Remember what it was like before you were born...

[Satori]

Beware of anyone who claims to know what "truth" is, they are typically so full of themselves and bound by their own speculative interpretation (ie. "egocentric") that they cannot distinguish "fact" from "opinion".

Satori

PS: The preceeding was purely subjective bullshit and is only true if you believe it is.

 

[MountainDweller]

Originally posted by Satori


Here is how my stance is different:

1. I'm not playing on anyone's fears or desires
2. I'm not asking them to "believe" anything outlandish and go against the grain of their own reason
3. I realize my ideas are just ideas and I don't present them as "facts" which must be adhered to, but rather just a way of looking at and thinking about the universe as it relates to what I call the "human condition" (angst, self-awareness, perception)
4. What I say cannot be used to dominate/rule people, it actually frees them from being ruled by others and archaic philosophies

Ok, that's fair, but I also knew you'd say something to that effect, which wasn't quite the point of my question.

From what I've observed from your constant, repetative, posts (starting months ago), you do indeed - intentionally or not - present your "ideas" as facts, and when anyone challenges you, you seem to only resort to patronizing and insults (and more repetative posts, not all too dissimilar to some of the Christians, whom you seem to dispise, who post here). You act as if the people who challenge you are too dumb to understand what you're saying, when perhaps what's really being said is - as a funny pin I've seen says - "I see your point, but I still think you're full of shit". I must also point out that from what I've also seen, you seem to have an inablility to see things from outside the lines. You have your "ideas" and treat them as gospel (while seemingling contradicting yourself in each new post), while others have ideas and treat them as possibilities. When you trade in your ability to think in terms of possibilities for a more comfortable role of thinking in concrete answers is when you become no better than any religious-right zealot who leaves room for nothing more than their own dogma.

All it takes to "free yourself" is the ability to see things from another's point of view and think for yourself. It happened for me when I realised just because I'm told something all my life doesn't mean it's true and started looking into other peoples' "truths" and deciding for myself what makes sense to me and what I agree or disagree with and searching within my own thoughts.

I never explained the purpose of my other comments that got bashed so harshly because they weren't meant to prove or disprove anything at all. I saw a closed-minded thought, and I posted and open-ended statement. They were put there for the possibilities they bring, not to give answers, and if people don't understand that, then there's nothing more I can say.

Possibilities are endless, and we'll probably find that the only correct answer is that we're all wrong.


outside the lines,

MD

 

[HoserHellspawn]

Actually, the truth is that MY perspective is absolutely right.

And from my (absolutely right) perspective, I see the following:

White guitar picks are universally superior to black ones.
If you circle the world three times, a woman weighing exactly 327 lbs. will cause your death.
One part Cyanide goes nice mixed with 2 parts vodka, fill with grapefruit juice.

Make angry love to the fish,
- Oliver Cromwell

 

[_Transparent_]

is there gonna be a fight or something here?
i think we're losing the point of the debate, we shouldnt take it too personally you know, try and be constructive, i mean thats what this is all about, right? (don't pay attention to this if you dont want to, its just an oppinion)

 

[Satori]

hehe, I think it's kinda funny that others take me so seriously when I don't even take myself seriously.

The key theme with regard to me is provocation by means of satire and intellectual posturing. I feel that taking offense to the sarcastic verbal bullshit of others reveals the fragility of one's ego (just a theory).

I hope I haven't said too much, otherwise the mystique is damaged, muwahah

root of all evil,

Satori

PS: geesh guys, lighten up already! hehe

 

[_Transparent_]

Originally posted by Satori
hehe, I think it's kinda funny that others take me so seriously when I don't even take myself seriously.

The key theme with regard to me is provocation by means of satire and intellectual posturing. I feel that taking offense to the sarcastic verbal bullshit of others reveals the fragility of one's ego (just a theory).

I hope I haven't said too much, otherwise the mystique is damaged, muwahah

root of all evil,

Satori

PS: geesh guys, lighten up already! hehe

yep, lighten up everyone (including me), don't loose prospective of where we are and have fun.

 

[E V I L]

Originally posted by Satori


Finally a breakthrough! Your naivety is ALSO *your* point of view, as it is everyone's, which is *exactly* what I have been saying ALL along, a fact so incredibly obvious that I think it needn't be stated (yet again). Thanks for so eloquently re-stating my original point. I'm going to have to remember this one, "our naivety is our point of view", concise and brilliant!

...which is why I brought the example of cyanide up in the first place. All beleifs are subjective, which only means, beleifs are held be beleivers, this doesn't however condemn all beliefs to a condition of equipollence, in which all beliefs are equally valid and equally naive. The first part of your position is something I never argued against, but your arrogance prevents from seeing in what ways I have already alighted on your position in full have moved beyond it. You have written somethign to Mountain Dweller, I have been toying with the implications of it ever since.

You are confusing the point with the explaination, which I'll explain later on in this post when you restate this for a 3rd time..

On the contrary, you have not understood my point because you continue to labor under the confusion that I have misunderstood you.

As I have said before many times, I am aware of the fact that these ideas are ONLY ideas and therefore do not necessarily reflect reality, it's only one of many ways of looking at things.

This fragment is a prime example that establishes that
(1) your thesis (all beliefs are subjective) is indistinguishable from
(2) your "explanation", the relativism I have attempted to address directly (and why I interjected betweeen you and mountain in the first place),
(3) why you're absurd to parry away my objections to 2 which I have been dealing with solely, and which you parried away as irrelevant. "the accuracy of intepretations is not your concern"-- it's my concern and it is the issue you have to contend with everytime you utter the platitude "everything is subjective." What do you think I was fishing to "expose" ?

The "accuracy" of a particular interperation is not the issue since the accuracy can never truly be measured. What would we compare it to? Another interpretation? I have no interest in debating the supposed accuracy of interpretations.

1) What do you think I'm debating in the first place? I say the accuracy of statements can be measured- why do you think I keep bringing up my facetious example of cyanide, cholorox bleach, among others?

2) The immanent problem at hand to the statement "everything is subjective bullshit" is your relativism, and not the fact that the neccesary condition to beleifs is that they are neccesarily beliefs (ie., subjective) You can't seperate one from the other, and you are miscontruing my posts which exist to address *1*

The philosophy is ultimately completely self-defeating, unlike most other philosophies which try to hold themselves up as some sort of "truth" (haha, such crap). I have never claimed that anything I've said was any more than just an interpretation. Unlike you, I do not hold my thoughts up as accurate reflections of reality or pinnacles of absolute truth, I would not be so presumptuous or full of myself to make such a ridiculous claim. I'm just a stupid primate with biased interpretations, as are you, the difference being that you seem to have trouble admitting to it. It's not so hard, just repeat after me, "I am a stupid primate, my interpretations are subjective, biased, and short-sighted, I don't know everything but this does not make me any less of a person." Now doesn't that feel better? Kinda takes the pressure off eh? muwahah

....again, when I say "cholorox bleach should not be ingested by those interested in health"-- this is an undeniable truth. First you say your not interested in the "accuracy of interpretations"

1) then you forget that that's why I'm posting to you
2) then you contradict yourself and show in what ways you entangle yourself in the problem,
3) which I attempt to deal, but you dismiss, self-ignorantly, as irrelevant, though it's quite relevant.

There is no "larger" picture, you are just creating one in your own mind or else discussing a completely different idea. This is exactly what I'm talking about (the nature of perception), which you have now agreed with and state as being completely obvious (just as I said it was all along). I don't know why it took you this long to see that this was all I was saying. I think you thought I was talking about something else (ie. the supposed "truth" or "validity" of perceptions, which, to me, isn't worthy of discussion cuz it's just so low-level, completely pointless, and boring to me, we may as well debate whether or not coke tastes better than pepsi, it's the same crap).

How dizzy are you? The larger picture is the fact that you can't separate your "point" (that beleifs are subjective-- which is indeed no-shit-sherlock statement) from the relativism that

1) I have been attempting to deal with directly but which
2) you have objected to as a "tangent"
3) you can't seperate from the issues of "subjectivity" just because you're not "interested in it" or not "talking about it... which
3b) contradicts most of the statements you make, for they invariably entangle you in this topic, which 1) i have been attempting to deal, but which 2) you have idiotically parried away as irrelevant, (when it's the core issue), and which ignores 3) the fact that you can't seperate one thing from the other; that saying one things "everything is subjective" obliges you to the relativistic consequence of the other. That is the larger picture.

