Is truth subjective or objective?

Comin' up!




Ahhh...maybe they were ripples.

But they were very big ripples.

Tal.

I thought it appropriate to extend my last remarks. Ain't gonna be easy…but I'll give it my best. I will try to set out my thoughts as coherently as my limited abilities allow.

First of all...if the entire galaxy of which our sun and planet are a part were to suffer some cataclysmic catastrophe...and all its suns and planets...and all the things living thereon were relatively instantaneously destroyed....

...in the grand scheme of things...

...it would be no big deal.

Our galaxy is just one of hundreds of billions we know about. If each of the known galaxies were a grain of salt...the mass would completely fill an average sized American living room. It is worth noting that the stars are spaced so far apart that scientists suggest two galaxies could pass through one another without any collisions taking place.

And a reasonable case can be made that we know just a tiny portion of what actually exists.

All of which is a round about way of saying that this "thing"...this existence...is a rather big thing...even if it turns out to be what some of the people in this thread suppose to be an illusion.




Next...I dare to suppose (to conjecture, to guess, to estimate) that we humans are on a fast track to destroying ourselves and all the rest of the living stuff on planet Earth. (If the entire galaxy being destroyed is no big deal…imagine how puny a deal our destruction would be.)

We've managed to evolve technologically to the point where we can devise ways to destroy in massive bulk...at a time where we have yet to evolve philosophically to the point where that is less likely (rather than more likely) to happen.

We may have one more good, survivable world conflagration in the bank...but a good argument can be made that the next major war could end up being THE END for humanity.

It most assuredly will be a nasty undertaking...and very, very little good will come of it.





Next...a reasonable guess is that religion is going to be the trigger.




Next...we already have lots of people over on this side talking about how Islam has to be contained. That it presents a grave danger to peace in the world.

And of course...we already have lots of people over on the other side talking about how non-Islam has to be contained; that it presents a grave danger to peace in the world.




Next...I don't think I have to go into specifics about the possible dangers Islamic fundamentalism presents for humanity....and I don't think I have to go into specifics about the possible dangers Christian fundamentalism presents for humanity.



Next...

...we have to fight Islamic and Christian fundamentalism.

"Islamic and Christian fundamentlism" is fueled by Islam and Christianity...so we must fight Islam and Christianity as a whole.

Islam and Christianity, in turn are fueled by all belief systems.

And I suggest that we must fight all belief systems

"Atheism" cannot aid...because at its core...atheism is just a different set of beliefs from the beliefs of the theism.

Theism asserts either...

...that it KNOWS the nature of the REALITY of existence (it involves a God)...

...or that THE MOST LOGICAL GUESS, based on the evidence available, is that the nature of the REALITY of existence involves a God.


Atheism asserts either...

...that it KNOWS the nature of the REALITY of existence has no gods involved...

...or that THE MOST LOGICAL GUESS, based on the evidence available, is that the nature of the REALITY of existence has no gods involved.



Next...people like some of those here in this thread with whom I have been arguing over the years, assert either...

...that they KNOW the nature of the REALITY of existence IS (or contains) such and such; blah, blah, blah...

...or that THE MOST LOGICAL GUESS, based on the evidence available, is that the nature of the REALITY of existence IS (or contains) such and such; blah, blah, blah.





All of those people...the fundamentalist of Islam and Christianity...the rank and file of Islam and Christianity....the atheists...and the people like those here in this thread with whom I have been arguing over the years...

....are totally, completely, and utterly full of shyt.

Or at least...that is my opinion. My guess, if you will.

I don't pretend I KNOW it...but based on the evidence available to me, I think I can make a meaningful, reasonable, rational guess...

...and my guess is that they are all full of shyt.

Belief systems…whether they are Islamic, Christian, fundamentalist, rank and file, atheistic, non-dual, matrix oriented…

…are nothing more than belief systems. (Yeah, I know that is a tautology.)



Somehow...a significant majority of the people currently alive have got to come to the same conclusions about all this that I have come to....namely...


...I do not KNOW the nature of the REALITY of existence...

...and the evidence available to me is so ambiguous that I cannot make a meaningful, reasonable, rational guess about it.

That is the only way to fight this war that must be waged in order to minimize the possibility of a humanity-destroying war.





Boy....except that I am a naturally cheerful, optimistic person...I would be frustrated by seeing all these intelligent people in this thread going on and on about horseshyt....and ignoring the really significant and important constituents of appropriate philosophy for this day and danger.

