Is genuine altruism possible?

In that case I have to strongly disagree with JL. Concepts do not have to exist for them to make comparative sense. My example illustrates it perfectly as it makes the notion proposed a paradox:

exist vs does not exist

I agree that they are our creations, as all adjectives are but that's about as far as I can see that going.

truth
Craven, your four possibilities--if every "thing" is pure/impure/imperfect/perfect nothing is pure/impure/imperfect/perfect, illustrates my point "perfectly." But the "nothing is" clause refers to the fact that the "everything is" refers to a hypothetical condition of the physical world (of "things"). We must remember that there is no inherent purity or perfection in anything, such adjectives, as you note, are only our constructions, not nature's. I assume, therefore, that you put "thing" in quotes to remind us that you are talking not about the actual physical world but about our sense of "it". Dualism is the foundation of all thought ABOUT the world; but as Twyvel tirelessly reminds us, non-dualism is the foundation for true experience of the world.

Doesn't mean we can't use it as a basis for comparison. After all, the 'lack' exists.

Purity doesn't have to exist for there to be impurity. All you need is an idea of purity. For instance, complete darkness doesn't exist, but we know about light, and absolute zero is not a condition anywhere in the universe, but we know about heat and temperature.

That said, there are many different possible definitions of purity, and it's not a useful concept unless we know which one you are refering to? What exactly is "pure"?

rufio, How do you know complete darkness doesn't exist for the blind?

truth
Rufio, an example of the trap of dualism: What is "purity"? The absence of defilements. What is a "defilement"? That which contaminates what would otherwise be pure.

JL,

That is predicated on the notion that only extremes are comparable. It's an inordinate polarization of the comparatives for no good reason.

truth
I suspect that our entire world--that world we talk about--is metaphorical, even the so-called physical world, Since our knowledge of it is symbolically formed in words, numbers and other symbols. But there are metaphorical levels wherein some things are more meta than others. For example, the notion of purity in the Hindu caste system. If a member of a "clean" caste is touched by a member of an unclean caste (i.e., an "untouchable") or engages in unclean acts (e.g., handling dead animals or their dung) he is "polluted" (which is to say metaphorically defiled of impurified). However, he is not contaminated in the sense that he has been infected by a bacterium. His contamination is purely symbolic (not forgetting, of course, that even bacteria are, at a different level, also metaphorical). So what does he do to de-contaminate, or re-purify, himself? Take a bath? No, he must perform symbolic rituals of purification. This kind of purity is "purely" conceptual and to their minds absolute. You cannot be a llittle impure any more than you can be a little bit pregnant.

I agree that much is meta. But disagree that the "degree to which" factors of impurity and pregnancy are equitable as they play out very differently in practical application.

In pregnancy the results are polarized, there are two distinct conditions with no meaningful middleground.

With impurity this is not the case. While all is impure this doesn't mean that, say, you'd consider all water quaffable.

Because I've defined it as something objective that doesn't require an observer, CI, which is how I think most people would, i.e., that lack of photons. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

JL, the problem is that there are two ways of looking at purity - in terms of defilements, and in terms of itself. If you define something as pure, which is a positive actual quality, than anything that does not possess that quality is impure. But if you define purity as a negative quality, or the lack of something, than you have to define what it is the lack off too. Good catch. It's all very well to define abstract concepts in terms of each other, but I was looking for a definition that I could personally relate something to.

I agree about the symbolic nature of purity - which is why I don't subscribe to purity as a way of defining things. But I think it's interesting to look at the ways that other people do, which is why I asked the question. As for metaphors in general - I agree, but I would say reflections, not metaphors. Metaphors are consciously created to serve a specific purpose, while in a reflection, only the reflector or the lens is responsible for the interpretation.

truth
True, Craven, but I was comparing pregnancy only to the caste pollution situation.

truth
Rufio, I like, but disagree with, your thought that impurity can exist objectively as long as we have IDEA of purity. Are you saying that impurity exists as an objective fact but that we need the notion of purity to recognize that fact? I would argue (but I'm not sure, I'm still awaiting God's message to me) that when you say "purity exists" you are referring to the idea of purity, which you then attach or ascribe to something. You are clearly a positivist/objectivist while I tend to be a subjectivist/idealist. But actually I am a combination of them. There IS a real world "out there" but we can only know our representations of it--and that occurs in terms of metaphors. That is a Schopenhaurian position, which is rejected by my other hero, Nietzsche.