It shows that what we SEE is reflected in who we ARE. Weren't you paying attention?

Absolutely but you haven't been (paying attention.)

2 people can view an event from different angles and see 2 completely different things. Who's right and who's wrong? They are both right and both wrong, depending entirely on how you look at it (of course). We perceive according to our point of view. Since the 2 people have seen from different angles, each interpretation is completely valid from that person's perspective. You would seemingly have us believe that there is some "absolute truth" above and beyond interpretation, but this "truth" is only another interpretation (since "truth" cannot exist outside of interpretation), inherently subjective/biased as any other. There is nowhere to stand from which one can view the "whole" picture and therefore know the "whole" "truth". No matter how hard we look, we only see fragments of the universe that can be detected by our senses which are further distorted by our minds. Most people tend to agree that a desk is pretty solid, which of course it is not, it just appears that way to our senses. Of course, now I realize you see this already, as I am sure many reading this thread do as well because it's just so incredibly obvious once you actually take the time to consider it (as I see you have).

Your understanding of things like science and truth are naive. A few more points to consider:

1) Again, your statement above is the heart of what I'm arguing against. It contradicts other statements you have produced including, but limited to
a) your idiotic objections to other posts
b) your statement "the accuracy of your intepretation is not your concern" which fatally forgets *1*

Can I beat this dog any further?

To bring back your cyanide example: 2 wives give this substance to their husbands. Hubby 1 dies, hubby 2 (who is an alien) gets a 6 hour hard-on and fucks his wife till she passes out. Then the next day the 2 wives get together to discuss their experiences. Wife 1 says it's a poison, wife 2 says it's like viagara. Now I ask you, who's right? who's wrong? According to their own particular point of views, they are both right, relative to their opposing point of view's, they are both wrong. It ain't rocket science to see that the idea of absolute truth above and beyond interpretation is simply short-sighted bullshit.

Cyanide is ingested by an alien and gives him an erection- the truth is, cyanide gives him erections. When human beings ingest it (the lethal form of it especially) they die. The proposition is "when human beings ingest enough cyanide they die" is an absolute truth that is above and beyond interpretation, for reasons that are likewise above and beyond intepretation. How dizzy are you that I have to dissect your confusions all the time?

Cyanide exists completely independent of your opinion of it. You can label however you want, you can call it the moon if you want, that doesn't change what it actually is (except of course in your mind).

Cyanide exists indepentdly of your opinion of it---- exactly, and so do our postulations about it, for instance the causality there is to cyanide when human beings ingest it. I assure you, that is an absolute truth. You may experiment rather than take my word for it, but I wouldn't reccomend it.

Obviously, but what was the point you were trying to make with this?

Why, the point you have been comatose to! The point that you arguing with and against yourself in 90% of your posts, namely that beleifs are neccesarily subjective, **AND** (open your eyes nicholas!) This condition *doesn't* impede on the fact that there can be no "both rights," no "equally naives," and that there are "absolute truths." It is this point that I have been trying to flesh out.

You're right, it IS an obvious given. Thanks for finally realizing and admitting this inherent subjectivity of awareness.

It is an obvious given but you don't understand what you're replying to. The point of my statement is to correct you on what I'm arguing against and what I"m not, i.e., the relativsm that is enmeshed in with the "obvious givens"

Not only does it apply to people's attempts to understand the world, it describes the underlying nature of perception itself which allows them to attempt to understand the world. It's deeper than mere thoughts, it's the basis of interpretation itself.

That subjectivity is subjective-- which is really what your "thesis" or "point" boils down to-- does not infringe on the truthness of many of things we label "interpretations" (e..g, the proposition "cholorox beach is harmful when ingested")

I am saying that all points of view are valid to the people perceiving them. I am not pitting one perception against another, I am looking at each individually and saying it is valid from the context of that particular person's point of view. Of course, if we put one interpretation against another, then they can mutually exclude (invalidate) each other, but they are still consistent within themselves. So, a particular interpretation's "validity" or "invalidity" depends entirely on which side of the fence you happen to reside. Big/small, good/bad, poisionous/yummy, it depends entirely on your point of view (which is ALL you have, you don't have "truth", you have an opinion/interpretation).

...hence the relevance of my cyanide argument. YOu say one thing, then you say another, you object to one thing (my posts as irrelevant) when you actually make them relevant. The view you express in the above is naive and it misunderstand the nature of i)science ii) the majority of proposition-making people lay on the world. These can be accurate, and valid etc.

Of course, and i'm only repeating myself, absurdly you object to *ii* and call it "a fruitless tangent", when time and time again you entangle yourself in the issue, ignorant of the fact that

1) that is what i'm arguing against in the first place all this time
2) you can't seperate such from the statement "everything is subjective," for it is intimately enmeshed into it and must be contended with as consequence.

Nope, and here's why: I am talking about the subjective nature of perception, NOT how accurate the perceptions may or may not be. The "accuracy/inaccuracy of the perception" was a tool I used to clearly show the complete subjectivity of perception, but it was not my primary point, only a way of explaining *the* point in a way that can be easily understood by everyone. Again: the point is: interpretations are subjective, to show this I gave examples of how innacurate interpretations can be when viewed outside the context of the individual. You are obviously confusing the explanation with the thesis and going off an yet another fruitless tangent.

Again the larger picture, which if you were smarter you would grasp, is the fact that you can't seperate your "Point" from the "explanation" which, again, is forgetting in anycase, that I am only concerned (as i written in the last post, which you have yet to udnerstand) about the refutable implications of your "explanation," implicit to your "point" but made explicit by majority of your posts. You're tied up into it.

This is not what I was saying (see the "point" above), though it is true and I'm glad you see that, but you are free to interpret it any way you please. Again, my point is the subjective nature of interpretation, an idea I'm positive you will no longer claim to have issues with.

If you were smarter you would realize that I haven't disagreed with you on these points in the first place. Subjectivity is a neccesary condition to subjectivity, but-- the point is!-- this fact doesn't infringe on the truthness of knowledge-claims. Your statement above shows you have not understood my other post. You are misunderstand, I reason, becuase you labor under dizzy error that I have misunderstood you.

Hahah, good luck! You'll need plenty of it since for the majority of this conversation you weren't even aware of what I was talking about.

Hahah, isn't it humbling to realize the reverse is true? Why do you think I didn't bother responding to your post in the "is there truth about morality" thread? Take my word for it, it gets awefully tedious to have to rectify the incompetence of an unsophisticated intelligence.

Yet another fine example of subjective bullshit. Thanks for sharing. The "absolutist arrogance" line again shows me how little you comprehend what I'm saying, as I am so not absolutist that I don't even take MYSELF seriously.

Yet another fine example of your sub-neanderthal ability to grasp complex subjects. You see cue words and then you flurry into a series of irrelevant associations.

To recap: I'm saying that perceptions are nothing more than internal representations of the external world which are twisted by mind and ultimately biased, subjective, and incomplete. This is what I've been saying all along, and yes, I am aware that this idea is itself just a perception of mind and therefore subject to the same personal validity and interpersonal invalidity (as is *everything*). Since you have agreed with this (as I knew all along you eventually would) then I really see no point in continuing this discussion, unless you can come up with a new angle or pull the conversation into the direction or come up with a new "topic" entirely.

"Perceptions are nothing more than internal representations" represents your thesis. And I agree, perceptions are biased but, I differ, not where it matters in areas of science, and in much of the interpretations human beings lay upon the world. There is such a thing as absolute truth, and every belief is not an opinion equal to each other. Unfortunately you're too crude to realize I do not agree with you where it matters (and you'll probably still be confused about it)


(sorry if this post is a bit congested, but then again so are your confusions, heh )

 

[E V I L]

Originally posted by Satori
hehe, I think it's kinda funny that others take me so seriously when I don't even take myself seriously.

The key theme with regard to me is provocation by means of satire and intellectual posturing. I feel that taking offense to the sarcastic verbal bullshit of others reveals the fragility of one's ego (just a theory).

I hope I haven't said too much, otherwise the mystique is damaged, muwahah

root of all evil,

Satori

PS: geesh guys, lighten up already! hehe

I think it's kinda funny you're the one writing this. As in all my posts i have been "unserious" to the point of being facetious. On the other hand your posts reveal an ego struggling with itself.

