Truth is objective....period...
Who's objective we talking about here?
I don't like that.......this is an irrefutable truth!
I think truth is impossible to obtain when we attempt to pigeonhole it into some kind of category such as 'who's truth'. We will come closer I think when we determine to ignore the 'who' and rather focus on 'what truth' is closer to the absolute. And I do believe there is an absolute about everything out there though I don't think humankind has ever experienced or seen or understood it as yet.
Frank, did you read my reasons for the assertion you dismiss--as childish?
JLN,
Your constucted levels of "reality" are a little like "Russian Dolls" don't you think ? Each depends on the others for its form and we are unable to "see" the innermost or outermost levels.
To All,
May I take this opportunity of wishing you all a Happy Saturnalia or whichever joint construction you subscribe to.
fresco
But I subscribe all you said. I was not talking about an "absolute heaviness" just using "heavy" as expression of some individual reaction to an external stimulation.
Only one doubt: what you said seems to me closer from the Heidegger of "Sein und Zeit" than from Wittgenstein.
Have a nice Christmas fresco.
JLNobody wrote:Frank, did you read my reasons for the assertion you dismiss--as childish?
There is a difference between "reasons" and "rationalizations." That difference is considerable.
When you master that difference, you will understand why I did, in fact, dismiss your rationalizations.
Frank
Just to wish you and JL Nobody a nice Christmas (I guess).
If you receive a gift, I hope it is Aquinas "Summa Theologiae" and in latin.
As for JL Nobody, I hope he receives Lenins "Materialism and empirocritism".
They call it, "shock therapy".
val wrote:Frank
Just to wish you and JL Nobody a nice Christmas (I guess).
If you receive a gift, I hope it is Aquinas "Summa Theologiae" and in latin.
As for JL Nobody, I hope he receives Lenins "Materialism and empirocritism".
They call it, "shock therapy".
I've already read Aquinas' Summa Theologica...and did a fairly lengthy critic of his so-called proofs of the existence of God.
Aquinas was a man way, way before his time...but his "proofs" are incredibly defective...and I doubt there is a single philosopher alive today (outside of the Vatican) who would consider any of them even close to proofs. His reasoning is almost humorously circular.
In any case...YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL CHRISTMAS YOURSELF, Val.
Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday...with Christmas coming up a very, very close second.
Oops...
...those holiday greetings and wishes go out to EVERYONE else here in this thread...to everyone in A2K...and to everyone in the world.
Quote, "Aquinas was a man way, way before his time...but his "proofs" are incredibly defective...and I doubt there is a single philosopher alive today (outside of the Vatican) who would consider any of them even close to proofs. His reasoning is almost humorously circular." Frank, Did you hear about the box with Jesus' name? They think it's more authentic than the shroud. <smile>
cicerone imposter wrote:Quote, "Aquinas was a man way, way before his time...but his "proofs" are incredibly defective...and I doubt there is a single philosopher alive today (outside of the Vatican) who would consider any of them even close to proofs. His reasoning is almost humorously circular." Frank, Did you hear about the box with Jesus' name? They think it's more authentic than the shroud. <smile>
It can be a lot more authentic than the shroud...and still be a phony.
But...as I often say...whatever gets ya past the graveyard.
Fresco, yes, I was thinking of the material world in terms of a nesting model in which all levels are "emergents", epiphenomena of their underlying foundations. It was, of course, just a way of "thinking" about it; I do not claim to have described nature as it is. As far as I'm concerned, it's all about conceptual models--more like "paintings" than "photographs" of the material world.
Happy saturnalia to you.
JLN
Yes, Shepaints. Interdependence. I was talking about a model of emergence, going from the base to the top. Your reference to interdependence brings to mind the world's ontological unity. Nothing stands apart, in and of itself. As a small example, if you were not there typing your post, I would not be here typing mine. That's unity in diversity. Interdependence!
Nobody
But that interdependence must always have a "center", I mean a point of reference. Or a referencial.
I am not arguing against what you said, but I think you should have said "interdependence regarding ...", you, or me, or Shepaints. You see, I prefer the use of the word "interacting", because it implies the subject, the "I" - but not at all in a cartesian perspective.
But I would like that you explain what you mean by "the world ontological unity". I could agree with you, if that unity includes not only the interactions between you and things - including myself, or shepaints, as "thing" - but the initial conditions of your "way" to interact with things. You are not neutral in that interaction, nor a mere effect of successives interdependences.
Val, I agree with you that all of our experiences, our interactions, if you will, take much of their meaning from the "I", as an essential cognitive point of reference. But the Reality is that that orienting "I" is an illusion, a heuristic fiction to be sure. When "I" interact with "other" that IS, as I understand it, a Cartesian perspective. I AM, or my true self IS, "a mere effect of successive interdependencies". This pattern of interdependencies and the infinitude of all the others making up reality is the substance of "the world ontological unity"--at least as seen by this ego.
JLNobody wrote:Val, I agree with you that all of our experiences, our interactions, if you will, take much of their meaning from the "I", as an essential cognitive point of reference. But the Reality is that that orienting "I" is an illusion, a heuristic fiction to be sure.
Then wouldn't it make more sense for that last sentence to read, "But the Reality
may be that that orienting "I" is an illusion..."?
You may be rightl, Frank. Can't know "for sure", whatever that means. But as I SEE it, the orienting ego is illusory. One can see that to be the case when one has reasonable success with meditation. Try it.