JL,

Therin lies the problem of comparatives across multiple paradigims.

But even in the comparison you made I disagree, not within the caste system but in the "pollution" of the human.

One thing that has me thinking is that the original question here might have been too meta for some of the reactions.

People here reacted angrily to the notion that the pure are actually impure but they were doing do with the practical application within the spectrum of humanity as the paradigim rather than the more 'meta' philosophical discussion that was originally proposed.

What they failed to realize was that it wasn't a criticism of persons such as Mother T, it was just a 'meta' discussion on the basis of motivation.

Take a brick of "pure" gold. When one notes that purity is impossible it's not a criticism of the brick. The practical application paradigim makes it 'fair' to call the brick pure. This thread has made me think of the reconciliation between theory and practice. some were only speaking in the meta-tongue while others responded only within the paradigims of practical application.

No matter what our examples are you are right in that impurity is an absolute. But I've been trying to reconcile some of the useless theoreticals with the practicals.

truth
Craven, I appreciate your qualification. In the world of physical processes and conditions (i.e., the so-called objective situation), what matters most is degrees. Water can be "impure" but clean enough to drink. But in the symbolic world, like that of the caste system, one cannot be pure ENOUGH to touch. I agree with your pragmatic slant, but insist that people think of the world in terms of classes of conditions. This forms the basis for our positioning of something on the continuum of polar conditions. Degrees only exist in terms of distance from the poles of a bi-polar model. Degrees of heat make sense in terms of distance from some TACIT notion of absolute heat (the same with cold). Now I know that no-one would acknowledge this. They would say they are only concerned, pragmatically, with the degree of heat that human skin can withstand, etc. But I am talking about human constructions of the world at a purely theoretical level, a level that concerns THEIR implicit thought. I wouldn't swear by this. I would like to hear criticisms. The great benefit to be gained from such debates is not to see what the truth is, in terms of which side wins. The benefit lies in the way this give and take ultimately REFINES both arguments.

"There IS a real world "out there" but we can only know our representations of it--and that occurs in terms of metaphors."

I agree, but I just wanted to make it clear that the metaphors only exist in our minds. The objective reality exists regardless, but our interpretations of it are unique.

"Purity" (as well as "good" and "evil", but let's not bring that back here) are examples of what I consider "representations" or interpretations of things that are objectively real. They're not quite as objective as, photons, for instance, but they are objective in that they exist as a kind of attribute of the person who believes in them. Examples that are more along those lines would be, you might not question your political opinion unless you met someone who thought differently, and you might take your language for granted until you met someone who couldn't speak it. Similarly, you might not see impurities until you knew of something that was pure. However, for all of these things, just conceiving of the idea is good enough - the idea that there are people who can't speak your language, that there are people who don't agree with your opinion, etc., would be enough for you to at least realize that the attributes that you can observe may not be universal.

truth
Thank you, Rufio, for one of the most reasonable comments seen lately. I like the notion of John Searles that CONSCIOUSNESS of the world is fundamental; we only know the world as experience and interpretation (here he seems to be an epistemological idealist), but then he says that this is an objective fact in the world (now he seems to an epistemological objectivist).

Not to detract from this thread, but this is exactly the concept that we spent 7 pages arguing about in the Evil thread.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

rufio, Your 18:25 post makes alot a sense to me too! Just goes to show there is always hope that people of differing opinions can find common ground on some things.

JL,

When contemplating your post I thought that perhaps the poles are not the basis of comparison but rather the middle (as perceived by the individual), and even then, the "middle" I speak of is really just the average or the presently real. I've given it only 10 seconds of thought but thus far find more substantiaton for that than otherwise.

For example, to use heat, the poles are not of import to me, divergence from the preferred average is. The basis for comparison wouldn't be the extremities but the difference from the "middle" or the "average" (the percived average, not the real average).