Ramification in Causality is meaningless lie of the human

What we prefer [re value judgments] is still no less rooted in dasein. My point is that there does not appear to be a way in which to determine whether all rational people ought to prefer coke or pepsi. Or whether in any particular context one ought to prefer this particular pleasure to that particular pain.

There are those who choose to be sadists, there are those who choose to be masochists.

Pleasure would seem to be that which we are [genetically] hard-wired to prefer. But for every man or woman who feels pleasure in eating meat, there are others who are pained by it.

These choices in my view are largely “existential contraptions”.

Is this God Watts played omniscient? If so, how could the extent to which you know yourself not already have been known by God? You can’t know everything and not know everything there is to know about everyone. Past, present and future.

And it is one thing to know things about yourself able to be demonstrated as in fact true — your gender, your place of birth, your height, the color of your eyes, the schools you attended, the sports you play etc.

Another thing altogether to demonstrate that what you think is right or wrong regarding any particular moral conflict is in fact true.

Here I always suggest that “analysis” of this sort be brought down to earth. What particular statement is someone making in what particular context regarding what particular thing. What can be confirmed as a reasonable meaning for all rational human beings.

All hopelessly abstract in my view. It’s not about anything in particular.

He speaks of God, of “verifying” him. But verified or not what particular people think is true about God is deemed meaningful to them. And then they act on their beliefs. And the things they choose to do may impact you in any number of ways — good or bad.

So, what does that mean?

To “mean” something is often going to be problematic. Just go to the dictionary:

[b]Mean: intend to convey, indicate, or refer to (a particular thing or notion); signify.

synonyms: signify, convey, denote, designate, indicate, connote, show, express, spell out, stand for, represent, symbolize, imply, purport, suggest, allude to, intimate, hint at, insinuate, drive at, refer to[/b]

Okay, but with regard to what?

One would need to choose a particular context, note particular behaviors, and then, based on a particular set of assumptions, predict future behaviors.

What else is there?

I may think that by force of will I can decide to believe in Santa Claus [or God] but how would I go about determining [and then demonstrating] that what I think/will here is not that which I was only ever able to think/will?

When I say “I don’t know” I am only going back to that gap between what I think I know here and now and all that can be known about existence itself in order to know something like this.

I just point out that seems applicable to everyone else in turn.

But who is able to connect the dots between these “fundamental forces” and any particular things that they think, feel, say or do?

In other words…

Come on, there are dozen and dozens of folks out there who, down through the ages, have argued for one or another TOE here. And they can all make that claim. But [generally] what it comes down to is this: you can only properly have studied them if you come to agree with them.

But where is the hardcore empirical proof of the claims they make? Sooner or later you reach that point in their argument where the words are connected only to other words defined and defended by them.

Here it’s stuff like RM/AO or Value Ontology or the intellectual contraptions of folks like ecmandu and phemonenal_graffiti.

Again: What particular problem relating to what particular context precipitating what particular behaviors construed from what particular point of view?

I’m not appealing to impossibility. I’m only pointing out that “here and now” Watts’s arguments are not sufficient to either yank me up out of the hole I have dug for myself on this side of the grave, or obviate the fear of oblivion that I embody re the other side of it.

Of course I could suspend everything I am doing and do nothing else but read everything that he has ever written; and come to truly understand everything that he has done.

But then all the other autodidacts would insist I should be doing that in regard their own intellectual gurus instead.

Instead, I note the hole that I am in here and now and the hole I’ll be in after I am dead and gone. And I ask them to explain to me why they don’t think about it as I – “I” – do given the componnents of my own philosophical narrative: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in a No God world.

From that perspective true, but from the perspective of the 27,000 days [on average] that each of us is around from the cradle to the grave a whole lot of existence can go on.

Where have I ever said that? I don’t either put life down or say it’s nothing but matter. I suggest instead that our reaction to our own particular life is largely rooted in dasein evolving out in a particular world experienced in a particular way. And that I have no way of knowing the extent to which “I” is inherently the embodiment of so-called “immutable laws of matter”.

