Perception and physical reality

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Is that, what you just said, True, or yet another of your Moral "forms" ?...
How can you have change without any actual state fixed to be changed in the first place ? What is it that changes ???

I do not know if you see it or can see it, but change is the only constant in existence... When we say this is truth or that is truth, we are giving expression to a moral form, which as all forms is a form of relationship, a meaning only without a specific being...

Poor little lonely change... he's the only constant in existance. He's all over the place. Therefore All Over the Place is constant.

Yea, that one blew my mind a while back.

So when we speak of truth, we're giving expression to a moral form, which is a relationship between what and what? Are we positing a vantage point for ourselves that we'd just soon not get specific about? Have we suggested that we know that there's something we'll never know?

As always... I appreciate you Fido.

I'm reading Nietzche. Thoughts?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

I heard that when you know something very well you should be able to explain it so that even your grandmother would be able to understand it! I am sad to say that I may have a lesser ability to understand things than your grandmother.

Both of my grandmothers are dead... I hope that means they understand everything....

0 Replies

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

Fido wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Is that, what you just said, True, or yet another of your Moral "forms" ?...
How can you have change without any actual state fixed to be changed in the first place ? What is it that changes ???

I do not know if you see it or can see it, but change is the only constant in existence... When we say this is truth or that is truth, we are giving expression to a moral form, which as all forms is a form of relationship, a meaning only without a specific being...

Poor little lonely change... he's the only constant in existance. He's all over the place. Therefore All Over the Place is constant.

Yea, that one blew my mind a while back.

So when we speak of truth, we're giving expression to a moral form, which is a relationship between what and what? Are we positing a vantage point for ourselves that we'd just soon not get specific about? Have we suggested that we know that there's something we'll never know?

As always... I appreciate you Fido.

I'm reading Nietzche. Thoughts?

The relationship is between two people for whom truth has meaning, and between subject and object... Our concepts of reality have only as much meaning as truth... Moral forms have only meaning... Nietzsche is a fry... At best as true as false... Like most philosophers, he did not get relationships... Too much head and not enough heart...

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Is that, what you just said, True, or yet another of your Moral "forms" ?...
How can you have change without any actual state fixed to be changed in the first place ? What is it that changes ???

I do not know if you see it or can see it, but change is the only constant in existence... When we say this is truth or that is truth, we are giving expression to a moral form, which as all forms is a form of relationship, a meaning only without a specific being...

No !
You did n´t get to what I was at...
You cannot have change without true objects of relation...
...What has no form cannot change...so, what IS IT that changes ??? (Irony)
If it is not True it does n´t change because you can´t tell that X is something becoming something else...in fact you have no X at all to change to whatsoever !!!

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Moral forms do seem to have meaning when you have at least two people involved, These moral forms seem to be objects of relation between people. They may only be concepts but we can relate to them to some degree.
I do not know what I am talking about so I figured I would fake it and see if anyone could tell!

3 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Hi reason ! Wink

Not about people...not about knowing...
its a deep fundamental question on Nature !
Change imply´s in its own concept the notion of Object...
That A turns into B imply´s that A and B are True distinguishable !
Truth is made of BOTH !...(None can be a fake)
You must first have a TRUE A to even think on getting to B...its not an epistemic problem, its an Ontological one !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Fido wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Is that, what you just said, True, or yet another of your Moral "forms" ?...
How can you have change without any actual state fixed to be changed in the first place ? What is it that changes ???

I do not know if you see it or can see it, but change is the only constant in existence... When we say this is truth or that is truth, we are giving expression to a moral form, which as all forms is a form of relationship, a meaning only without a specific being...

No !
You did n´t get to what I was at...
You cannot have change without true objects of relation...
...What has no form cannot change...so, what IS IT that changes ??? (Irony)
If it is not True it does n´t change because you can´t tell that X is something becoming something else...in fact you have no X at all to change to whatsoever !!!

Objects are always true, even though they are always in change... For example: All matter is radioactive, most with extremely long half lives; but no matter, in flux... We look at seeming stability from lives of seeming instability, and form concept to classify our knowledge, and it is our concepts that are true or false to reality... We know truth when we know anything by way of our concepts; but how do we conceive of the concepts by which we know??? We have those concepts which can be verified, of physical reality, and those which cannot be verified, of moral reality.... This general definition of truth is the best we can do because we can find examples of truth of sorts, in action, in relation between objects and concepts, but since our concepts are incomplete we can have no complete object that is itself definable as truth...

