These are not universal truths...

If I hear a “Universal Truth”, I think Coca Cola or Hulk Hogan.

Something which simply is and has its image about it which clearly points to itself, and which people can have around them without being deranged from their own elements, but which provides a placeholder for their continuous responsiveness.

A truth has to have a narrative.

Universal facts are scientific facts, they need nothing to pertain to, to exist.

A truth pertains.
A narcissist wouldn’t be able to see that a fact is not a truth.

Iambiguous will NEVER debate me on the concept of consent being the superset of his subset argument because he knows he’ll lose, and if he loses that debate, he’ll lose his purpose for posting as he has since joining the boards.

Iambiguous already knows himself that he lost that debate, he just doesn’t want to make it public, so that he can keep posting the same drivel that philosophy hasn’t solved anything.

Yes. There are objective moral truths: No being wants their consent violated.

He avoids me like the plague, and now his reason is not because of my arguments, he’s the hero who’s taking pity on my mentally ill soul.

But how do you construe that?

In a world of conflicting goods?

You know, as a note?

To others?

WHAT IF MY GOLD CHAIN DOES NOT MATCH MY PRINTER?

What is BEHIND the universal truth?

WHO came up with social justice?

Really, literally, who?

What is justice? What is it?

Qui gets paid?

What are conflicting goods but an invitation to consent-violation?

the demiurg?

truths are spoken. A universal truth is something which is universally spoken.

It is a universal truth that I get a demiurge when I watch this video.

So universal truth means consensus truth?

Then are there any universal truths? We have solipsists, schizophrenics, contrary people, other cultures, animists…

Since no one in this thread has actually mentioned it, can I note that no one here knows what “universal truth” means? Or is it just that everyone still on this board is in on the game of creating chaos and hopelessness by never revealing such things?

some people think it is not a coherent term. Iambiguous present a definition a page back. I think there are problems with that definition and presented a critique. Others seem to think universal truth means true for everyone. But that is confused.

Notice Zero Sum games use…

see if you can hold your breath without passing out.

Presumably he means there are no exceptions to that, so it is universal.

But that is confused since ‘truth’ works just as well there.

Homo sapiens need to breathe to remain conscious.

That statement is true, let’s assume. To then say it is universally true, or a universal truth, adds no extra meaning. It is speaking about all humans. So at best it is redundant.

Iambs seems to mean it is universally believed.

But that rarely happens and certainly doesn’t make it true or truer. And it would be a bad term for it.

Yes I have read the thread and thank you. But my question was whether these people actually, in reality, believe what they are saying. Too many threads on this board appear to be just a game of playing with words to stir things up. For example it is hard to believe that the Iambiguous character is at all ingenuous.

Continuous Experience is already real and concrete whether I want it to be or not - no conversion or “making” on my or anyone else’s part is required.
Discrete experiences are what is “made” or converted from Continuous Experience - that’s where the process of reification occurs: not in the existence of Continuous Experience before reification occurs, and to which reification must apply in order for reification to have a starting state (pre-reification) as well as a resulting state (post-reification).

Not so. Knowing is by definition meaningful. Means imply a transition from one state to another. Fundamentally meaning therefore requires a pre-meaningful state from which to create meaning in the form of a different state to what was started with. Such a state that precedes the meaningulness of knowing must therefore be immediate and unavoidable. Both meaning and knowledge must first of all have the property of existence, therefore existence precedes meaning and knowledge. The immediate and undeniable state of existence is experience (Continuous Experience). So logically there must exist an immediate and unavoidable state to found everything that subsequently follows, making experience both directly undeniable, empirically speaking pre-knowledge, and necessarily existent logically speaking post-knowledge. You can derive Continuous Experience post hoc, but it presents itself unavoidably ante hoc regardless, so deriving Continuous Experience indirectly from discrete experience can be done (as I am doing here) but it is not reliant on doing so due to its direct confrontation as existence.

If I’m understanding this criticism, gaps are only negative: the “existence” of a gap is literally a contradiction in terms, which is why there are no gaps - logical contradictions don’t exist. This is why experience is fundamentally continuous, because it is free from logical contradictions like gaps.

Of course it isn’t hollow semantics. There’s a reason why it resolves so many formerly paradoxical philosophical dilemmas.

Yes, experience is irreducible - that’s why I’m proposing it as the fundmental substance. Valuing is what you do to “make” it into something in terms of discrete experience. This is why I’ve always rejected VO as fundamental, however much sense it makes to propose valuation as “relatively” fundamental. Value has to apply to something, just the same as logic - indeed we did have this discussion in 2013 or 2014 on Humanarchy. How can you “like or dislike” without something against which to apply said like or dislike? How can you logically reason without anything to logically reason with? There needs to be something first, before you can value it, or refer to it as “a value”. You can only isolate a thing as a value after there’s a something to isolate from. Experience happens first, valuation and logic happens to that. How can you know what you value first before it exists? You’ll remember, hopefully, my criticism of VO that existence precedes value because value has to first of all exist, else it’s fundamentally non-existent. Experience is the concrete form of existence in the abstract - I’m posing them as the same thing. Value isn’t existence, value is of or about existence.

I am pretty sure Faust believes that ‘universal truth’ is incoherent - though I may be biased since I tend to agree -, iambiguous believes that it means what he defined it to me, since this matches his previous explanations of the difference beween is and ought assertions and is a foundational idea in many of his posts; and I am quite sure Zero Sum believes what he is arguing though I don’t think he is focused on the term itself, since nothing Faust has said means he thinks he can get away without breathing.

I’ve gone back and forth on that issue. But he seemed geniunedly rattled (which he often does not seem) when rebuffed earlier in the thread by Faust.

So then chair, rock, cat
would be reifications? or?

This sounds like a kind of idealism. Not that I’m disagreeing. It’s more parsimonius than realism.

Thank you again and you seem a level headed guy, so what is it about the term “universal truth” that seems “incoherent”?

I’m a believer in references so let me provide reasonably reputable source:

There doesn’t seem to be anything incoherent about any of that so is the real question merely whether any such thing as a universal truth exists?

With no gaps in Continuous Experience, there are no fundamental grounds to separate what could otherwise be identified as e.g. chairs, rocks and cats from anything else - as such things are experientially continuous with one another.
But whilst all melds seemlessly into everything else, with some degree of smoothness in transition: the sharper the transition the more grounds there appear to be, generally speaking, to distinguish smooth transitions either side of a sharp transition from one another, as the beginning of a “discrete” experiences. These are the grounds behind reification based on, and as distinct from a unity fundamentally devoid of defined things like chairs, rocks and cats.

Experience transcends the “real”, “ideas” and “matter” - all things that are derived from experience as more fundamental.
Experience is fundamentally neither matter, idea, real nor imaginary, but it can be subsequently dissected into each of these categories artificially - as described above.
All matter, idea, reality and the imaginary presuppose existence, which is a prerequisite in the abstract for all things. This same prerequisite in the concrete sense is experience.