Critical examination reveals:
wave n.
A ridge or swell moving through or along the surface of a large body of water.
A small ridge or swell moving across the interface of two fluids and dependent on surface tension.
The sea. Often used in the plural: vanished beneath the waves.
Something that suggests the form and motion of a wave in the sea, especially:
A moving curve or succession of curves in or on a surface; an undulation: waves of wheat in the wind.
A curve or succession of curves, as in the hair.
A curved shape, outline, or pattern.
A movement up and down or back and forth: a wave of the hand.
A surge or rush, as of sensation: a wave of nausea; a wave of indignation.
A sudden great rise, as in activity or intensity: a wave of panic selling on the stock market.
A rising trend that involves large numbers of individuals: a wave of conservatism.
One of a succession of mass movements: the first wave of settlers.
A maneuver in which fans at a sports event simulate an ocean wave by rising quickly in sequence with arms upraised and then quickly sitting down again in a continuous rolling motion.
A widespread, persistent meteorological condition, especially of temperature: a heat wave.
Physics.
A disturbance traveling through a medium by which energy is transferred from one particle of the medium to another without causing any permanent displacement of the medium itself.
A graphic representation of the variation of such a disturbance with time.
A single cycle of such a disturbance.
incest n.
Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.
The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative.
existence n.
The fact or state of existing; being.
The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.
All that exists: sang the beauty of all existence.
A thing that exists; an entity.
A mode or manner of existing: scratched out a meager existence.
Specific presence; occurrence: The Geiger counter indicated the existence of radioactivity.
dimension n.
A measure of spatial extent, especially width, height, or length.
Extent or magnitude; scope. Often used in the plural: a problem of alarming dimensions.
Aspect; element: "He's a good newsman, and he has that extra dimension" (William S. Paley).
Mathematics.
The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.
The range of such a coordinate.
Physics. A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.
we pron.
Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject: We made it to the lecture hall on time. We are planning a trip to Arizona this winter.
Used to refer to people in general, including the speaker or writer: "How can we enter the professions and yet remain civilized human beings?" (Virginia Woolf).
Used instead of I, especially by a writer wishing to reduce or avoid a subjective tone.
Used instead of I, especially by an editorialist, in expressing the opinion or point of view of a publication's management.
Used instead of I by a sovereign in formal address to refer to himself or herself.
Used instead of you in direct address, especially to imply a patronizing camaraderie with the addressee: How are we feeling today?
I realize that what you really want is for me to say "Oh, fresco, I have seen the error of my ways and agree with your postmodern babble entirely! Let me go sacrifice my soul and my firstborn child to the institution of Academia!" Forgive me for a minute if I'm a little skeptical. Perhaps, if your arguement does not make sense in the way that you described it first, you could try again, in different words. I've never heard words be described as "incestuous" before, so perhaps you should start there.
The reason I quoted the dictionary was because that was what I meant when I typed those words. If you wanted them to mean something else, I'm sorry, but they don't. If you would like to explain what you wanted them to mean, I am all ears. But I am not going to worship the gods of postmodernism because you spew a bunch of general important-sounding gobbledy-gook and post links with the name Schrodinger in them.
Now, explain how a world that was ostensibly created by intelligent life (or conscious life, however you want to say it) can exist prior to such life.
Rufio,
Now you've got that off your chest, try reading the link.
I did. I'm not sure what it has to do with the question I asked. Sure, everything living could be considered vaguely conscious. But the world was around before anything was living on it, and something was around before anything was living at all. It doesn't change anything even if the first microbes could be considered to have a consciousness. We were talking about time, anyway, not consciousness.
And I would appreciate it if you would explain yourself rather than bleet the same mantra over and over again. Thanks.
Truth - objective
Perception - subjective
Creed of Kings. I see what you mean. I would put it another way:
Reality: objective
Truth: subjective
Perception: both
But this is only another way of looking at it.
JL: I view "truth" as the same thing as "reality", so I wouldn't agree with your label of truth as subjective, except in cases of perception, in which case everything's subjective.
Tal, I understand you, if you mean that "truth" is the way Reality is. But I do not see truth anywhere except in statements by people. I see Reality (whatever it is: it can't be summed up as any particular thing). I see "truth" only as human propositions about the way things (aspects and facets of Reality) are. To me that is subjective, or as shared cultural phenomena, inter-subjective.