This is something that science continues to explore. And I always come back to what seems to be the biggest mystery of all: how matter becomes mindful of itself as matter and then…maybe more than that?

That cognition like things “fetched from the amygdala” are all inherently intertwined in the immutable laws of matter. And what the universe can or cannot know is no less embedded in whatever brought into existence existence itself. What can the universe know at all sans God?

These are all still mysteries science is just beginning to grapple with. Imagine what scientists – or, for that matter, philosophers and theologians – will have to say about them 1,000 years from now.

Will Watts be acclaimed then…or scoffed at?

Okay, but how does one make that distinction until one is able to grasp the extent to which human autonomy is or is not essentially an illusion embedded in human psychology?

Well, there are contraptions in the either/or world that we can take apart and put back together again. And, in so doing, explain why [objectively] the whole is the sum of the parts.

But the intellectual contraptions devised to make arguments about 1] relationships in the is/ought world or 2] grappling with the truly Big Questions are often comprised of parts that are predicated only on subjective/subjunctive assumptions backed up only with sets of definitions and meanings.

The whole is the sum of particular variables and factors more or less embedded in “I” as an existential contraption.

In my view [and in the view of many others] it seems incumbent upon those making the claim that something either does in fact exist or is in fact true to demonstrate that all rational men and men are obligated to believe it.

It’s just that in regards to value judgments or answers to the Big Questions such demonstrations still seem beyond our reach. And it seems those who claim that this is false need to demonstrate why they think this.

Again, down to earth.

Donald Trump is now president of the United States. Can this be demonstrated such that all rational men and women are obligated to concur?

Donald Trump is doing an excellent job as president. Can this be demonstrated such that all rational men and women are obligated to concur?

Donald Trumps policies are as a result of his own autonomous choices. Can this be demonstrated such that all rational men and women are obligated to concur?

There are explanations and jars and then there are explanations and jars. Some clearly more demonstrable than others.

Yes, but unlike the contraptions used by doctors to [as some insist] kill human babies, few will argue about the morality of how one plucks apples out of a barrel.

Then it comes down to the extent to which any particular subject who claims to believe something is true objectively is able to demonstrate it. And “I” is no less an existential contraption. We simply don’t know [beyond all doubt] if “I” is able to choose autonomously or, if “I” is able to, which choices made in the is/ought world are essentially/necessarily right or wrong.

Or, rather, so it seems to “me” “here and now”.

If “I” “absolutely cannot ever be in possession of a wholly comprehensive understanding of existence itself”, this merely reinforces the point I make. Because even this point is embedded in that gap.

Again, my point is no less circumscribed by the gap between what I think I know here and now and all that can be known about existence itself.

Who really knows what the objective truth about oxygen is? And no one will argue that had the bishop not been made to move diagonally this would have been immoral. And how do we go about determining whether the rules created in chess are necessarily in sync with either human autonomy or the immutable laws of matter?

Correct. So what’s the problem?

My point is that you cannot decide to prefer coke to pepsi because there is no you independent of you that could not be influenced by how you are put together.

Your view is a contraption lol

I don’t know… they didn’t ask him.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1LzVN8nqg0[/youtube]