Are you enlightened yet?

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by MountainDweller
From what I've observed from your constant, repetative, posts (starting months ago), you do indeed - intentionally or not - present your "ideas" as facts,

I am the first to admit that these ideas I ramble on about are just interpretive bullshit, I will argue them from within my point of view but from time to time I will pop outside of it and look back and have a good laugh at all I have said. Therefore, your observation was (from my point of view) incomplete.

and when anyone challenges you, you seem to only resort to patronizing and insults (and more repetative posts, not all too dissimilar to some of the Christians, whom you seem to dispise, who post here).

Actually, the patonizing and insults aren't the ONLY thing I resort to. If you take the time to read much of what I write you will find some pretty whacky ideas and new spins on things. Also, the christians here do not even remotely do what I do (who I don't actually dispise btw), so I fail to see any similarity. I *wish* there were some christians here who could debate about such things, that would be great, but obviously there are not.

You act as if the people who challenge you are too dumb to understand what you're saying,

Exactly. The key word in this sentence being "act". hehehe

when perhaps what's really being said is - as a funny pin I've seen says - "I see your point, but I still think you're full of shit".

Cool, I love it when people have the balls to say this to me and then have the intellectual capacity to back it up, but that's kinda hard to do when I'm laughing all the while and admitting that I am full of shit, hahahah. There is no "argument", there is only differences in interpretation. Sweet eh?

I must also point out that from what I've also seen, you seem to have an inablility to see things from outside the lines.

It's not an "inablility", I actually consciously *choose* a stance and then argue in favour of it. I thought this was obvious.

You have your "ideas" and treat them as gospel (while seemingling contradicting yourself in each new post), while others have ideas and treat them as possibilities.

As I said, choosing a stance (which I know is inherently biased bullshit). There is only one contradition in the philsophy I'm spewing and that is that it is entirely self-negating. If you would like to substantiate your claim and show me these multiple contradictions, I'd be more than happy to dispell them.

I think most of the incredible amount of crap that goes on in the world stems from people taking themselves to seriously and assuming that have a clue about anything (ie. religion).

When you trade in your ability to think in terms of possibilities for a more comfortable role of thinking in concrete answers is when you become no better than any religious-right zealot who leaves room for nothing more than their own dogma.

As I said, choosing a stance...

All it takes to "free yourself" is the ability to see things from another's point of view and think for yourself.

Not only do I see things from other's point's of view, I am quite able to get within their point of view and deconstruct it from the inside out, as I feel I have done time and time again here.

Also, this "free yourself" line kinda infringes on my area of interest so I have an opinion about this. I think that freeing oneself is ultimately negating oneself from the limited confines of thinking that any single perspective is absolutely valid. That's my definition of personal freedom (which of course I'll happily admit is subjective bullshit).

It happened for me when I realised just because I'm told something all my life doesn't mean it's true and started looking into other peoples' "truths" and deciding for myself what makes sense to me and what I agree or disagree with and searching within my own thoughts.

I knew this, and I couldn't be happier for you.

I never explained the purpose of my other comments that got bashed so harshly because they weren't meant to prove or disprove anything at all. I saw a closed-minded thought, and I posted and open-ended statement. They were put there for the possibilities they bring, not to give answers, and if people don't understand that, then there's nothing more I can say.

I'm sorry that you got so deeply offended by my slamming. It was my intent to provoke you and to get your mind spinning in high gear to question yourself and the basis of the proposition you were making. I thought you would defend your theory and dig deeper into your own perspective to justify it with logic (which of course never happened).

Possibilities are endless, and we'll probably find that the only correct answer is that we're all wrong.

That's *exactly* what I've been saying since day one. We come to adopt certain ideas and treat them as "real", but we must never mistake our perspective for ultimate reality cuz then the mind stops seeking/questioning and the person is filled with a false sense of absolutist dogmatic bullshit which (I feel) is a detriment to society as a whole (ie. religion).

I find it interesting how often people come to this conclusion, and it gives me faith in humanity.

There is no truth - only interpetation.


there are lines - but they are just perceptions,

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by E V I L
I think it's kinda funny you're the one writing this. As in all my posts i have been "unserious" to the point of being facetious. On the other hand your posts reveal an ego struggling with itself.

hahah, ego, good one Pretty neat trick for someone with a self-negating point of view eh? hehe


Let me put it like this dear Evil:

Are you enlightened yet?

Who is this "person" who seeks enlightenment?

muahaha, this was too easy,

Satori

 

[E V I L]

Originally posted by Satori


hahah, ego, good one Pretty neat trick for someone with a self-negating point of view eh? hehe


Let me put it like this dear Evil:



Who is this "person" who seeks enlightenment?

muahaha, this was too easy,

Satori

Heh,

It's easy for everyone to see in what ways you characteristcally pretend to be "holier-than-thou" and then contradict yourself in everything else you do. This is justifiably one of those annoying hypocritical things about people-- they criticize something and then freely do that which they criticize. It's convenient isn't to step back and say "hey I am deliberately bullshiting"? It's also lame.

Perhaps one day you will transcend your egocentricity, stop labeling everyone unlike you "egocentric."

I hope you're as diverted as I am. (though I'm actually sick and full of sedatives at the moment, and there's nothing fun about this : ( )

 

[Satori]

Oh boo-hoo

Originally posted by E V I L
It's easy for everyone to see in what ways you characteristcally pretend to be "holier-than-thou" and then contradict yourself in everything else you do.

Cool, thanks! And here I was thinking the humour was being wasted, it ain't easy being a such a sarcastic prick, hehe.

Me? "holier-than-thou"? Neat trick for someone whose benchmark is "the root of all evil". I of course can completely refute this notion but there's no challenge in simply stating the obvious.

This is justifiably one of those annoying hypocritical things about people-- they criticize something and then freely do that which they criticize. It's convenient isn't to step back and say "hey I am deliberately bullshiting"? It's also lame.

Subjective interpretation noted (as silly as it is, hehe).
And yes, it is quite convenient to step back and have a good laugh at everything, you should really try it some time (lest you start taking yourself too seriously).

Perhaps one day you will transcend your egocentricity, stop labeling everyone unlike you "egocentric."

Nah, only those who hang on to their opinions so tightly that they cannot let got of them in the midst of a different but nonetheless valid point of view (sound familiar? I certainly hope so.)

Besides, what is this "ego" that requires transcending? Is it another construct of mind? What do *you* think? (again, too low-level, too easy).

I hope you're as diverted as I am. (though I'm actually sick and full of sedatives at the moment, and there's nothing fun about this

Perhaps you shouldn't debate when you are feeling like crap as you appear to not being having too much fun. And when you are in good health perhaps you will find the time to actually REPLY to my last long post to you instead of (again, for the 3rd time now) going off on a tangent and avoiding the conversation completely. If you want to discuss the discussion that's cool, but don't think you can use this as a way to avoid the discussion because I will continue to point this out and attempt bring the conversation back to it's orginal point of disagreement.

Also, sedatives tend to increase the magnitude and duration of illnesses by disrupting the body's own mechanisms of self-healing, so while you may feel better in the short term, you are actually fucking yourself by taking them. Stress also is a huge detriment, so avoiding causes of stress is a good idea. Rest is the key. Until we meet again...

Satori

 

[E V I L]

Originally posted by Satori
Oh boo-hoo



Cool, thanks! And here I was thinking the humour was being wasted, it ain't easy being a such a sarcastic prick, hehe.

yeah it would be humorous to a prick. But the crux of it is, you can't be an prick of kind and then scorn those who act just as you do.

Subjective interpretation noted (as silly as it is, hehe).
And yes, it is quite convenient to step back and have a good laugh at everything, you should really try it some time (lest you start taking yourself too seriously).

No thanks, I refuse to be so shallow.

Nah, only those who hang on to their opinions so tightly that they cannot let got of them in the midst of a different but nonetheless valid point of view (sound familiar? I certainly hope so.)

Nah, you have described yourself perfectly. Too bad you're not smart enough to see it, humble enough to let yourself see it.

Besides, what is this "ego" that requires transcending? Is it another construct of mind? What do *you* think? (again, too low-level, too easy).

What paltry. I can give you a precise definition since you can't understand for yourself, if you want.

