Degrees Of Truth

[WendyDarling]

How can something with an insignificant degree of relevancy describe an objective truth found in reality other than in someone's mind?

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

How can something with an insignificant degree of relevancy describe an objective truth found in reality other than in someone's mind?

A provocative question ... interesting(ly) provocative Wendy.

1) Who/what decides relevance?

2) Mind is everything ... objective reality is a manifestation of mind. ??

[Meno_]

Even if relevant, significally, an objective criteria to establish it as such, must have some outer source, other then inside of one's mind, while irrelevant objectivity may signify some such source as well.


Who decides? Whoever tries to decipher the signification and its flow through time. Heidegger and Saissure come to mind.

Therefore criteria separating objective and subjective signification are only decisive within narrowly bracketed contentious approximates.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

Even if relevant, significally, an objective criteria to establish it as such, must have some outer source, other then inside of one's mind, while irrelevant objectivity may signify some such source as well.


Who decides? Whoever tries to decipher the signification and its flow through time. Heidegger and Saissure come to mind.

Therefore criteria separating objective and subjective signification are only decisive within narrowly bracketed contentious approximates.

I wish I could understand what you're trying to say Meno ... my simple mind fails to grasp your intention.

OTH ... I do really enjoy some of your posts that I've read.

Carrying on with the thoughts emanating from my simple mind ...

An idea germinates in a single mind ... perhaps simultaneously in a cluster of minds ... widely dispersed geographically.

Some time later some of these ideas manifest themselves in our physical reality. Is the smart phone a reasonable example? I don't know.

[Meno_]

Smart phones are becoming more.and more.smart and.reasonable. you are saying pretty much the same.

[Innovice]

How can something with an insignificant degree of relevancy describe an objective truth found in reality other than in someone's mind?

This idea of an insignificant degree of relevancy brings to mind the idea of comparing apples and oranges.

I think the point of any specific apples vs oranges comparison is less of an objective truth than the fact that people often argue in terms of apples vs oranges.

[WendyDarling]

What all do degrees of truth describe? Objects, symbols. What about systems...processes...more complex matters? How can a degree be assigned to something abstract and/or complex? This is where I get confused because we cannot even agree on the degrees of a fixed object such as the gender of a person. Then it's an open season on word choices used to describe the degrees of truth we each perceive with people taking artistic liberties everywhere so a word is misappropriated from its original definition to stand for some ideal rather than the fixed object found in reality. Maybe I'm too much of a simpleton to get this use of degrees to describe a changing reality because it's too subjective for my tastes.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

What all do degrees of truth describe? Objects, symbols. What about systems...processes...more complex matters? How can a degree be assigned to something abstract and/or complex? This is where I get confused because we cannot even agree on the degrees of a fixed object such as the gender of a person. Then it's an open season on word choices used to describe the degrees of truth we each perceive with people taking artistic liberties everywhere so a word is misappropriated from its original definition to stand for some ideal rather than the fixed object found in reality. Maybe I'm too much of a simpleton to get this use of degrees to describe a changing reality because it's too subjective for my tastes.

And the language we need to do this isn’t simply out there, in our catechisms and dogmas, to be picked up and deployed. Much of the language we need has to be created anew by our own generation which, like every generation, needs itself to eat God’s word, digest it, and then enflesh it so that God’s written word becomes a living word, inside our own flesh.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

OK ... OK ... with my own words.

Clinging to former language constructs is a manifestation of "constipation of consciousness".

The evolution of human consciousness persists as in "the train has left the station" ... like it or not!

We're still in the Year of the Fire Rooster Wendy.

[surreptitious75]

we cannot even agree on the degrees of a fixed object such as the gender of a person. Then its an open season on word choices used to describe
the degrees of truth we each perceive with people taking artistic liberties everywhere so a word is misappropriated from its original definition to
stand for some ideal rather than the fixed object found in reality

Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive as definitions of words are not set in stone
but change over time so words may acquire new meanings they previously did not have

[WendyDarling]

Wouldn't it be beneficial for common understanding if words retained their original definitions and new words were developed for new meanings?

[gib]

How can something with an insignificant degree of relevancy describe an objective truth found in reality other than in someone's mind?

What all do degrees of truth describe? Objects, symbols. What about systems...processes...more complex matters? How can a degree be assigned to something abstract and/or complex? This is where I get confused because we cannot even agree on the degrees of a fixed object such as the gender of a person. Then it's an open season on word choices used to describe the degrees of truth we each perceive with people taking artistic liberties everywhere so a word is misappropriated from its original definition to stand for some ideal rather than the fixed object found in reality. Maybe I'm too much of a simpleton to get this use of degrees to describe a changing reality because it's too subjective for my tastes.

What do you mean by an "insignificant degree of relevancy"? Are you saying that the more abstract a concept, the more subject it is to degrees of truth (instead of black and white)? Is something like "gender" abstract enough to warrant re-consideration of its definition, and therefore re-consideration of whether a person is male or female?

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

Wouldn't it be beneficial for common understanding if words retained their original definitions and new words were developed for new meanings?

Can't imagine the humongous volumes of dictionaries required if new words were constantly introduced to match the evolution in human consciousness since the inception of language.

[WendyDarling]

How can something with an insignificant degree of relevancy describe an objective truth found in reality other than in someone's mind?