When did you become god? Now.
Will you marry me? No.
Do you sleep on your stomach or back? Sleeping is like politics: you sleep on your right side and when you’re tired of that, you sleep on your left; and when you’re tired of that you sleep on your back; and then you sleep on your stomach.
If you are god now, what were you yesterday? Now.
How do we become god? You don’t become god.
Am I also god? Yes.
Are we then the same person? No. Remember: three persons, but one god (ie the trinity). LOL
Tell us about satan. Satan is the district attorney; the left hand of god. Jesus, the defense, sits on the right.
Is Job god too? Yes, but he doesn’t know it.
Why do you hide from the sight of so many? Why do YOU hide? It’s for the same reason you’re hiding.
Does man have freewill? Man has freewill to the extent that he knows who he is; not otherwise.
Where does he get freewill from? Where I got it from.
Does woman have freewill too? To the extent that she knows who she is, yes.
Are you more or less god than the rest of us? I am no more god than any of you.
So you only have the power of knowing who you are? Well, that is saying quite a bit, yes.
What is not god? There is nothing that is not god.
How do you learn who you are?
Is boredom a problem? Yes, boredom is of course THE problem.
If we are all supposed to love each other, then love wouldn’t exist because there would be no hate to contrast it. Correct, but that’s not a teaching but a koan.
Is there a heaven, purgatory, hell? The hereafter is of course now because there is nowhen else than now, and if you want to make hell of it, you can make hell of it.
What is death? Death is an undulation in consciousness. How would you know you’re alive unless you’d once been dead?
Why was it unnecessary for Jesus to have material possession but necessary for you? It wasn’t unnecessary for him. He consorted with gluttoners and winebibbers.

Right.

Surely you recognize that if you’re going to insist that everything have a context that you cannot take in the whole of everything. The context of mind is matter. The context of matter is mind. Nominalism is the context for realism. You cannot verify your foundation of empiricism with empiricism.

I agree.

I don’t know LOL

You seemed to have been implying that you could choose to believe any ole hippie nonsense and I was just pointing out that I don’t think we have a choice in what we believe.

What’s existence itself? Where does it exist?

There are no dots. The dots are abstractions.

You’re saying confirmation bias is the only way to research?

So how did I come to believe in Watts before I listened to him?

Where is the empirical proof that empirical proof is relevant?

That’s the same point he makes. If you’re going to use words, with what words will you define the words that define the words? That’s why he doesn’t give reality a name, but just bangs a gong or claps his hands to signify what there is.

The ones you’re posing as questions.

So which guru are you currently studying? You’re implying you wouldn’t want to waste your time by studying everyone, so as a solution you study no one. Usually I hang with someone until I find holes in their arguments, then move on to the next. Watts is the only one that I can’t refute anything he says.

So then you’re saying that you know there is know way of knowing which returns us to my other question which is why are you seeking what cannot be found?

Well mindfulness is either fundamental or a product of complexity (ie magic).

Watts is just repeating what has been said 1000s of years ago, so probably it will still be said 1000s of years from now.

Why does one need to grasp autonomy before accepting the most substantiated scientific fact in all of history?

So, what’s not a contraption?

Right, so should we assume there is a god and then look for evidence that there isn’t? Or should we assume there is no god and look for evidence that there is?

Yes

No

No

I don’t see your point.

Why do they argue the morality of one but not the other?

Demonstration to everyone doesn’t make it objective. It’s just coincidence that everyone saw it the same way.

A knife cannot cut itself. Where is the gap?

No one can know what oxygen objectively is because what oxygen is depends on what kind of a you you are. There is no objective oxygen and it doesn’t make sense to think that there could be.

Why not? Is it not immoral that pawns are sacrificed? Why not make the king fight his own battles instead of conscripting the pawns into being the first line of defense? Well, if we did that, it would merely be another rule of the game and subject to the proclivities of the creator of the game.

There are no laws of matter.

My point is that whatever is behind [or explains] the existence of existence itself led to my birth in this particular world.

[Unless of course my own “I” is some mind-boggling contraption in a sim world or in a dream…or just another domino in a wholly determined universe]

Now, over the course of living my life I came to prefer neither coke nor pespsi. I like them both. And there does not appear to a way in which to determine whether rational men and women ought to prefer one over the other. It’s a matter of “personal taste”. And all of the genetic/memetic factors that go into that.

But: What on earth does this point have to do with your point:

My point is that you cannot decide to prefer coke to pepsi because there is no you independent of you that could not be influenced by how you are put together.

This, in my view, is just an intellectual contraption that really tells us nothing at all.

Here my view is encompassed in a word contraption. But those words either can or cannot be connected to the world around us. Words used to describe or convey interactions in the either/or world seem to be applicable to all of us. Words used to describe or to defend moral narratives seem more in sync with subjective/subjunctive “personal opinions”.