Perhaps you shouldn't debate when you are feeling like crap as you appear to not being having too much fun. And when you are in good health perhaps you will find the time to actually REPLY to my last long post to you instead of (again, for the 3rd time now) going off on a tangent and avoiding the conversation completely. If you want to discuss the discussion that's cool, but don't think you can use this as a way to avoid the discussion because I will continue to point this out and attempt bring the conversation back to it's orginal point of disagreement.

How clumsy of you. It shows how warped and selective your mind is. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see that I have replied to your 'last long post' Let me quess you deliberately embarass yourself too?

toodles!

 

[Satori]

Wow, I am consistently amazed at how you alway miss the POINT. At this point it certainly seems to me that you are faking it, cuz no one could participate in this conversation as you have and then keep misinterpreting me such as you have done and continue to do. It seems to me that you are holding on much too tightly to your own inherently limited perspective, so much in fact that you don't even have the ability (much less the desire) to step back and have a good long laugh at yourself. How unfortuante, but yet, how incredibly entertaining for me.

Originally posted by E V I L
...which is why I brought the example of cyanide up in the first place. All beleifs are subjective, which only means, beleifs are held be beleivers, this doesn't however condemn all beliefs to a condition of equipollence, in which all beliefs are equally valid and equally naive.

hehe, so silly, and here's why:

Points of view must be validated/invalidated within themselves. I'm not talking about validating one perspective against another, this is just ridiculous imo.

If a human says: "Cyanide isn't poisonous to ME." and it IS, then this person's point of view (validated within the context of this person) is complete crap and can easily be shown to be crap. Duh. However, if this person gets a hardon from cyanide, then this *persons* point of view (validated within the context of this person) is completely true. Why you have such issues with such an incredibly simple and obvious notion I'll never understand.

The first part of your position is something I never argued against, but your arrogance prevents from seeing in what ways I have already alighted on your position in full have moved beyond it. You have written somethign to Mountain Dweller, I have been toying with the implications of it ever since.

Please, toy away, I beg of you. *wink*

On the contrary, you have not understood my point because you continue to labor under the confusion that I have misunderstood you.

You are arguing with me about the inherently subjective nature of awareness (something you agree with) and you think I am misunderstanding you? hehe, this is too much.

What do you think I was fishing to "expose" ?

Rather than asking me, try just spitting out in plain english and without self-referencing dialog with numbers and language which just muddies the issue beyond any recognition.

1) What do you think I'm debating in the first place?

That there is truth above and beyond subjectivity, of course. What do YOU think you are debating?

I say the accuracy of statements can be measured- why do you think I keep bringing up my facetious example of cyanide, cholorox bleach, among others?

The "accuracy of statements" can only be measured from within the context of the point of view which is making the statement. The accuracy of a statement cannot be validated against another point of view, because this "other" point of view has different parameters. It seems to me that you keep looking at the surface of the issue with an almost ridiculous amount of reverence to your own ego and desire to denote something as being an "absolute truth". To put it is beyond simple terms: "Truth" is a construct of mind and therefore inherently bias. It doesn't matter how valid or invalid the "truth" is, it doesn't change the fact that it is in the most fundamental sense it is 00just an interpretation.

To illustrate this with an actual example I'm sure you've heard before (in some regard):

Satori and the Cockatoo
--------------------------------

Me and my cockatoo seem to be traveling in a space ship at half the speed of light. There are no windows and we cannot feel the motion. The cockatoo looks around and thinks we are standing complete still, is he right? From the CONTEXT of his perspective, he is completely right. I however have a screen over my eye that is hooked to a video camera on the front of the ship, so I can see we are moving, am I right? From the CONTEXT of my perspective, I am right. So, in this case, who is actually right, me or the bird? I bet you are thinking I am, but hold on there buckaroo, there's more to this tale: we aren't actually traveling through space, we are sitting still in some lab and I'm just being fed a moving image to my screen. In the lab there is a guy and he is in agreement with the cockatoo, we are in fact, NOT moving. So they are "right" and I am "wrong" then, right? But wait, there's more! In the lab there is a girl who is looking at the motion of celestial bodies and according to her calculations the entire planet is traveling and 2000 km/second. Is *she* right? From the CONTEXT of her point of view, she is.

So let's recap:
Bird: standing still. correct!
Satori: moving through space in a ship. correct!
Guy: standing still in a lab. correct!
Girl: whole planet and us traveling very fast. correct!

Simple eh?

But wait! Is the planet really moving *through* space, or is space itself just streching and carrying the planet along with it? Damned if I know, I'm still under the impression that I'm traveling at half of C in space ship, so what the hell do I know? hehe

So what have we learned from this story? That truth is relative to the individual and may or may not be valid when viewed from outside of the CONTEXT of that person's point of view, but if the point of view makes sense from within the context of that individual, then it is valid. And yes, I realize I'm stating the obvious. Now what were you saying about "absolute truth" above and beyond interpretation?

....again, when I say "cholorox bleach should not be ingested by those interested in health"-- this is an undeniable truth.

By "those", you mean other humans with a physiology similar to yours. This "undeniable truth" (hehehe) is completely valid when viewed within the CONTEXT of humans, but not necessarily valid when view within the context our our fictional alien friend who got the 6 hour hard-on from it. Again, I'm stating the obvious. Therefore, this "undeniable truth" is only true to humans relative to humans (of course). If this doesn't make sense, re-read the tale above.

First you say your not interested in the "accuracy of interpretations"

Yep, we may as well debate the colour of the sky.

1) then you forget that that's why I'm posting to you

I have no interest in debating the accuracy of your interpretations, none whatsoever.

2) then you contradict yourself and show in what ways you entangle yourself in the problem,

Please, don't embarass yourself with such foolish attempts at clouding things.

3) which I attempt to deal, but you dismiss, self-ignorantly, as irrelevant, though it's quite relevant.

Relevent to you, that is. Your obvious inablity to draw that distinction is the source of your confusion about my position.

(that beleifs are subjective-- which is indeed no-shit-sherlock statement)

Therefore, we are in total agreement. Don't you feel better now? hehe

3) you can't seperate from the issues of "subjectivity" just because you're not "interested in it" or not "talking about it... which
3b) contradicts most of the statements you make, for they invariably entangle you in this topic, which 1) i have been attempting to deal, but which 2) you have idiotically parried away as irrelevant, (when it's the core issue), and which ignores 3) the fact that you can't seperate one thing from the other; that saying one things "everything is subjective" obliges you to the relativistic consequence of the other. That is the larger picture.

This is a construct of your mind, something you are projecting onto me from your point of view (obviously).

As I have said before, I have NO interest in debating the accuracy of interpretation because this is a completely futile venture (see the above tale for an explanation of why it's futile). Interpretations can be valid, invalid, both, or neither (depending on who you are and HOW we choose to look at them). The reason I pitted opposing perspectives against each other was to (and I'm NOT going to repeat this again so listen very very carefully) show how each individual perspective is inherently biased (my "thesis", something which you agree with, of course).

Absolutely but you haven't been (paying attention.)

And this is to you and "absolute truth" I suppose? hehe

Your understanding of things like science and truth are naive.

Oh yes, and your point of view on my "understanding" of "science and truth" is somehow a valid truth, an absolute truth (to you)? It's statements like this that reveal how seriously you take yourself and how severely limited you are by your own incredibly biased perspective (ie. egocentric). You see, I KNOW I am a stupid primate and I have no problems admitting to it, do you have the courage to make the same admission? Do you have the nads to step outside of yourself and laugh at your OWN subjective, speculative, and biased perceptions? Or do you cling so tightly to your ego and your desire to be "right" that you cannot admit to yourself or anyone that it's all just interpretive crap (even though ultimately you know that it is)?

Can I beat this dog any further?

You can if you BELIEVE you can.

Cyanide is ingested by an alien and gives him an erection- the truth is, cyanide gives him erections.

Exactly. When viewed from within the context of alien physiology, this is a valid perception.

When human beings ingest it (the lethal form of it especially) they die.

Exactly. When viewed from within the context of human physiology, this is a valid perception. No surprises there.

The proposition is "when human beings ingest enough cyanide they die" is an absolute truth that is above and beyond interpretation, for reasons that are likewise above and beyond intepretation.

