. I see that you base your analysis of my intent contrasted by your, not necessarily true, preconceived ideas, such that they preclude the vision of my true intent. In your above analysis you merely state that my truth is incorrect because your truth says so. 'Gaining a glimpse of what you were saying' is not necessarily indicative of truth; as if I have not!
lancek4 wrote:Yes, I agree. But I would put the percentage of knowing, the opposite of yours.
And therein lies mans arrogance. they're just theories my friend. At least it would seem that he tries to be honest.
So the problem must be in how we are saying it.
I thought I was pretty clear that mans microcosm (planet Earth) is infinitesimal with respect to the macrocosm (Universe totality). I would say that his microcosm is all that he's capable of truly knowing. That is once he's capable of understanding himself (the nature of consciousness & thought.) Until such time that he's capable of truly understanding himself (C&T), he'll only be spitting into the wind to see where it splatters (have theories).
I do not exclde myself from my propositions.
I believe that all humans, that at least see this much, that 'truly' try and be honest, 'attempt' to do as much.
i have been monitoring you less than this years big brother 24/7. now i watch both and eat and listen music. It's raining but I believe that it is not raining. it is relative yet somehow I still hold that there is an Asolute. logically coherent but yet somehow not?SpheresOfBalance wrote:It's not clear how you understand this, as pertaining to our quest. But I don't believe it's a metaphor or an analogy relating to anything I've said. It may say more about your understanding than our meaning. How long have you been monitoring? That might be the problem.Mark Question wrote:It's raining but I believe that it is not raining?
is that your (logically coherent)theory?SpheresOfBalance wrote:Put it this way, the fact that there's so much debate amongst true philosophers, neither you nor I, as to whether truth can be actually understood, alludes the the proposition that truth is absolute, otherwise why are their so many theories of truth criteria meant to negate the inabilities of human perception?
It's raining. but I believe that it is not raining. or It's raining. but I don't believe that it is raining 1. can be both seen/rewrite as one sentence? 2. but I don't believe that it is raining," conveys doubt of the previous sentence, and does not convey certainty!?SpheresOfBalance wrote: Firstly, Moore's paradox has to do with the structure of a single sentence, he's used two. Secondly, the sentence "Yet somehow I still hold that there is an Asolute," conveys doubt of the previous sentence, and does not convey certainty! Notice the highlighted section above. "Yet somehow," raises the question. He's obviously pointing out the contradiction, which is what he seeks to unravel.
Look Mark I have nothing against you, but if you truly want to converse with me, you're going to have to invest more time (verbiage). Because whether it's your language barrier or your brevity I'm having a hard time understanding you. You're going to have to ask yourself whether you're content with just talking at me, or you'd rather, in truth, talk to me.Mark Question wrote:Once one thinks they've found the answer they tend to stop looking, I shall never fall into that trap, because I 'know' it's absolute and shall continue searching
have you found it's absolute? do you feel like falling into that trap? do fallen searchers feel it?i have been monitoring you less than this years big brother 24/7. now i watch both and eat and listen music. It's raining but I believe that it is not raining. it is relative yet somehow I still hold that there is an Asolute. logically coherent but yet somehow not?SpheresOfBalance wrote:It's not clear how you understand this, as pertaining to our quest. But I don't believe it's a metaphor or an analogy relating to anything I've said. It may say more about your understanding than our meaning. How long have you been monitoring? That might be the problem.Mark Question wrote:It's raining but I believe that it is not raining?is that your (logically coherent)theory?SpheresOfBalance wrote:Put it this way, the fact that there's so much debate amongst true philosophers, neither you nor I, as to whether truth can be actually understood, alludes the the proposition that truth is absolute, otherwise why are their so many theories of truth criteria meant to negate the inabilities of human perception?It's raining. but I believe that it is not raining. or It's raining. but I don't believe that it is raining 1. can be both seen/rewrite as one sentence? 2. but I don't believe that it is raining," conveys doubt of the previous sentence, and does not convey certainty!?SpheresOfBalance wrote: Firstly, Moore's paradox has to do with the structure of a single sentence, he's used two. Secondly, the sentence "Yet somehow I still hold that there is an Asolute," conveys doubt of the previous sentence, and does not convey certainty! Notice the highlighted section above. "Yet somehow," raises the question. He's obviously pointing out the contradiction, which is what he seeks to unravel.