Then it comes down to choosing a particular context/set of behaviors and examining the extent to which the words that we choose are able to convey things able to be demonstrated as true for all of us.

Okay, then, for all practical purposes, what are the existential implications of this being right given human interactions in conflict?

Over and again I point out that the “whole of everything” embedded in all of the “unknown unknowns” we are not yet privy to seems to be a given for all of us. Still, in a particular context relating to particular human interactions what on earth does, “you cannot verify your foundation of empiricism with empiricism” mean?

In the interim though, we all take our existential leaps regarding the relationship between mind and matter in order to convey what we construe to be true or false [here and now] about human interactions.

The dots are a figure of speech. But the gap between what you describe as “fundamental forces” and the choices that you make from day to day don’t go away unless you can connect them. And we don’t even appear to have connected enough of them [yet] in order to determine if consciousness itself is not but another of nature’s dominoes.

Well, if by empirical evidence we mean “the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation” science seems to make use of it re the laws of nature. Engineers and the inventors of technology [like computers] seem to find it especially reliable.

It’s just when we come to the is/ought world that it becomes considerably more problematic. The “problems I’m posing as questions” revolve around conflicting goods by and large. And the role played by dasein and political economy when individuals come to acquire sets of value judgments. And here Watts seems to be no less problematic than the rest of us. It’s not a question of “refuting anything he says” so much as probing the extent to which anything he says is able to be either verified or falsified.

As for this…

Why? Because I have no way of knowing for certain that it cannot be found. I only think that “here and now”. Thus all I can do is to come into places like this and seek out the narratives of others.

Because in a wholly determined universe we are [presumably] only able to grasp that which we were always going to grasp.

Exactly. But some would seem to be considerably more problematic than others. And all we can do is to focus the beam on a particular context and attempt to explore the extent to which it is constructed of parts able to be wholly grasped and made applicable to everyone [like the contraption we call an automibile engine]; or, instead, construed from conflicting subjective points of view [like abandoning the automobile in favor of mass transit – the contraption we call the environmental movement].

In regard to the former, Watts and all the rest of us are confronted with a seeming objective contraption: an automobile engine. It is what it is and could only be that because it is in sync with what we have come to know about the laws of nature.

In regard to the latter, however, Watts and all the rest of us take particular existential leaps to political contraptions rooted in the manner in which [subjectively] I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political power.

I can only assume that I am missing your point here. The distinction seems rather clear to me. A dead baby or an apple plucked out of a barrel. Which is more likely to generate discussion and debate among philosophers or ethicists?

Back to Trump. Is it or is it not reasonable to say it can be demonstrated that Trump is “here and now” president of the United States? Is this or is this not as close as we are likely to come to an objective reality? Acknowledging that, sure, Trumpworld may well be but a concoction in some entity’s sim world or dream.

Or, indeed, that it really is only a coincidence that everyone seems to think that this is so.

How is the existence of the knife and this observation of yours not in turn embedded in the gap? The truly problematic aspect of the distance between “I” and “all there is” would seem to revolve more around how enormously difficult it is to grapple with the existence of existence itself. Talk about a phenomenally enigmatic chasm between the knower and the known.

Next thing you know we’re saying things like this:

And this explains what exactly? And not just in regard to oxygen.

Sure, one might live in a world where chess is deemed a religion. The moves are part of some sacred truth and anyone who dares to not move as one must move, is thought to be an infidel.

But that is not how the overwhelming preponderance of our species think of chess. It’s a game. You make a wrong move and you lose. But few will insist that this makes you evil.

There certainly appear to be forces at play – gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces – that seem to be applicable to all of us here on earth.

We just don’t really know for sure what is behind them.

Cue those truly bizarre things like “dark energy”.