The proposition of "when human beings ingest enough cyanide they die is an absolute truth that is above and beyond interpretation" is ITSELF just an interpretation based on the completely subjective experience of the individual making the proposition. It is NOT an absolute truth, it is a *relative* one, one that is itself based on interpretation and exists only within one's mind.

The self-perceived "accuracy" of an interpretation does not make it an absolute. We can validate perception within the context of themselves till the cows come home, but this doesn't mean they are any more than just a perception, just a point of view, just an idea, just a mental construct, just and OPINION which may or may not reflect reality. The degree to which it reflects what we subjectively label "reality" does not make it any more than just a thought in someone's head. As hard as you try to show that the thought in your head IS reality (ie. an absolute "truth") it only a thought and can never be more than that. The map is not area, it is just a *representation* of the area. It's that simple.

An interpretation that accurately reflects reality is still just an IDEA and does not transcend subjectivity merely because it is perceived to be accurate, this is just silly.

"Truths" cannot transcend subjectivity because truths are constructs of mind and therefore by their very defintion *subjective/interpretive*.

Going deeper, even the underlying concept of "truth" itself is also a construct of mind (obviously), which kinda makes this whole idea of "truth transcending subjectivity" just too ridiculous to take seriously, but I have at least pretended to take it seriously anyway and it has amused me nonetheless, hehheh.

Cyanide exists indepentdly of your opinion of it---- exactly, and so do our postulations about it, for instance the causality there is to cyanide when human beings ingest it. I assure you, that is an absolute truth.

Yes, an absolute truth which just happens to be a construct of mind. Isn't is sweet?

Why, the point you have been comatose to! The point that you arguing with and against yourself in 90% of your posts, namely that beleifs are neccesarily subjective, **AND** (open your eyes nicholas!) This condition *doesn't* impede on the fact that there can be no "both rights," no "equally naives," and that there are "absolute truths." It is this point that I have been trying to flesh out.

I see you are still going on this innane premise of validing perspectives from outside their own context, a context which they were never MEANT to apply to. If this is still troubling you, and you still can't see how there can be "both rights" or "equally naives" then read my little tale above to discover how: subjectivity is the root of perception. While doing so, bear in mind that "truth" itself is also a mental construct and subject to all the same interpretive bias as anything else.

It is an obvious given but you don't understand what you're replying to. The point of my statement is to correct you on what I'm arguing against and what I"m not, i.e., the relativsm that is enmeshed in with the "obvious givens"

Nice try.. and too easy.

That subjectivity is subjective-- which is really what your "thesis" or "point" boils down to

heheh That's like me saying your point is "My subjective opinions are absolute truths." but I wouldn't suggest that you are quite so full of yourself, I'd rather allow you to suggest for me so I can be so very entertained and amused as I have been.

does not infringe on the truthness of many of things we label "interpretations" (e..g, the proposition "cholorox beach is harmful when ingested")

I never said it "infringed" on anything, only that they are subjective, biased, and ultimately just mental constructs.

Again the larger picture, which if you were smarter you would grasp,

Opps, careful not to be mistaking your mental constructs for reality again, oh, too late

is the fact that you can't seperate your "Point" from the "explanation"

Actually, it is you who cannot separate it, I have no problems with it at all.

which, again, is forgetting in anycase, that I am only concerned (as i written in the last post, which you have yet to udnerstand) about the refutable implications of your "explanation," implicit to your "point" but made explicit by majority of your posts. You're tied up into it.

Is it comfortable being so wound up in your own perspective as you are?

If you were smarter

Your analysis of my level of intelligence is just ridiculous rhetoric from someone who is obviously grasping at straws in an attempt to preserve the integrity of his ego and his fragile mental constructs of "absolute truth". My sympathies.

Hahah, isn't it humbling to realize the reverse is true? Why do you think I didn't bother responding to your post in the "is there truth about morality" thread? Take my word for it, it gets awefully tedious to have to rectify the incompetence of an unsophisticated intelligence.

Again, you show how you are so wrapped up in your perspective you are that you cannot so much as conceive of an alternative point of view that is just as valid as your own. I think you'd be better off reading your dictionary, it'll make more sense to you than I ever will because it is also in the flavour of absolutist rhetoric that you clearly love so much.

Yet another fine example of your sub-neanderthal ability to grasp complex subjects. You see cue words and then you flurry into a series of irrelevant associations.

Keep grasping at those straws and attacking the speaker instead of the arguments (aka a cop-out). The more you tell yourself your mental constructs are "real" the more "real" they will appear to you, I'm sure of it.

[/QUOTE]There is such a thing as absolute truth, and every belief is not an opinion equal to each other. [/QUOTE]

They are equal when viewed within their own context, of course, something I'm sure you now understand.

Unfortunately you're too crude to realize I do not agree with you where it matters (and you'll probably still be confused about it)

What's the matter? Did you run out of "your momma is so fat" jokes? The petty insults make you seem insecure and childish, but I'm flattered in that you felt the need to resort to such pathetic tactics, but quite frankly I expected more of you than this. Besides, we learn from our mistakes, and this is no exception, so there's a silver lining to this cloud fortuantely.

(sorry if this post is a bit congested, but then again so are your confusions

Don't you mean your mental constructs of my "confusions", or are you mistaking your perceptions about reality for reality yet again? Unfortuantely, the latter seems more plausible an explanation.

Keep stroking that ego, it needs it for self-validation, heheh

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by E V I L
yeah it would be humorous to a prick. But the crux of it is, you can't be an prick of kind and then scorn those who act just as you do.

Me? Scorn? good one


Satori wrote: "And yes, it is quite convenient to step back and have a good laugh at everything, you should really try it some time (lest you start taking yourself too seriously)."

To which Evil replied:

No thanks, I refuse to be so shallow.

Shallow? Odd choice of words, and entirely inappropriate. So you'd rather remain captive in the strict confines of your own fragile ego, never venturing outside of your own limited perspective long enough to consider that perhaps all your interpretations aren't "absolute truths" and have a good laugh at yourself? How unfortunate. Do you ever get tired of taking yourself so seriously all the time? Do you *ever* let go of the facade of "I am the beholder of absolute truth"? I must admit, I don't recall meeting someone quite so full of himself and so wrapped up in his own perspective.

Nah, you have described yourself perfectly. Too bad you're not smart enough to see it, humble enough to let yourself see it.

Shall I merely fling some feces in return or again point out how you are resorting to childish name calling? Please, contain yourself as an adult should, you are making yourself appear younger than I'm sure you are.

What paltry. I can give you a precise definition since you can't understand for yourself, if you want.

No thanks, I already know your definition and I find it much too limited, rigid, and egocentric for my tastes.

Muwhaah

Satori

 

[E V I L]

Originally posted by Satori



Satori wrote: "And yes, it is quite convenient to step back and have a good laugh at everything, you should really try it some time (lest you start taking yourself too seriously)."

To which Evil replied:


Shallow? Odd choice of words, and entirely inappropriate. So you'd rather remain captive in the strict confines of your own fragile ego, never venturing outside of your own limited perspective long enough to consider that perhaps all your interpretations aren't "absolute truths" and have a good laugh at yourself? How unfortunate. Do you ever get tired of taking yourself so seriously all the time? Do you *ever* let go of the facade of "I am the beholder of absolute truth"? I must admit, I don't recall meeting someone quite so full of himself and so wrapped up in his own perspective.

Do YOU ever get tired of taking yourself seriously? Very evidently the answer is no. I may take matters of truth seriously, but unlike you I don't conflate it with "ego." Tu quo que, I must admit I don't recall meeting soemone quite so full of himself and so wrapped up in his own perspective. But the difference between you and me, is that I don't get ad hominem about the truth. This is an error that is more like a psychological projection of your own arrogance than it is a rational calculation.

Shall I merely fling some feces in return or again point out how you are resorting to childish name calling? Please, contain yourself as an adult should, you are making yourself appear younger than I'm sure you are.

It is sometimes neccesary to point out the mental flaws of another in order to establish more fruitful argumentative conditions. Apart from this, I enjoy some idinal exchange of words into these kinds of discussions. Unlike you I won't pretend to be "holier-than-thou" like my shit don't stink. hehe I"m not above childishness, and makes for a more interesting read.

No thanks, I already know your definition and I find it much too limited, rigid, and egocentric for my tastes.

*chuckles at Satori's pretenses to wisdom*

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by E V I L
Do YOU ever get tired of taking yourself seriously? Very evidently the answer is no.