They are so much smarter than I am.

Why can't they see what I see?



Bothers me goddam near as much as a lousy round of golf, Tal.

Know what I mean?

(I was wroking on this before you asked for elaboration.)

Joe,

I don't intend to rake up our old arguments over the status of "logic". This is "bootststap" science which attempts to resolve certain epistemological problems by arguing for a paradigm shift away from "knowledge as control" to "knowledge as harmony." Such an attempt is meta-logical in that it needs to account for logic as a cognitive process. You are free to take it or leave it, but the odds are you simply don't understand it.

Frank,

Nice speech!..worthy of Jack Nicolson playing that Marine Colonel character who issued a "Code Red"...you know that film?...where he was giving his opinions about lightweight intellectuals who couldn't see the "threat" like he could.

You claim that no "appropriate philosophy" is being offered. How then do you classify philosophies which question the nature of "truth" and thereby the status of fundamentalists who lay claim to "truth" ? How do you classify ecologically orientated philosophies which analyse "truth" as an anthropocentric control trip which endangers the planet? The answer is you can't handle them because of your vested interest in the word "guess" which presupposes a simplistic notion of "truth".

Joe, I am astounded and impressed by the extent of agreement you almost have with the philosophical perspective of the Hindu mystic-sage, Nagarguna. You stated that "If Heisenberg said that there are no "things," only "relationships," then he was clearly mistaken, since there must be at least one "thing" in his epistemology that is not relational: the notion of "relationship." For [and here's your agreement with Nagarjuna] if "relationship" is also a relational term, then it is a viciously circular concept, and thus empty of meaning [Nagarjuna's notion of sunya]... If all knowledge is relative, including the notion of relativity, then there is no knowlege at all. That doesn't call facts into question, that calls everything into question." That is a very mystical conclusion on your part. Nagarjuna's perspective transcends all absolutes. Everyday practical "knowledge" is useful and has its sensibility. Everything is relatlonal, conditional, taking their existence and meaning from their relationships with other things, and ultimately from everything else. Things and notions exist by virtue of their systemic status. An ontology of absolute, free-standing "things" overlooks the most fundamental character of realilty. It's dynamic systemic-unity. One must also realize that the language we use takes its effectiveness from its purely systemic nature. Each word, including "relationship", exists only through its connections with other words, and the grammatical rules that organize them. Words are "convenient designations" but not pictures of "essences." Like reality in general, language and logic are circular (tautological?) systems. I would not say that the totality (your "everything") is in question, only the unconditioned autonomy of all things within it.

Frank: That was truly one of the best posts of yours I've ever read. I think I can understand your posts on a new level, now that I understand the depth of feeling behind them.

Okay. Now I'll go into the thick of it. I agree with your assessment of fundamentalism: whenever anybody gets it into their head that they are right, and that theirs is the only "true" path...I get very worried. Such people are unable to grasp any of today's realities, and their headlong rush towards their idea of "perfection" tramples all who dare challenge their antiquated values.

I think the solution to this is, without a doubt, an education that is unencumbered by any group at all. With no restrictions on what ideas students can learn, we are free to experience every possible philosophy, and through that, find some sort of wisdom. that is why I frequent this board: because I can take these views I learn and give them to other people. So far...I think I have been moderately successful.

My biggest frustrations, as I think yours are, Frank...are people who refuse to listen. I have no defense against that, and I find myself at a loss. I am not advocating my own personal views(since, for the most part, they're still forming), but the views of anyone else.



Heh. That I do. That's all for now. Maybe I'll start a thread devoted to the perfect education, and see where we go from there.

Your inability to explain does not implicate my ability to understand.

I can't express how happy I am to know that.


Perhaps my analysis is similar to Nagarjuna's, but I am quite certain that our conclusions are diametrically opposed. Whereas Nagarjuna, no doubt, was comfortable with the notion that all knowledge is relative, I am not.

Not only relative, but constructed, tentative, temporary, situational, culturally constituted, etc.
Do you think your "knowledge" will always be useful, valid, etc.?
Which would you prefer, the pope's "dictatorship of relativism" or Nietzsche's "tryanny of absolutism"? Which one is not an oxymoron?

If you mean A Few Good Men...yes, I know the film.

Get a copy of the film and view it again. Nicolson's character was not decrying the fact that they couldn't see the threat like he could...but that they were unwilling to pick up a weapon and stand a post to defend against the threat.