I think there is some swingroom. If you believe something that makes you suffer and find the desire not to believe it, you can look for counterevidence. You can check your own logic. You can seek experiences that might lead to different beliefs.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is one mode of doing this. You believe X about work, the opposite sex, your own abilities, what will likely happen, and the therapist challenges this belief with logic, counterexamples, questioning, assignments that will lead to experiences that counter the belief.

One can do this on one’s own.

One can lean in a direction. (I am not saying this is always a good thing, but it’s a thing)

Similarly with positive beliefs one might want to have. One can engage in practices, try to have experiences that lead to the formation of a new belief.

You can’t sit around the house and will yourself to believe something. At least I can’t.

Though it seems like some people can manage to do this. For some people positive thinking actually seems to work. (one of the reasons I do not think we are all the same. And I do not mean quantitatively in various qualities, but qualitatively as a whole essence)

I think Iamb assumes that anyone believing something that does not fit with what he thinks it is parsimonious to believe does this to comfort themselves. A conscious or unconscious choice to believe something to eliminate suffering. His posts can imply his belief in his superiority to these people he labels objectivists.

He wants to find out how to live by online discussion with people who he challenges to prove how one out to live.

That implies that he thinks he can change his beliefs and also that others can change his. That he need have no experiential component to learn something and a host of related ideas about learning, belief and the self.
He often admonishes people to be concrete, but what he means by this is to include in their verbal proofs specific issues or events. He does not, ironically, mean to actually be concrete, which would mean to give him an experience of something different from what he has experienced. A discussion of what happened with a specific dog or act, is still abstract and unlikely to change very much. It is words on a screen. But that is his chosen method of changing his beliefs.

I think that is a foolhardy pursuit.

And since the goal is to find out how one, how everyone, how all individuals, ought to live, it is an even more abstract and contexless endeavor. IOW he does not try to find out how he ought to live, this particular man.

Not to say this is wrong, this last, but it is as far from concrete as possible.

In practical terms it is a process for statis, not for change.

IN TERMS OF THE OP, HOWEVER, THIS IS ALL ILLUSION. STUFF HAPPENS.

Uh-oh, KT is being “cranky” again! :laughing:

Anyway, what in particular is being thought about? There are things we think are true that we are able to demonstrate are true. Why? Because they are in fact true.

I think Donald Trump is president of the United States. Also, I think it is in fact true that particular policies of his cause certain people in certain contexts to suffer. Those families being separated as a result of his immigration policy, for example. But then comes the part where some people think those policies reflect the right thing to do, while others insist it is the wrong thing to do.

Some are absolutely adament about it. In particular, the moral objectivists on both ends of the political spectrum.

Okay, using the tools of philosophy how might one resolve this conflict.

By being “pragmatic”? In what sense? And how are the value judgments derived from pragmatism not in turn the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Let KT address this in particular.

No, I want to assess the extent to which others are able to live while not being entangled in the components of my own moral philosophy.

Others have changed my beliefs a number of times in the past. And I have succeeded in changing the beliefs of others. It’s not an uncommon occurrence. Except with regard to objectivists. Why? Because, based on my own experiences, objectivism is rooted more in human psychology than in the quest for wisdom.

It’s not what you believe but that you believe.

One or another existential rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Not admonish so much as merely request that they bring their intellectual contraptions relating to conflicting goods down to earth. They either will or they won’t.

No, the goal is to grapple with those who insist that, through one or another God or ideology or deontological assessment or take on nature, mere mortals actually can know how one ought to live.

KT has concocted his own rendition of pragmatism here. And it works for him. It provides him with just enough comfort and consolation so as not to be “fractured and fragmented” as “I” am.

Stuff happens. What’s next, “it’s beyond my control”?

Really, imagine going through life and every time someone confronts you with a moral or political context that deeply troubles them, you say, “well, stuff happens”.

Your moral philosophy is not their moral philosophy is the simple answer to this. There will be other factors too such as life experience and how they see the
world in philosophical terms or even if they do see it in those terms. Also free will allows everyone to think for themselves therefore there will be a variety
of opinion. Diversity of thought is the norm not the exception here. What would be unusual would be if everyone thought the same with no real difference

But what fascinates me is not the fact of this. After all, who doesn’t know that? Instead, it is in exploring the variables that come into play such that each of us comes to acquire different [and often conflicting] philosophies.