What all do degrees of truth describe? Objects, symbols. What about systems...processes...more complex matters? How can a degree be assigned to something abstract and/or complex? This is where I get confused because we cannot even agree on the degrees of a fixed object such as the gender of a person. Then it's an open season on word choices used to describe the degrees of truth we each perceive with people taking artistic liberties everywhere so a word is misappropriated from its original definition to stand for some ideal rather than the fixed object found in reality. Maybe I'm too much of a simpleton to get this use of degrees to describe a changing reality because it's too subjective for my tastes.

What do you mean by an "insignificant degree of relevancy"? In the case of gender, biology is debated in terms of XX/XY mental identity and physical biology as if mental identity has a significant degree of relevancy in deciding a person's gender...does it? I say no and yet it's a whole can of worms of oppression to deny individuals the right to assume a gender based on whatever standards these mentally ill individuals deem relevant. Where has our universal common sense gone? Are you saying that the more abstract a concept, the more subject it is to degrees of truth (instead of black and white)? Yes, as well as the relationship between various concepts...oh, that's when people take the greatest liberties judging, discriminating, about similar and dissimilar objects and constructs to the point that relations are the same even though they are only remotely connected or idealistically connected rather than realistically connected. This is obvious in the divide between liberal idealism and conservative realism. Is something like "gender" abstract enough to warrant re-consideration of its definition, and therefore re-consideration of whether a person is male or female? No, that's just it, it isn't abstract but the liberal agenda is to try to make it abstract, to argue against physical biology.

[surreptitious75]

Wouldnt it be beneficial for common understanding if words retained their original definitions and new words were developed for new meanings

It most certainly would but language is directly related to how humans think and that process is not always as clear and precise as it should be

[Arminius]

Language is related to how humans think, yes, but it is also related to how humans communicate in general.

[Arcturus Descending]

How can something with an insignificant degree of relevancy describe an objective truth found in reality other than in someone's mind?

That is a good question.

I may be barking up the wrong tree here but isn't this how some important scientific discoveries are eventually made or come into focus? By building up or chipping away.
How can we at first glance know how truly significant something is in reality until it has been determined through investigation and discussion? At first, what do we do? We assume it is insignificant.
It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It kind of reminds me of some of the Antique Roadshow episodes. Someone will throw away a picture or painting which is or has become insignificant to them without realizing the treasure which it really was. Lo and behold, a Van Gogh or a Gauguin or whatever is hiding behind or within it.

Insignificant to US. How often has a discussion began in ILP - a mediocre kind of thread begun - but then aren't we surprised at the fruit which falls from that tree.

Many things have their own evolution, even insignificant things.

[Sanguinus]

Wendy: could simply ask what constitutes the certainty of the ego, can't we simply say fact? (Please don't ask what constitutes fact...)

[Arcturus Descending]

Wendy: could simply ask what constitutes the certainty of the ego, can't we simply say fact? (Please don't ask what constitutes fact...)

Which *ego* do you speak of here?
The false ego which believes that it knows all things and must have its own way or the truer ego which is a part of the greater self and which *affirms* that self?

[Arcturus Descending]

Wendy: could simply ask what constitutes the certainty of the ego, can't we simply say fact? (Please don't ask what constitutes fact...)

Which *ego* do you speak of here?
The false ego which believes that it knows all things and must have its own way or the truer ego which is a part of the greater self and which positively *affirms* that self?

[WendyDarling]

How can something with an insignificant degree of relevancy describe an objective truth found in reality other than in someone's mind?

That is a good question.

I may be barking up the wrong tree here but isn't this how some important scientific discoveries are eventually made or come into focus? By building up or chipping away.
How can we at first glance know how truly significant something is in reality until it has been determined through investigation and discussion? At first, what do we do? We assume it is insignificant.
It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It kind of reminds me of some of the Antique Roadshow episodes. Someone will throw away a picture or painting which is or has become insignificant to them without realizing the treasure which it really was. Lo and behold, a Van Gogh or a Gauguin or whatever is hiding behind or within it.

Insignificant to US. How often has a discussion began in ILP - a mediocre kind of thread begun - but then aren't we surprised at the fruit which falls from that tree.

Many things have their own evolution, even insignificant things.

I am speaking more to knowns, objects and concepts being fallaciously related to each other or one another as if they are categorically alike, the degree of sameness is minute and detracts from the category which the people are trying to subsume their idea into as if it's not noticed, this slight in meaning, opening the door for all kinds of hideous exaggerations and misrepresentations their erroneous connection contrives.

[WendyDarling]

Wendy: could simply ask what constitutes the certainty of the ego, can't we simply say fact? (Please don't ask what constitutes fact...)

In my case...yes.

[encode_decode]

I am speaking more to knowns, objects and concepts being fallaciously related to each other or one another as if they are categorically alike, the degree of sameness is minute and detracts from the category which the people are trying to subsume their idea into as if it's not noticed, this slight in meaning, opening the door for all kinds of hideous exaggerations and misrepresentations their erroneous connection contrives.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist here but I too am aware of a divide that occurs especially with the language representation of knowns, objects and concepts. I can see how our whole life at current is dependent on this divide - unfortunately. To change everything in an instant would upset everything and I am not being vague but literal. If I have lost you with what I am saying please let me know as I would be happy to provide further explanation.

I just want to do it in tidbits.