Truth is a moral form, a spiritual concept... We accept the truth of our concepts, our statements, our versions of reality out of necessity, and not because they are truely true... We accept to get along... We accept because we desire to know without the ability to know, because the truth is what works on the one hand and what we deny with the other because while it is life it is also death, and if we were ever to know all we would be God, but the pursuit that gives our lives meaning would be over...

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Moral forms do seem to have meaning when you have at least two people involved, These moral forms seem to be objects of relation between people. They may only be concepts but we can relate to them to some degree.
I do not know what I am talking about so I figured I would fake it and see if anyone could tell!

We relate through our shared forms whether physical, social, or moral... Everything can be reduced to a form... If we cannot conceive of something it does not exist for us, and the very act of conception, even of moral forms gives them the quality of being to us... And every form is a form of relationship and when old forms cease to be related through they are forgotten...All of our knowledge, every thing we can communicate that is not communicated by sight or touch or wordlessly by sound is first conceived of and it is the conception, the form, which is passed as meaning... So everything is formm and every form has meaning, and again, when the meaning of a form is lost the relationship is lost, and it is forgotten...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Hi reason !
Not about people...not about knowing...
its a deep fundamental question on Nature !
Change imply´s in its own concept the notion of Object...
That A turns into B imply´s that A and B are True distinguishable !
Truth is made of BOTH !...(None can be a fake)
You must first have a TRUE A to even think on getting to B...its not an epistemic problem, its an Ontological one !

I think you may be correct here... And I think Heidegger would have agreed with you...

0 Replies

@Fido,

Although I cannot describe what is that is True, I can "intuit" that such Truthfulness must exist and through change itself which implies an object in relation with another...Truth is what rules that relation !

Anyway´s you just did answer to the epistemic problem when in fact what I have made you was an Ontological question...What IS IT that changes ?
without a precise what (a True what) you can´t have any change at all...certainly you can see what I mean...in honesty you must reply to a very valid question like this...don´t disappoint me with cynicism if you please...

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Moral forms do seem to have meaning when you have at least two people involved, These moral forms seem to be objects of relation between people. They may only be concepts but we can relate to them to some degree.
I do not know what I am talking about so I figured I would fake it and see if anyone could tell!

BTW... No one knows what they are talking about... All words are concepts and we do not have to have perfect knowledge of them to use them as knowledge... We are all ignorant, and all carry a great deal of cultural knowledge of which we are unaware, and with good fortune, can add to...

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

We accept because we desire to know without the ability to know, because the truth is what works on the one hand and what we deny with the other because while it is life it is also death, and if we were ever to know all we would be God, but the pursuit that gives our lives meaning would be over...

Preach on, brother!

1 Reply

@Fido,

Thanks for clering it up and it does seem that I was thinking of forms closely as you described. Please correct me when ever you think that I am not seeing things clearly so that I can have a better understanding of things. This is all new to me!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Although I cannot describe what is that is True, I can "intuit" that such Truthfulness must exist and through change itself which implies an object in relation with another...Truth is what rules that relation !

Anyway´s you just did answer to the epistemic problem when in fact what I have made you was an Ontological question...What IS IT that changes ?

That's a darn good question. What is it?

What do you think it is?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

old on your horses Reason !... Wink

just re-check my last post...
...he needs to do a little better then that.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

Not Truth !...only perspective... Wink

remember ?
You already knew this...we talked about it !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

What do you see that is missing or needs to be added as I have said this is all new to me so I am at a loss here!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Don´t mind what you think that others know that you don´t...just give it a thought yourself.
Without a solid anything, lets say an A for instance, you cannot get to a B or a C, or whatever...
...change only applies to what IS ! ("IS" is True)
What IS must be True in Order to really change.
...And this is independent on what we know.... is in itself and for itself...

IF no Truth, then NO FORM, and no Real Change...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Ok I got it at least I think I do! We will see in time how I reply to things that it concerns and then if I respond incorrectly I can only hope that you all will be there to show me Wink

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil, you always have pity on me until I can catch up to you.

I have more questions about the ontology of objects... what part of them is actually the subject. If I had PM's I would bore you with my convoluted thoughts. Perhaps in the future...

Adeus, my friend. It's sleep time for me.

1 Reply

Perception and physical reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know