The part where identity and value judgments are shaped and molded existentially out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

What can be communicated here as close to the “objective truth” as mere mortals are ever likely to get?

Instead, the objectivists among us lay claim to it already.

As are the diversity of objectivists. Think about it. There have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them down through the ages. All laying claim to one or an other rendition of The Real Me in sync with The Right Thing To Do. Only the fonts change.

They can’t all be right, of course, but they all claim to be.

Now, what does that tell you about objectivism?

Is this really a moral or a political or a philosophical or a religious thing? Or is it a psychological component of a genetic self “thrown” adventitiously at birth into any number of vast and varied memetic contexts?

Its about the time honored tradition of the human ego imposing its view upon others because it thinks that it knows what they dont know but need to know
The reality is that no one individually or collectively has possession of absolute truth but many hold onto the idea for psychological / philosophical reasons

I however prefer uncertainty to false knowledge because uncertainty is at least real

I am not psychologically conditioned to filling in the gaps with bullshit just to convince myself that I know what the meaning of existence is
I see no actual evidence for such a thing and am not concerned about it either so just accept it which is all I can do but still do so willingly

Others are free to live their lives according to their absolute truth although managing to convince yourself that X is true doesnt automatically make it so
However many of them do contain truth in some lesser form so it is important to understand this so what can and can not be used can then be separated
A simple example as I have previously mentioned is The Golden Rule which exists in all the major belief systems and can be adopted by absolutely anyone

Well, it could mean that they are all wrong to think one can know at all. It could mean only some of them are right in the main and all the others are off. It could mean that this process has survival value and there is a triangulation over time that confuses heuristics with morals.

IOW perhaps humans are moving towards a set of guidelines that help with survival (and perhaps sense of well-being) through deciding on what ‘one ought to do’. They confuse this with some objective good, but they are contributing to the survival of homo sapien genes, something that might necessitate greater well being.

It could be that some few or a single person had a direct line to the deity and the rest didn’t so the rest are wrong.

Who knows.

But those are some of the possible things that could be true given what you have said about the diversity of people’s opinions on how one should live.

There are likely other possibilities too.

When someone asks what it means, it can be a rhetorical question, as if the answer is obvious, and as if there is just one answer.

Which is why some people choose to question instead of making their own assumptions explicit. This can create the illusion that they bear no onus for their own beliefs.

Then it comes down to the extent to which you construe the ego – “I” – as more or less an existential contraption. Why one viewpoint and not another? How, over the course of actually living our lives, do we come to acquire one rather than another moral and political narrative?

I agree. But I also recognize that “I” have no way [seemingly] to demonstrate that this too isn’t just another existential contraption.

After all, just because I don’t believe in an “absolute truth” here, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. And embedded in either a God or a No God world. We are all basically stuck here taking one or another “leap of faith” to a frame of mind that [existentially] we use “for all practical purposes” to guide our behaviors.

I’m just down in a hole here that most others are not. Fractured and fragmented in ways most others are able to avoid.

Of course this just tugs me the direction of a whole new slew of imponderables: determinism. Are any of us really free at all here?

Truth here from my frame of mind revolves around that which you are in fact able to demonstrate is applicable to all of us.

And the Golden Rule would seem to be no less an existential contraption rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts. Do certain things unto others because you would want them to do that unto you.

But how about abortion? How is the Golden Rule apllicable here when confronting conflicting goods.

On the one hand, some would not want others to abort them in the womb, while some would not want others to force them to give birth.

Sure, as a “general description” of human interactions it could any one of them.

So, what we need then is a context in which to configure/reconfigure these abstract conjectures into a set of actual behaviors able to be or not to be defended against conflicting assessments of “the right thing to do”.

Which particular problem do we wish to solve?