Actually, this is not the case. I am not so trapped in my perspective that I cannot see the validity of yours viewed from within your frame of reference. Also, I openly admit that my perspective about such things is as inherently full of shit as everyone else's, so in that sense I'm not taking myself seriously at all (as I realize you already know since you've heard it so many times, but I am entertained by your attempt to pass this off as an "accurate" presumption).

I may take matters of truth seriously, but unlike you I don't conflate it with "ego."

Perhaps, if you looked inward at your "self" long and hard enough instead of looking outward to find "truth", you would come to the stark realization as many do that the "truth" you find in the external world is a reflection of yourself, your ideas, memories, assumptions, IQ, etc. and a creation of your mind, regardless of how accurate you may or not perceive it to be. The internal representation of an absolute, no matter how highly you regard it, is still just a little idea floating in your head and it can never be more than that. And I know you can't possibly claim that this little idea floating in your head is "absolute" because you *know* about your own limitations of mind, your senses, and your intellect itself. You couldn't possibly be so full of yourself that you'd presume that you have all the data on the issue and that your little biased interpretation transcends all others.

If you ever came to this realization, you would discover for yourself that truth is not only associated with ego, the very notion of "truth" itself is derived FROM ego. Try as you will to segregate your inherently limited notions from the ego which spawned it, the are quite inseperable, "truth" needs an ego to give it life just as a bird need a sky in which to fly. With no sky there is no bird, with no ego there is not "truth".

There was also a time when people thought the earth was flat. From the context of their point of view, this was a valid assumption. Then it was discovered that the earth was round. After this discovery was made, the context changed, more data was available, and a new point of view was born. Just like the old one, this new point of view is valid in it's own context.

If this "in it's own context" thing is confusing you, then you can read all about it anything and everything about Einstein, it's simple relativity, child's play.

There was a time when everyone thought the sun orbited the earth (a valid perception based on the given data). Were they right? Hmm..
Then it was discovered the earth circles the sun? Were they right? Double hmm..
Then it was discovered that planets exert gravity on stars so in "fact" (whatever "fact" is) planets don't orbit stars, planets and stars obit each other. Are we "right" yet? Or is there more we still aren't seeing? And if there is more, can we see it? are we capable of seeing it? Would we be even capable of comprehending it? I don't know, I'm just a stupid primate with a limted perspective, I'm not in a position to state this current understanding of planatary orbiting as an "absolute truth".

Tu quo que, I must admit I don't recall meeting soemone quite so full of himself and so wrapped up in his own perspective.

Yes, so wrapped up that I openly tell everyone I meet that my ideas are just subjective bullshit. Nice try though.

But the difference between you and me, is that I don't get ad hominem about the truth.

To me, the difference between you and me is that I am not so arrogant as to suppose I know or understand anything to such a certainty that I feel the need to project it on the external world and label it as an "absolute truth". Also, I don't feel this need to validate my "self" by denoting the accuracy of my own mental projections and I'm humble enough to admit that I'm just a simple primate with completely primate-based conceptions about the nature of ultimate reality.

This is an error that is more like a psychological projection of your own arrogance than it is a rational calculation.

Subjective interpretation noted and enjoyed.

You can tell yourself that sky is blue all you want, but this mental fabrication will never truly and completely represent the sky's "colour". Interpretations are not realities. Maps are not areas. There is no where from which to stand to see the "complete picture" from every angel, our point of view always affects what we see (Einstein).

*chuckles at Satori's pretenses to wisdom*

*chuckles at Evil's implication that wisdom is an absolutist concept which he must adhere himself to in an attempt substantiate his limited interpretations above and beyond the feeble confines of his fragile ego*

muwhaha,

Satori

 

[E V I L]

Originally posted by Satori
Wow, I am consistently amazed at how you alway miss the POINT. At this point it certainly seems to me that you are faking it, cuz no one could participate in this conversation as you have and then keep misinterpreting me such as you have done and continue to do. It seems to me that you are holding on much too tightly to your own inherently limited perspective, so much in fact that you don't even have the ability (much less the desire) to step back and have a good long laugh at yourself. How unfortuante, but yet, how incredibly entertaining for me.

I wouldn't trust your inept intellect I were you. Just giving advice. You should question your pride one day.

hehe, so silly, and here's why:

Points of view must be validated/invalidated within themselves. I'm not talking about validating one perspective against another, this is just ridiculous imo.

If a human says: "Cyanide isn't poisonous to ME." and it IS, then this person's point of view (validated within the context of this person) is complete crap and can easily be shown to be crap. Duh. However, if this person gets a hardon from cyanide, then this *persons* point of view (validated within the context of this person) is completely true. Why you have such issues with such an incredibly simple and obvious notion I'll never understand.

It's validated without the context of this person as well. Ruminate on that some time. I can ingest cyanide and think I am actually get vitalized, this doesn't me in accordance to grave reality, I am actually writhing on the floor dying. Of course if i were an alien whose physicology is different, and got hardons from cyanide, then the truth is cyanide is vicious to human beings, but may not be to an aliens body. This doesn't change the fact statements like "cyanide is dangerous to human being's body" or "like viagra to an alien's body" doesn't change the absolute truthness to these statments, as the statements are answer to what effect does cyanide have to organisim x, y, z. IN this light, which you have not had the insight to consider, your rants are meaningless.

You are arguing with me about the inherently subjective nature of awareness (something you agree with) and you think I am misunderstanding you? hehe, this is too much.

But what you continue to falter on is the fact that this agreement hosts our disagrement about whether truths can be accessed by human beings at all. I say yes "we are not condemned to be naive, we are capable of truth" you say " everything is just opinion and intepretive bullshit" I'm afraid your belief simply holds no weight.

Rather than asking me, try just spitting out in plain english and without self-referencing dialog with numbers and language which just muddies the issue beyond any recognition.

My business of annotating concepts should be welcome to anyone interested in organized (or somewhat organized ) thoughts and arguments. Are you so "childish" that you feel the need to be dismissive of style all the time?

That there is truth above and beyond subjectivity, of course. What do YOU think you are debating?

Of course that we are capable of possessing it on many levels. Let's be clear about this now. Do you agree or disagree. I'd be rather shocked if you agree, as the text of your replies denote differently. (i wouldn't be surprised, however, if you do agree, you dizzy wanna-be intellect, you .)

The "accuracy of statements" can only be measured from within the context of the point of view which is making the statement. The accuracy of a statement cannot be validated against another point of view, because this "other" point of view has different parameters. It seems to me that you keep looking at the surface of the issue with an almost ridiculous amount of reverence to your own ego and desire to denote something as being an "absolute truth". To put it is beyond simple terms: "Truth" is a construct of mind and therefore inherently bias. It doesn't matter how valid or invalid the "truth" is, it doesn't change the fact that it is in the most fundamental sense it is 00just an interpretation.

Truth is a construct of mind, but the grand insight you have to grasp, at least when it comes to the stance i am forwarding against you in this lovely thread, is that truth is innately an emprise that asks "what is the worlk in relation to my mind" -- it accounts, configures, and acknowledges those parameters. They are the given to all truth claims. Again, you are thinking I am arguing against something that I"m actually not. I wrote else where that the line of thinking that you're treading upon is something I have wiped my ass with many a time. It is, to wit, to give a name, "KANTIAN" The German philosopher Kant dealt with this expressly and came up with his formulations of "the noumenal" and "phenomenal" distinctions-- the phenomenal basically being the world as it filtered by the innate intuitions (he calls the "categories") of the mind that make experience (or the "transcendental unity of apperception") possible at all. Of couse the noumenal, the cyanide-in-itself would be something that is impossible for us to know. ---- but this unbenknownst to your naivety, beside the trajectory of my arguing against you.

To illustrate this with an actual example I'm sure you've heard before (in some regard):

Satori and the Cockatoo
--------------------------------

Me and my cockatoo seem to be traveling in a space ship at half the speed of light. There are no windows and we cannot feel the motion. The cockatoo looks around and thinks we are standing complete still, is he right? From the CONTEXT of his perspective, he is completely right. I however have a screen over my eye that is hooked to a video camera on the front of the ship, so I can see we are moving, am I right? From the CONTEXT of my perspective, I am right. So, in this case, who is actually right, me or the bird? I bet you are thinking I am, but hold on there buckaroo, there's more to this tale: we aren't actually traveling through space, we are sitting still in some lab and I'm just being fed a moving image to my screen. In the lab there is a guy and he is in agreement with the cockatoo, we are in fact, NOT moving. So they are "right" and I am "wrong" then, right? But wait, there's more! In the lab there is a girl who is looking at the motion of celestial bodies and according to her calculations the entire planet is traveling and 2000 km/second. Is *she* right? From the CONTEXT of her point of view, she is.