Thanks for the response
Tal, I hope you realize that I am not telling you what is the essential nature of "truth" and "reality"; I don't think such an effort is viable. My effort is definitional rather than metaphysical. I'm merely telling you how I use the terms. All that I am experiencing right now is what I call "Reality". The propositions I make about the content of my experience are what I call "truth constructions".
I thought you were all of the opinion that reality was subjective and all that.
Rufio, as I see it (and this is a truth proposition), reality as I know it is a subjective phenomenon. And that is an objective fact. I and my experience are aspects of Reality. It is impossible to stand apart from this "reality" and state what it is without including the stater and statement. So I guess that Reality is both subjective and objective.
Saying that it is an objective fact that reality is subjective is a little different than saying that reality is both subjective and objective, I think.
In fact, I think that's just a paradox.
What I am saying is that my experience is, by definition, subjective. And I cannot concretely imagine a reality that is at least in principle beyond experience. When I talk about objective Reality I am making, I suppose, a quasi-religious or metaphysical statement, a statement of cognitive faith. I do not experience that reality, but I intuit its undefinable existence (for better or for worse). I propose that objective Reality is like Kant's Noumena that which stands behind appearances and cannot be experienced. I only experience Noumena's (objective Reality's) manifestations and those manifestations are to me both objective (manifestaions of NOUMENA) and subjective (experienced MANIFESTATIONS).
Something like that.
JL: No problem, I generally just assume that's what you're doing, since we've always had very pleasant exchanges about conflicting ideas.
Now, about your views: I see the distinction you're making about "truth" as a subjective proposition. I think we have the same ideas, but we're just talking about them differently. You're using "truth" to refer to what you subjectively view, and (unless I'm mistaken) still see an underlying objective reality, that we can never be sure of. I have the same view, but I use "truth" to refer to the latter. However, with these new views, I'll revise/expand. Since, in my opinion, there are two layers of reality, then I'll factor in two layers of truth. One is about what we as humans perceive, and the other is the ultimately unknowable, objective reality. How's that? Does that align with your views more precisely?
You ask me, Tal, if your adjustment is similar to my position. In a way it is, but remember that I am a non-dualist ultimately. I think and express myself dualistically regarding such distinctions as objective-subjective, noumena-phenomena, reality-illusion, etc. because it is the only way we can talk and think. But I want to stress that these conceptual DISTINCTIONS of mine are not to be taken as ontologically real DIVISIONS in reality. For me they are ways to THINK about reality, but in actuality, we must "mystically" realize the unity of all experience. But this realization must always remain silent; as soon as we talk about it we must sound dualistic. We can do no more than approximate reality, by means of culturally/relatively meaningful cognitive "truths."
But if you want to use the term "truth" as the actual state of aspects of reality, fine. I think we cannot directly describe what I think of as Reality; we can only construct ideas about it, some useful and gratifying, some not.
Okay, I can agree with that. Tell me more about this "Silent non-dualism" thing. That sounds interesting. Always a pleasure.
Tal, there have been a number of threads wherein Fresco, Tywvel, Coluber and I have been debating others, Craven, JoefromChicago, and Frank on the subject of dualism vs. non-dualism. I'll to look them up for you.
I believe that truth must be both subjective and objective. One must have strong belief in things that are rationally understood. This is somewhat Hegelian/Eastern.
definitions belong to the definers
As I said above, definitions belong to the definers. If someone is mentally ill and believes something like the world is run by apes- that's his truth. To an average person this may seem crazy but it doesn't mean it isn't true, it just isn't that average person's truth. Truth is subjective.
Re: definitions belong to the definers
mintyluck4me wrote:As I said above, definitions belong to the definers. If someone is mentally ill and believes something like the world is run by apes- that's his truth. To an average person this may seem crazy but it doesn't mean it isn't true, it just isn't that average person's truth. Truth is subjective.
You seem unable to differentiate between "truth" and "perceptions of truth." When you master that...or
if you master that...you will see that what you just said is absurd.
"You seem unable to differentiate between "truth" and "perceptions of truth." When you master that...or if you master that...you will see that what you just said is absurd. "
You come off a little pretentious assuming there is one definition. I meant what I said and I am well aware of the phrases- that's why it is my opinion.
perception of truth suggests that idea that there is one truth and different people are interpreting it differently. I meant there are many truths. Everyone has there own. there is no such thing as "the truth" as much as there is "your own truth".
