Absolute truth?

@kennethamy,

How do you propose to make reference to the fact without language?
And if we want to talk about what happened trillions of years ago we have to keep reminding ourselves that sometimes the absense of fact can be a truth, and that perhaps probabilistic assumption is the thing that passes for truth in such cases.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...and yet you fail to explain how this "Social process" is possible in the first place...

1. What do you mean by "explanation" ? You seem to think all explanation must be based on fundamental axioms and follow some sort of "causal reasoning". If so, this is the "prediction and control" aspect of "thought" which is rejected by systems theorists amongst others.
2.I don't need to account for social processes. I merely remark that this very act of communication in which we are here engaged would be perverse without such processes. And by extrapolation from the top down functionality of "organs" with respect to "body", I argue by analogy to the functionality of "individuals" with respect to "society". Perhaps like bees in a hive bound together by a tactile and chemical "fields", we are bound together by "phonetic fields". (If interested, look up Maturana for the concept of "languaging" as a form of "structural coupling")

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

1. What do you mean by "explanation" ? You seem to think all explanation must be based on fundamental axioms and follow some sort of "causal reasoning". If so, this is the "prediction and control" aspect of "thought" which is rejected by systems theorists amongst others.

1 - Just upon what do you think explanation is build then ?
2 - How can they reject what they need to use anyway in order to reject whatever ?
3 - Is n´t your assumption an axiom itself ?
4 - Are this "phonetic fields" more meaning or actual true "objects" ?
5 - And just how do you explain that although your so called "phonetic fields" can change from culture to culture meaning very much stays the same ?

Language is not phonetics but phonetics imply´s the language of pattern sign coding, in air waves !...and just to remind you, those who code it, have in themselves, the language of DNA...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

As far as satisfactory explanation is concerned, it has hitherto indeed been based on "successful prediction" from axioms. The problem is that the subsequent "control" has been shown to be limited or pernicious. According to Capra, we may need to move to the concept of "system sustainability" as a basis for epistemological value./progress. That does not imply "system stagnation".

I would not call my choice of position "axiomatic"...more like a less anthropocentric "working hypothesis" than the chauvinism of human aspirations to "control".

"Sameness" of meaning always involves agreed social functionality. Phonetic tokens can obviously be substituted for each other in the same way as "a brick" might substitute for "a hammer".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

"Sameness" of meaning always involves agreed social functionality.

Of course functionality must be agreed on...each one knows better just how it actually relates with everything else to see where similarity to its own situation may be. Now the question is why do I agree on sameness as a pattern if not for good reason ? It does n´t matter if the basis and foundation of my pattern is substantially different in cause from any other. It probably indicates that there are some differences after all, as one object as many functions in potential...now what it matters most, is if in fact at the moment in which I make such judgement there is or there is not that sameness on the compared pattern from object to object, as a function towards my goal, inside the set of possible functions any of them has and that may differ. Thus it is true that a brick may be a hammer, not just because I imagine it, but mostly because those two things actually have some functions in common on the length of what they are as a whole...what else ?

Quote:

I would not call my choice of position "axiomatic"...more like a less anthropocentric "working hypothesis" than the chauvinism of human aspirations to "control".

Morality at its worse and preaching...in opposition to what is actually natural between "systems"...some are/must be primary, while others of course subsequently follow as secondary and so on...a bit just like language and code building...order and control are a rule of Nature and not of Man in particular...self evident !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

None of that resonates with my position. I make no moral claim about "sustainability" or problems of anthropocentrism. As stated above, I see these as both pragmatic and epistemological issues. Follow my references for further discussion.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

None of that resonates with my position. I make no moral claim about "sustainability" or problems of anthropocentrism. As stated above, I see these as both pragmatic and epistemological issues. Follow my references for further discussion.

Quote:

"...than the chauvinism of human aspirations to "control".

I meant "moralism"...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

order and control are a rule of Nature and not of Man in particular...self evident !