So let's recap:
Bird: standing still. correct!
Satori: moving through space in a ship. correct!
Guy: standing still in a lab. correct!
Girl: whole planet and us traveling very fast. correct!

Wow it's amazing how things are so damn relative to each other, I bet if you published this work you would be awarded a Nobel Prize in physics! Brilliant!--- not!

Just to lightly sketch it, the line of reasoning peculiar to that "thought experiment" tacitly asks "what is x,y,z, relative to the perspective of a, b, c?" Of course the "truth" should change given the mulitplicity of variables. 2+2= 4 is an absolute truth. 2+5= 7 different answers, different variables, same eternal calculus, which is understood, and it's called addition. Looks like our lowly subjectivity has the tapped into the eternal after all!

So what have we learned from this story? That truth is relative to the individual and may or may not be valid when viewed from outside of the CONTEXT of that person's point of view, but if the point of view makes sense from within the context of that individual, then it is valid. And yes, I realize I'm stating the obvious. Now what were you saying about "absolute truth" above and beyond interpretation?

Now grasshopper, you must go deeper and understand that this is an insight that is not worth fixating on. As the context and parameters that make such possible can be accounted for, and in the case of your example the answer to the question "what is the truth here?"- just like the perspective of people riding on the space ship- just the like the alien who responds to cyanide with an erection-- is inclusive of the context, which can itself, metalogically, be apprehended and accounted for. Hence these absolute truth is attained, hence the absolute truth of your examples inherently asks what is absolutely true about subjective x, y, z.

By "those", you mean other humans with a physiology similar to yours. This "undeniable truth" (hehehe) is completely valid when viewed within the CONTEXT of humans, but not necessarily valid when view within the context our our fictional alien friend who got the 6 hour hard-on from it. Again, I'm stating the obvious. Therefore, this "undeniable truth" is only true to humans relative to humans (of course). If this doesn't make sense, re-read the tale above.

Of course, but this is redundant. This means nothing in the context of our argument, as it doesn't actually say anything against me. So I wonder what point you're trying to make here.

Yep, we may as well debate the colour of the sky.

na, nonsense. Given the right intellect these discussion are as subjstantive as antyhing else. Unfortunately you don't see this.

This is a construct of your mind, something you are projecting onto me from your point of view (obviously).

You have not understood this point. I suggest you think harder.

As I have said before, I have NO interest in debating the accuracy of interpretation because this is a completely futile venture (see the above tale for an explanation of why it's futile). Interpretations can be valid, invalid, both, or neither (depending on who you are and HOW we choose to look at them). The reason I pitted opposing perspectives against each other was to (and I'm NOT going to repeat this again so listen very very carefully) show how each individual perspective is inherently biased (my "thesis", something which you agree with, of course).

Well this just where our disagreement is. I have been attempting to induce you into just this discussion, and you have been avoiding it. In fact our last series of posts can be pinned down to the conflict there is to one person, me, trying to talk about one thing, and another, you, parrying the topic away. Which is why this dialect has been so cluttered as it has been.

Oh yes, and your point of view on my "understanding" of "science and truth" is somehow a valid truth, an absolute truth (to you)? It's statements like this that reveal how seriously you take yourself and how severely limited you are by your own incredibly biased perspective (ie. egocentric). You see, I KNOW I am a stupid primate and I have no problems admitting to it, do you have the courage to make the same admission? Do you have the nads to step outside of yourself and laugh at your OWN subjective, speculative, and biased perceptions? Or do you cling so tightly to your ego and your desire to be "right" that you cannot admit to yourself or anyone that it's all just interpretive crap (even though ultimately you know that it is)?

Given the option I will trust the proffessional doctors opinion about cancer, over the person who claims that attention to stars can cancer. It's not about ego, if it's right, it's right, and I shall argue for it. As I wrote in my post before this one, you're being dismissive. I don't take myself seriously. I do take logic seriously and science seriously. You can argue on those grounds or continue to spuriously conflate your egocentricized (moralistically speaking) view of issues such as this, that need not be ad hominem.

Exactly. When viewed from within the context of alien physiology, this is a valid perception.



Exactly. When viewed from within the context of human physiology, this is a valid perception. No surprises there.

good now go further, understand we are talking about the truth of causalities between one substance and another which will change give the variablity of substance. Though the nature of the causality changes the truth has not.

The proposition of "when human beings ingest enough cyanide they die is an absolute truth that is above and beyond interpretation" is ITSELF just an interpretation based on the completely subjective experience of the individual making the proposition. It is NOT an absolute truth, it is a *relative* one, one that is itself based on interpretation and exists only within one's mind.

This is where you're wrong-- think about it. The proposition "when human beings ingest enough cyanide they die" is an absolute that is not merely opinion. Why? because it holds true for all humans, for reasons that are likewise accoutable. Go deeper.

The self-perceived "accuracy" of an interpretation does not make it an absolute. We can validate perception within the context of themselves till the cows come home, but this doesn't mean they are any more than just a perception, just a point of view, just an idea, just a mental construct, just and OPINION which may or may not reflect reality. The degree to which it reflects what we subjectively label "reality" does not make it any more than just a thought in someone's head. As hard as you try to show that the thought in your head IS reality (ie. an absolute "truth") it only a thought and can never be more than that. The map is not area, it is just a *representation* of the area. It's that simple.

What you're saying here doesn't apply to nomological (causal) epistemes-- those bodies of knowledge that purport to show how one thing hangs with another. The self-percieved accuracy of an intepretation is not a self-percieved. It is the bitch/slave to other modalities, relating to the criteria of "verification", "correspondence", among others.

And about the thing about the map, it'd be false of course to say that a "noun is a person, place, or thing" which is why human beings say "a noun is the name of a person place or thing"-- the "representation" that you speak of, is accounted for and thus made irrelevant.

An interpretation that accurately reflects reality is still just an IDEA and does not transcend subjectivity merely because it is perceived to be accurate, this is just silly.

this is correct, but you'd be in error if you think i was arguing against this point. It'd be an idea, regardless, right? But there ideas that absolutely true (such as the proposition concerning cyanide) and there ideas that are not. Indeed, just because an idea is a subjective, doesn't make it bullshit. Can I get an amen??

"Truths" cannot transcend subjectivity because truths are constructs of mind and therefore by their very defintion *subjective/interpretive*.

Again no shit sherlock! This only says that beliefs cannot be such without believers. But this does not infringe on the truthness of these subjectivities appertaining to the world. Indeed you are very benighted, stumbling over your own feet and shit.

Going deeper, even the underlying concept of "truth" itself is also a construct of mind (obviously), which kinda makes this whole idea of "truth transcending subjectivity" just too ridiculous to take seriously, but I have at least pretended to take it seriously anyway and it has amused me nonetheless, hehheh.

But, going deeper, it is a concept that asks what is true in relation to these constructs.

Yes, an absolute truth which just happens to be a construct of mind. Isn't is sweet?

...which doesn't mean it's absolutely false. Tis sweet indeed!

I see you are still going on this innane premise of validing perspectives from outside their own context, a context which they were never MEANT to apply to. If this is still troubling you, and you still can't see how there can be "both rights" or "equally naives" then read my little tale above to discover how: subjectivity is the root of perception. While doing so, bear in mind that "truth" itself is also a mental construct and subject to all the same interpretive bias as anything else.

Read this post thus far to discover why you're wrong. There is much in epistemology that you are quite ignorant of. Your statement shows this. All said and done "both rights' and "equally naives" become meaningless. And indeed you're still lurking, as it were, in the dark, from my pov. It's amusing to see you labor under you inability to comprehend a situation.

I never said it "infringed" on anything, only that they are subjective, biased, and ultimately just mental constructs.

You do say it, in o so many ways. To give you a recognizable phrase: you entangle youself into this issue, and hence there is the obligation to deal with consequence.

Actually, it is you who cannot separate it, I have no problems with it at all.