Yes, and, for all practical purposes in a No God world, what else is there?

Then in contemplating this at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, some tumble down into the hole that I am in and others do not.

But ought one to tumble or not tumble down in it?

Can one come up with a solution to a problem like abortion that “pragmatically” enables us to intertwine the points raised by Trump in his SOTU speech last night and the points raised by those who either choose or perform abortions?

A way of thinking about it so that “I” is considerably less “fractured and fragmented”?

Yeah, it’s done by some. It’s just not able to be accomplished “here and now” by me.

True. But the distinction I keep coming back to is the one between those who insist that their truth is wholly in sync with objective reality and that if others don’t share it they are necessarily wrong.

Here I have no clear idea of the point being made. What question is being raised in regard to what context such that we can more reasonably assess and evaluate the answers that are given. And perhaps even come up with the must rational assessment and evaluation of them all.

So what you implied was the only possible truth given the existence of different objectivisms was not the case. You were wrong. Thank you.
And of course it was a general description, given that you made a general description and then drew a general conclusion. I am not sure you know what citation marks mean.

There is no such thing as a universal truth for such a concept cannot be empirically demonstrated
Instead it is something entirely subjective based upon our life experience and acquired knowledge
As we change then our understanding or perception of what that truth is might also change as well
We choose from many narratives and select the one that most characterises who we are personally
We may have limited free will but within that constraint we are free to choose the narrative for us
But it is an eternal work in progress so is not set in stone even if the fundamentals remain the same

That is not truth as such but a perception of what you think truth is or should be. The truth in question is philosophical not scientific or mathematical so the
notion of universality does not apply. To show this let me use your example of abortion : there is no way to demonstrate the moral right or wrong of it [ or in
deed any moral issue ] You do not arrive at a decision through logical deduction as it is not an issue that can be referenced from such a perspective. All moral
issues are a potential infinity of shades of grey sandwiched between the twin absolutes of black and white. Getting universality from that is next to impossible

The only possible truth about what? Right or wrong in what sense? Objective or subjective pertaining to what particular aspect of human interactions?

A description of what?

This part:

[b]So, what we need then is a context in which to configure/reconfigure these abstract conjectures into a set of actual behaviors able to be or not to be defended against conflicting assessments of “the right thing to do”.

Which particular problem do we wish to solve?[/b]

You can pick it.

And then the rest of our exchange:

Yes, and, for all practical purposes in a No God world, what else is there?

Then in contemplating this at the intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, some tumble down into the hole that I am in and others do not.

But ought one to tumble or not tumble down in it?

Can one come up with a solution to a problem like abortion that “pragmatically” enables us to intertwine the points raised by Trump in his SOTU speech last night and the points raised by those who either choose or perform abortions?

A way of thinking about it so that “I” is considerably less “fractured and fragmented”?

Yeah, it’s done by some. It’s just not able to be accomplished “here and now” by me.

True. But the distinction I keep coming back to is the one between those who insist that their truth is wholly in sync with objective reality and that if others don’t share it they are necessarily wrong.

Here I have no clear idea of the point being made. What question is being raised in regard to what context such that we can more reasonably assess and evaluate the answers that are given. And perhaps even come up with the must rational assessment and evaluation of them all.
[/quote]

This seems basically reasonable to me. Here and now. But how do we determine if it reflects the most reasonable assessment of what is in fact true?

All we can do is to note what seems true to us. In this or that context. Then it comes down to the extent to which we either are or are not able to demonstrate it to others. In any particular set of circumstances in which humans interact precipitating [at times] conflicts regarding what is thought to be true.

Taking or not taking a leap to the assumption that in doing so we have some meaure of autonomy.

But how do you go about demonstrating in turn, that, beyond all doubt, there is no way in which to demonstrate whether abortion is moral or immoral? How can we know the limits of logic here until we can connect the dots between what “I” think I know about it here and now and all that can be known about it going back to all that can be known about the existence of existence itself.

