As I said, “inconsistent”.
And still avoiding questions.
What’s the difference between intelligent and unintelligent?
My point is that knowledge and truth, like any other two objects, are orthogonal. This means that they are perpendicular, that they are diametrically opposed, that they have nothing in common, that they have no meeting point, that they are two independent objects, that they are different, etc.
Because they are two objects, rather than one object, assigning them different values does not lead to a contradiction.
Contradiction is a situation in which one attempts to assign two different values to one and the same object.
We can say that Alex is short and Tom is tall and there will be no contradiction so as long Alex and Tom are two different individuals. However, if Alex and Tom are merely two different words that refer to one and the same individual, then we have a contradiction because one and the same individual cannot be both tall and not tall (which is what short implies.)
Because I consider knowledge and truth to be two different objects, there is no contradiction when I say that knowledge is one thing and truth is another.
However, if you think they are one and the same object – if you confuse the two – you will consider any suggestion that knowledge is one thing and truth is another to be “dissonant” and “confusing”.
Thus, the only relevant question is whether knowledge and truth are one and the same thing or two different things.
Which is basically the question of the fundamental nature of reality: difference or similarity?
In the universe of difference, there can be no “one and the same object” other than in the subjective sense which is established by ignoring difference.
You can ask any number of questions. And I will refuse to answer each one of them. You may think, perhaps because you want to think, that I am refusing to answer them because I cannot answer them. But the reality is, I am not answering them because they are of no relevance.
Both you and James find it extremely difficult to say anything relevant.
How many times are you going to say that there are such things as subjective, relative, absolutes?
How many times are you going to say that it’s possible to treat objects as identical once you ignore they are not identical?
I know that many people in this thread need to empty their cup before they can drink it. I don’t know who, because I didn’t actually read through everything.
Maybe I need to empty my own cup, long as what their selling isn’t Gatorade.
And your point is exactly what?
Noone cares how people define their words but how they interact with reality.
You can think there are no absolutes and nonetheless interact with reality as if there are absolutes.
You are distracting yourself from what I am saying by insisting so much on the mundane “but there are relative absolutes, here let me show . . .”
Not to mention this pathological obsession with definitions and social conventions.
Is that what you want to do?
To misinterpret me so you don’t have to bother trying to understand what I am saying?
If that is so, be my guest, knock yourself out.
Pay close attention to James. You may learn a thing or two. I mean, regarding the art of misinterpretation.
You’re using words to babble.
I don’t think that you have even correctly identified what I, James or Iambiguous think.
I understand what you are saying … you have latched on to one little idea and it has completely filled your mind.
Specifically this idea :
Wallow in your trivialities if you wish. Others have moved beyond them.
Is that everything you had to say, moron? I personally hope so.
Like I wrote, a true is just an aspect of a truth but not the whole story and yes, I improved the definition to mean what it was intended to mean, not bits and pieces espoused as if they are the full truth. That’s where truth goes awry where people have leeway to act as if they have the whole story on account of having a few true tidbits.
UK Court procedures:
Language Timothy.
Notice how he does not spot the irony. Even though I keep saying over and over again that no view is equal to reality. It does not matter if it’s a deaf-blind view or an intelligent view. In both cases, it is just that: a view. But he has this need to present some views, not merely as better views, but as absolutely true views.
Here, he’s telling us how socially dependent his view of reality is. And that is fine, to an extent. But it becomes unbearable the moment he starts insisting that this is something more than a view that is better, and then only in his opinion, in relation to that of a deaf-blind man. It’s pathetic because it indicates that he cannot own his opinions. Instead, he must attribute them to some Higher Force such as Intelligent People.
He can’t say it’s his opinion because it is not. His opinions he is suppressing because he cannot trust them. But that does not mean it is Truth. It simply means it’s someone else’s opinion.
How do you know your version of truth isnt time dependent?
If truth made you unhappy then would it no longer be truth?
Knowledge and truth are not objects as they do not have physical properties
I didn’t say they are physical objects but objects in the general sense of the word.
Reality does not operate according to rules. It does not unfold according to a plan.
Reality is not determined by rules. Rather, rules are determined by reality.
There are no units, no countable objects, in reality. Therefore, there is also no interaction between them. There is no cause-and-effect.
What there is is necessity. Reality simply happens.
Knowledge is nothing but a piece of necessity.
There is no set S that represents the subject and no set O that represents the object and that contains an infinite number of objects that can be copied to the set S by the means of perception.
That’s merely how we describe reality.
I have already established that there are no perfect copies. A copy that is perfect is either not perfect or not a copy.
I have also established that the appearance of perfection is created by ignoring differences. Two objects can be seen as perfectly identical only when we ignore they are not perfectly identical (e.g. when we ignore they have different location in space.)
What does it say about a man when he insists that reality unfolds according to a plan?
It cannot possibly say that he is above necessity because nothing is above necessity.
What it says is that he cannot adapt to reality. It says that he is consumed by some fixed pattern of behavior, some impulse, to such an extent that he has no choice but to project it onto the universe as some sort of universal law.
To use Leibniz’s terminology, objects are windowless monads. They have no windows through which things can come in and go out. There is no communication, no interaction, no cause-and-effect between them. But unlike Leibniz who appears to think that objects belong to reality, I think that objects belong to models of reality. Whatever is countable – and objects are countable – is not real. My point, then, is merely that treating objects as windowless monads is the best way to represent reality. Not that reality is made out of windowless monads.
Thus, observation is not a communication between the perceiver and the perceived. Rather, that’s merely a description of reality – one more windowless monad among windowless monads.
It’s difficult to understand that the universe is ruled by necessity and not by causality.
It’s difficult to understand that we know not because our knowledge is a copy of reality – nothing is a copy of anything else – but because we must know.
Another way to say it is that we know because we are used to knowing.
A matter of tradition rather than of communication.
Truth remains unknown. Truth does not depend on my happiness to exist.
He keeps asking me to define with a positive statement something that cannot be defined with a positive statement.
His curse being that he only accepts positive statements. Negative statements he rejects – he considers them to be a misuse of language.
Only descriptions can be expressed using positive statements. What they describe can only be expressed using negative statements.
He keeps asking for an abstraction that is real – the God abstraction.
I keep saying there isn’t one but he nonetheless keeps asking for one.
Every image is an image of something, that is true. But that does not mean I have to know what that something is.
In fact, it is impossible to do so.
But he just keeps asking for the impossible. Over and over again.
ask someone what is love and you will a subjective answer for
love is different for every single person…
and ask someone what is a chair and you
will get a subjective answer because for a chair is something
different for everyone…
ask someone, millions upon millions of someone what is god
and you will get millions upon millions of answers…
ask someone if 1 + 1 = 2 and they will answer yes…
but think about it…
isn’t 1 + 1 = 2 really just another argument that is the
all unmarried men are bachelors argument…
we have presupposed the answer in the question…
so what is absolute and what is relativism?
everything is relative…
Kropotkin
I have to note, even if it means repeating myself, that I am not saying that images – and by images I mean representations in general – point to each other. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am saying that images point away from each other.
James is merely demonstrating binary thinking. Either images point to some God image (which he incorrectly considers to be reality) or they point to each other (which he correctly considers not to be reality.) There is no other alternative.
He can’t imagine a scenario in which images do not point to each other.
He does not want to accept that images point to the unknown. And that every attempt to make the unknown known results in another image.
He does not want to accept that the conscious (which is where images reside) is product of the unconscious.
There is no reality unless he is conscious of it.