I know you see the threat, JL. What you don't see is the need to confront it in a logical and reasonable way.

Instead of bringing to bear the fact that we do not know the nature of REALITY (and that the information available for a reasonable guess is deficient)...you want to pretend that you have been able to determine enough about reality to lecture on it.

It becomes a pissing contest between your guesses and theirs...and as such is sillier than bringing a knife to a gun fight.




Nice try...no cigar!

I didn't say that "no appropriate philosophy is being offered." I wrote:

"Boy....except that I am a naturally cheerful, optimistic person...I would be frustrated by seeing all these intelligent people in this thread going on and on about horseshyt....and ignoring the really significant and important constituents of appropriate philosophy for this day and danger.

They are so much smarter than I am.

Why can't they see what I see? "

I stand by that.

The significant element of the danger is that people suppose they can determine the nature of REALITY...and have it impact on them, their actions, and the world.

Instead of fighting against that...you, by claiming an alternate understanding of REALITY...are abetting them.

Why can't you see it?

Why are you so in love with your bullshyt that you want to pretend their is a more complicated notion of something rather simple (rather than simplistic!)?

Why?

frank, when i write in metaphysical threads like this one, more often than not i try to advance a common sense view. i'm agnostic, materialist, empiricist and libertarian--in the j.s. mill sense, not the ayn rand laissez-faire variety. if i can paraphrase mill somewhat, we ought to criticize ideas, our own as well as others', so as to eliminate false ideas if possible. like you, i fear the US is heading in the direction of a fundamentalist state religion, so i try to arm myself with arguments against fundamentalist tenets, like a recent origin of the earth. it's obvious to me that religion is based on belief, not empirical evidence, but persuading others toward this viewpoint is frustratingly difficult.

yitwail,

It may be that "pursuading others" has little to do with common sense notions of "evidence" or "empiricism". And it may be that "metaphysics" is a misnomer within an analysis of "truth" as a bifurcation within potential interaction paths, since in this view the"physical" is continuous with the "ideational".

Indeed it is.

Mostly I do not resent the difficulty...especially when I am dealing with theists.

People like Fresco, JL, Twyvel drive me nuts, though.

They have a straight-away to getting it...but prefer their guesses...so they avoid travelling the right road.

So typically Fresco. Saying very little...but using lots of pretty words to do it.

Get conscious, Fresco. It won't hurt. Except you might kick yourself for having avoided it for so long.

i think Fresco just implied something that troubles me: the possibility that people cling to beliefs for emotional reasons and are therefore not susceptible to reasoned arguments. in that case, the best to be hoped for is to convince mainstream Christians to align with secularists and oppose the fundamentalist agenda, and that won't happen by simply attacking religion, which can backfire and alienate Christian moderates. the religious right is skillful enough at portraying secular humanists as purveyors of smut, promiscuity, profanity, same-sex unions, recreational drugs, gun control, new age religions, etc. so it behooves the secular opposition to be more PR conscious and not give the fundamentalists more rhetorical ammunition. unfortunately, secularists also have emotional attachments; for instance, i will never forgive Naderites for costing Gore the election in Florida, but hell will freeze over before Nader accepts his share of responsibility for getting Bush elected.

joefromchicago



That's good the hear.

Nice layout JLNobody, re: the comparison of joefromchicago's comments and NagarjunaConsciousness, and It is the very Essence, or Self (Atman) of all beings."

Georg Feuerstein

"Across the board, the sense of being any sort of Seer or Witness or Self vanishes altogether. You don't look at the sky, you are the sky. You can taste the sky. It's not out there. As Zen would say, you can drink the Pacific Ocean in a single gulp, you can swallow the Kosmos whole--precisely because awareness is no longer split into a seeing subject in here and a seen object out there. There is just pure seeing. Consciousness and its display are not-two."

Ken Wilber

Twaddle.


No, it's supported by nothing except the empty flummeries and metaphysico-mumbo-jumbo of its devotees.

How do you know that all knowledge is relative?


I am satisfied that my knowledge is useful and valid now. I have every reason to expect that it will also be useful and valid in the future, but I cannot know that for sure.


That's a false choice.

Joe, I guess you either see it or you don't. Such radically distinct empistemological paradigms simply can't meet. It's gottten to the point that we probably do not entertain any hope of moving the other. I certainly hope that we do not descend to the point of hoping merely to humiliate the other. I suspect that is where Frank has arrived.