To all that can be known about determinism and human autonomy as it is intertwined in all that can be known about existence itself.

From my frame of mind assertions such as this become hopelessly entangled in all of the “unknown unknowns” that stand between what we think are shades of grey and all that needs to be grasped about existence such that everything can finally be rendered crystal clear.

Personally, I’m not there yet so I presume that much of what I construe to be black and white is more a reflection of human psychology than of my capacities as a philosopher.

Demonstrating beyond ALL doubt is not possible on any moral issue as you can never be absolutely certain you will never change your mind
I used to be anti abortion then pro abortion now am neither. I cannot guarantee this current position will remain with me till my final day
You also cannot be absolutely certain that you have thoroughly examined all of the different moral positions with a completely open mind

I can only deal with the known and unknown knowns so that is all I actually do
If something else exists I do not know it does so I cannot address it in any way

What is existence of existence itself? You have to define what you mean by that because when you use that lingo all I see is dhjksaljdskbasdvbcnxzncnvdsfhjarght.

In order for you to control whether you prefer pepsi to coke there would have to exist a you independent of you who could orchestrate all the matter that forms you in conformance to how you want to exist. If there is no you controlling how you are made, then you are a slave to whatever process is making you and you’ll have no control over whether you prefer pepsi or coke or like them equally.

Everything is a contraption. We cannot think in terms of anything other than contraptions. So pointing out that everything is a contraption doesn’t change anything or convey any information.

Here is an apple
Yeah but an apple is merely a thing.
So what? Every thing is a thing.

I have a thought.
Yeah but a thought is a contraption.
So what? Every concept is a contraption.

If you want to get away from contraptions, then you’ll have to explore what Dionysus said about agnosticism (nonconceptual knowledge). Of course, obviously, we won’t be able to discuss it.

Truth referenced to body parts is relational. Truth referenced to absolute morality is fictional.

It means you cannot use X to prove X is true. You cannot use logic to prove logic is true. You cannot use observation to prove what you’re seeing is true.

Connecting dots is a red herring and waste of time. It doesn’t matter how the dots are connected, the fact remains that they are connected. Why get burdened down rehearsing how forces cause consciousness when we already know there cannot be discontinuities?

What do you consider observation? Is 2+2=4 observed or deduced? What’s the difference? Do you see what I mean? Do you observe what I mean? Do you deduce what I mean?

The distinctions between observation and deduction are irrelevant. We are a dimensionless center of perception and it doesn’t matter through which sense that information comes.

It’s verified with deduction.

The max possible things in existence are 1. If you see that, then you’ve verified it. If you haven’t, then you’ll need to grow eyes.

Can it be falsified? Sure. Show me how two distinct things can interact without being one.

But your presupposition is that the answer cannot be found. You’ve appealed to it plenty before: why have so many before not found the answer? What questions will be asked in the future? Everyone here thinks he’s found the answer. Yada yada. You’re convinced no one can know.

It’s not pre-determined or even pre-determinable, but probabilistic. You are determined by the outcome of a causeless event.

Yes but why is a baby objectively more important than an apple? Why does the universe care more about babies than apples? An apple is a baby appletree. A baby human is just another among the billions of other baby animals. Because the baby human will grow up to be arrogant, it should be given more respect?

Demonstrated to who? Rocks? Planets? Stars? The universe? Almost nothing in this universe recognizes Trump as president. Like me recognizing an ant queen in imminent peril while I’m mowing the lawn. The queen only has significance to other ants. Nothing else cares.

Objective reality can never be known and that’s as close to knowing anything about it that we can go.

It shows that what the object is depends just as much on what the subject is as it does the object. What exists depends on what you are.

Why not? It’s not about breaking the rules of the game, but choosing how to play by sending the pawns out first to absorb the attack. That’s evil, right? The kings should get out in the middle and have a fist fight.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naUt2bYc3ng[/youtube]

They aren’t laws, but observed regularities. Laws are decreed by authority and enforced (and sometimes broken). The concept of law in science is a holdover from theocracy.