Too bad you don't know what's going on here.

Is it comfortable being so wound up in your own perspective as you are?

My perspectives can be justified, if you will allow an opportunity to show me this, rather than parry it away in your naive dismissals and say "it's just a fruitless tangent"

Your analysis of my level of intelligence is just ridiculous rhetoric from someone who is obviously grasping at straws in an attempt to preserve the integrity of his ego and his fragile mental constructs of "absolute truth". My sympathies.

Hehe, I have a fragile ego, I confess, indeed I yell it from the mountain tops! But only in the presence of those who are smart. From you I feel no such trepidation- truly! no lie!

Again, you show how you are so wrapped up in your perspective you are that you cannot so much as conceive of an alternative point of view that is just as valid as your own. I think you'd be better off reading your dictionary, it'll make more sense to you than I ever will because it is also in the flavour of absolutist rhetoric that you clearly love so much.

I will break from the usual and simply assert that this actually is a fallacious abusive ad hominem. In a dialectical setting, most of the times it's not fallacious to be "ad hominem" , but in your case it is. Why? you are simply being dismissive of an issue rather deal with it. And I see you mentioned that thing about the dictionary again-- do remember I referenced it to show how you pretend to knowledge. hehe, mister holier-than-thou who criticizes me for being "childish" which i have admitted to being, behaves to contradict himself once again. Now, you have my sympathies.

What's the matter? Did you run out of "your momma is so fat" jokes? The petty insults make you seem insecure and childish, but I'm flattered in that you felt the need to resort to such pathetic tactics, but quite frankly I expected more of you than this. Besides, we learn from our mistakes, and this is no exception, so there's a silver lining to this cloud fortuantely.

Read snippets of this post, and my last to gain an insight into the justification of insulting opponents as to create fruitful and orderly conversations. And again, I don't mind being "idinal" every now and then, you can't take it? are you so sensitive?

Keep stroking that ego, it needs it for self-validation, heheh.

I can safely say, against you my ego will never need any tendering.

(whewww! that was a doozy the quotation a lone were a bitch. but this has quite revitalizing I must say. Thanks Satori for the mental jog! again no matter how mean I get in here, I appreciate your participation! cheers)

 

[E V I L]

Originally posted by Satori


Actually, this is not the case. I am not so trapped in my perspective that I cannot see the validity of yours viewed from within your frame of reference. Also, I openly admit that my perspective about such things is as inherently full of shit as everyone else's, so in that sense I'm not taking myself seriously at all (as I realize you already know since you've heard it so many times, but I am entertained by your attempt to pass this off as an "accurate" presumption).

You openly admit such- but this your cop-out. At least I own up to my actions. I do what I can to justify my positions and so on.

Perhaps, if you looked inward at your "self" long and hard enough instead of looking outward to find "truth", you would come to the stark realization as many do that the "truth" you find in the external world is a reflection of yourself, your ideas, memories, assumptions, IQ, etc. and a creation of your mind, regardless of how accurate you may or not perceive it to be. The internal representation of an absolute, no matter how highly you regard it, is still just a little idea floating in your head and it can never be more than that. And I know you can't possibly claim that this little idea floating in your head is "absolute" because you *know* about your own limitations of mind, your senses, and your intellect itself. You couldn't possibly be so full of yourself that you'd presume that you have all the data on the issue and that your little biased interpretation transcends all others.

If you ever came to this realization, you would discover for yourself that truth is not only associated with ego, the very notion of "truth" itself is derived FROM ego. Try as you will to segregate your inherently limited notions from the ego which spawned it, the are quite inseperable, "truth" needs an ego to give it life just as a bird need a sky in which to fly. With no sky there is no bird, with no ego there is not "truth".

indeed? is this your "absolutist wisdom" to which you insist everyone else must conform? *whispers: "holier-than-thou"* *coughs: shit-don't-stink*

There was also a time when people thought the earth was flat. From the context of their point of view, this was a valid assumption. Then it was discovered that the earth was round. After this discovery was made, the context changed, more data was available, and a new point of view was born. Just like the old one, this new point of view is valid in it's own context.

This context you speak of is the world. Coming full circle, repeat after me "the world is not my bitch, I am the world's bitch." (and yes it is dualistic, if you don't think so, kindly show why, as I am too lazy to prove this now.)

If this "in it's own context" thing is confusing you, then you can read all about it anything and everything about Einstein, it's simple relativity, child's play.

As I write in the prior post, these conclusions in relativitiy conclude what is true with regard to what is relative to perspective, and not what is true about various elements of the world. There's a rather significant distinction to be made here. But allow me to pass on adumbrating it further than I may have already elsewhere, for, boohoo, even EVIL gets sick every now and then.

There was a time when everyone thought the sun orbited the earth (a valid perception based on the given data). Were they right? Hmm..
Then it was discovered the earth circles the sun? Were they right? Double hmm..
Then it was discovered that planets exert gravity on stars so in "fact" (whatever "fact" is) planets don't orbit stars, planets and stars obit each other. Are we "right" yet? Or is there more we still aren't seeing? And if there is more, can we see it? are we capable of seeing it? Would we be even capable of comprehending it? I don't know, I'm just a stupid primate with a limted perspective, I'm not in a position to state this current understanding of planatary orbiting as an "absolute truth".

If you ask me, how many cans of empty beer is on my desk, I can answer..hmmm, precisely five. Am I right? absolutely, well, unless there is a stray can of bud beneath this desk lurking somewhere, I am. This is an absolute truth. What about physics? Well given the tacit "parameters" of the question "does the earth orbit *around* the Sun" we can answer absolutely as well as this conforms to those parameters, and the human logic thereof. Science in this regard professes no pretensions greater than the "transsubjective" (hey, remember this word?) logic inherent in its inquiry. but that's the business all along. When it comes to counting the number of cans in my room, this is not problematic at all. The earth around the sun? Nope not really. Physics and the beginning of the Universe? Absolutely!!, and so the *absolute truth** is: yeah, human beings are finite, and there are just somethings in this world that we simply can never know about, and which will remain enshrouded in misanthropic mystery forever. But the absolute truth in the case of cosmology is that we can't know. I hope you grasp the nuances here.

Yes, so wrapped up that I openly tell everyone I meet that my ideas are just subjective bullshit. Nice try though.

you say one thing, but your holier-than-thou attitude says something else. Truth is one thing, but then acting like you're morally superior does not need logic and language to be expressed. Likewise, language does not excuse it.

To me, the difference between you and me is that I am not so arrogant as to suppose I know or understand anything to such a certainty that I feel the need to project it on the external world and label it as an "absolute truth". Also, I don't feel this need to validate my "self" by denoting the accuracy of my own mental projections and I'm humble enough to admit that I'm just a simple primate with completely primate-based conceptions about the nature of ultimate reality.

I hereby claim that I am as fallible as the next man. But I can detect when another is naive or wrong-- what do you think argument's are for? There is nothing tyrannical about my assertions. If you disagree rather absurdly be dissmissive and adhominem about it (I write about this further in the prior post) argue it out and we shall see, if my claims and confidence are as warranted as all that.

*chuckles at Evil's implication that wisdom is an absolutist concept which he must adhere himself to in an attempt substantiate his limited interpretations above and beyond the feeble confines of his fragile ego*

*chuckles back at Satori, and winks* Again you are spuriously conflating ego with truth. Things needn't be so ad hominem, and in this case it is indeed fallacious. If I argue for a point this has nothing to do with my "fragile ego" and everythign to do with the turht of the matter (the conversation itself, and the validity of the points that are being argued)

This is proof that you're actually the one who is so wrapped up in ego, that indeed you have begun to construe everything in these terms. You have become a neurotic slave to this principle.

 

[Satori]

Ok, this was fun but I think we tired it out now.

You are saying mental constructs can be accurate to the point of absolution even though they are just mental constructs.

I'm saying that it's foolish to suggest that any mental construct can truly represent the "whole" picture, truly be "absolute", simpy because it is limited by it's own inescapable subjectivity, regardless of it's accuracy because we can never truly measure it's accuracy.

You realize that "truth" is itself just a mental construct and not "real".

I realize that even though truths are mental constructs, they can (seemingly) accurately reflect reality.


*yawn*

If you would like to continue let me know.. I don't want to let this end prematurely if you are still into it.. cheers


Satori