Are you suggesting man is not a part of nature?
If not, how does this make sense at all?
You cannot separate truth from neither knower nor fact. You cannot say what order, control, meaning or truth are of, because they are of no specific thing and superimposed on all. Kind of like the superposition of a sub atomic particle. The collapse creates a contrast between it and the definite state, and thus meaning, order etc. is accessible.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Can you read the "in particular" part?
And just where did I said that our knowledge can be complete?
...neither did I said it was not valid on cause of that...
That knowledge reflects a fusion between observer cognitive processes and the ultra objects around us doesn't diminishes an inch on what i've been at around the last pages...
You definitely have to distinguish the eternal incomplete problem of knowing from the problem of Truth...

To utter with words that words are just words doesn't particularly strengthens your position either...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

more:
...even if Truth were to be, in a wave, the entire set of possible states of a segment of an ultra-object (an object) then Truth would still be !
(in distinction from the impossible ones, whether we could tell or not which ones)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Are you arguing for "truth" as a phenomenon in itself?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

No ! That which is the phenomenon sustains itself on perspective which is not Truth, but that it is true, thus meaning that it has true value...
Truth as a Whole transcends time and conflicts, even space becomes meaningless...it just "IT IS" !

Freeze the entire picture in a Deterministic frame and the phenomenon is gone...(envision a huge frozen 4 dimensional film)

The entire "Thing" is self necessary, its done !

...it did n´t become, it won´t finish...it does n ´t grow, n´or does it shrink, its there as all there is...movement is perspective...sections of the string, as segment bringing up the dynamic illusion of progress, freedom, choice, contrast of objects, etc. etc. precisely because they are incomplete...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

You want "closure" but how is that any different to a religionist's desire for that?

Note that you cannot evoke logical necessity since "logic" requires an observer to "name" the object/s of its domain of application.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

No ! That which is the phenomenon sustains itself on perspective which is not Truth, but that it is true, thus meaning that it has true value...
Truth as a Whole transcends time and conflicts, even space becomes meaningless...it just "IT IS" !

Sustains itself on perspective.... Perspective in relation to what?
In case you don't know, "perspective" is a word that relates to observation.
There can be no perspective without spectator. How then can there be truth without spectator?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
No ! That which is the phenomenon sustains itself on perspective which is not Truth, but that it is true, thus meaning that it has true value...
Truth as a Whole transcends time and conflicts, even space becomes meaningless...it just "IT IS" !

Sustains itself on perspective.... Perspective in relation to what?
In case you don't know, "perspective" is a word that relates to observation.
There can be no perspective without spectator. How then can there be truth without spectator?

1 - Yes perspective requires a local "observer" whatever we might think fits the term, which is yet another issue...and it has true value because it belongs to that, which Is...to what is Truth.

2 - Again and again and again...Truth does n ´t require to be known by any spectators in Order to be...you continually sidestep the boundary´s between knowledge and Truth...

2.1 - if it was the case that yesterday you went to a restaurant, then it was the case independently on my knowing that you did went to a restaurant...whats hard on this ???

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

if it was the case that yesterday you went to a restaurant, then it was the case independently on my knowing that you did went to a restaurant...whats hard on this ???

What's "hard" is your assumption that the word "independent" has any ontological or epistemological status whatsoever.

1 Reply

@fresco,

LOooooool !!! Guess all that I don 't know going on in your life right now did n't happen...riiiiiiiiight!

Let me just say that although you did n't knew unfortunately this afternoon I fell off my e-bike and hurt my knee...its very true since I actually have alteady taken some pain killers to forget it...

0 Replies

damn kitty...he got off and I got down to prevent killing him.
Hope I don´t have to do a surgery on my knee...

0 Replies

absolute truth , is not about perspective

what absolute truth is fundamentaly about is things

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You sir, are continously deifying "Truth" by endowing it with attributes that you cannot possibly account for by any reasonable standard.

Again and again... what is it that, according to your way of thinking, proves that "Truth does n ´t require to be known by any spectators in Order to be"?

If I did go to a restaurant I probably did so with full knowledge of what I was doing, as an observer of the experience, one raised in a conceptual reality in which a restaurant is a meaningful concept that I can interact with. What has this got to do with you?
You accuse the ones who say truth needs an observer of being anthropocentric. But you are the one who is thinking along such lines, trying to separate human aspect of reality from some imagined "objective reality", as if human reality could have any meaning or existence on such terms.

1 Reply

Absolute truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know