These are not universal truths...

That has nothing to do with VO though.
VO posits the valuator as being.
And yes, we value before we actually make the encounter - we select, we make a sucking motion (valuing, selecting, anticipating) before the air (value) comes in.
Ive been explaining this on H and every single post Ive produced here on VO (many hundreds of posts) so you really, reallyreallyreally have not at all paid the slightest bit of attention.

I refer you again to the ancient post “summary of VO”
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 … e-ontology

Gotta at least learn the very basic definition before you attempt to validate your theory in relation to it, let alone prove it superior to it.

You’re nowhere near reaching as deep as you should be.

More is good, and I was pretty sure it was a yes, but I wanted confirmation. The interesting thing for me is that I would have considered you more of a realist - in the philosophical sense, not in the hey, you are not so grounded as I thought. To consider physical objects reifications puts you on the fringe. Not complaining or disagreeing, but hence my double checking.

I can see that. What people don’t seem to realize is that when they tell you to hit yourself with a stick and say if you still think it is a reification, they are asking you to experience something, aim for a certain kind of experiencing. They’ve had that map so long they think it has to be the territory. And when they feel the stick hit them, they experience it via the map.

In order to be able to falsify your theory Silhouette (falsifiability is, as you know, required for philosophical concepts) Ive started an investigation into experience, which you haven’t defined.
My insight here is that you have misunderstood the nature of experience, and was therefore able to extrapolate it (the lacking conception of it) to “continuous experience” which however defies the very properties of experience as we know it.

Here is the thread that I made yesterday, essentially to investigate Experientialism.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195347

I think universal consensus is universal agreement, not universal proclamation.
But thats an excellent list.

I maintain, not from dictionaries but from pondering the meaning of the words myself using the ways it has been used historically, that the best way to understand the concept “truth” is as belonging to the realm of communications. A truth is a statement. “We consider these truths to be self-evident” “do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth” -
So if truth is a statement, a universal truth is a universal statement. And I don’t know what that means. So I agree with Faust, even if I recognize that this isn’t hard mathematics. You can simply claim, as most seem to be doing here, that “truth” means the same as “fact”, but I wouldn’t go along with that.

More likely someone that feels un-secured. Un-fastened. Up-rooted. Falling upwards. Grasping for anything sticking out to hold on to.

Truths are known. At the flimsiest, seen, discerned. They are courted and chased. Men lose much more than their lives in the attempt.

But I insist, let’s look a little closer at social justice.

I really don’t think it has been investigated thoroughly or at all.

Truth has a definite scent.

Not gonna lie, I’ve never made that much of an effort to really get to the bottom of VO because I’ve never come across a compelling reason to do so - no offense.

I’ll try to put the effort into having a peruse of your summary thread from your forum - it would be nice to be confronted with depths deeper than I’m used to.

I responded to your thread. Hope it clears a few things up, but I’m pretty sure we already danced this dance years ago.

Falsifiability is very high on my list, of course. The thing about Falsification though is that it applies to concepts and conceptual models - knowledge: discrete experiences. Continuous Experience isn’t knowledge, its unity defies knowledge due to what I was saying about “meaning” by definition being a bridge between a plural quantity of things. In the same way as existence, it’s pre-knowledge: knowledge has to exist first and foremost, before anything else.
You’ll find all the same difficulties in applying Falsification to “Existence” itself.

How do you falsify existence?
You can verify it simply in the attempt to verify or falsify it, as the action of doing so in itself is something that exists - so even a failure of Verification of Falisification of existence supports existence. “Therefore existence”.
The same applies to the concrete form of the abstract concept of existence that is “experience”. Trying to verify or falsify it is an experience in itself, so in the same way, either way: “therefore experience”.

But falsifying existence?
To falsify existence, the possibility of non-existence is required to signify that existence is false. However, the existence of non-existence is a logical contradiction. Do we therefore conclude that existence doesn’t exist because it’s not Falsifiable? Of course not, as existence not existing is too a logical contradiction.
The same too goes for experience. How do you experience non-experience so as to assess any potential falsity? The same logical contradiction makes experience “unavoidable” - as I was describing it before: pre-knowledge. Falsificationism requires knowledge (of discrete experiences), and so it’s necessary to consider the limits of Falsificationism as not a be-all and end-all of truth. After all, Falsificationism itself is infamously unfalsifiable! But nevertheless, it’s a requirement for all else, hence being so “high on my list”.

The same goes for definition: definition is knowledge and by derivation it presupposes bounds and limits. What are the limits of existence? What’s outside of existence to be on the other side of the bounds of existence? Nothing? Well then there is no boundary to existence and therefore no definition. Attempted definitions of existence are all tautologous, synonymous, or they comprise of things contained within existence. Definition cannot be in its own terms or in terms that are less than it: you can’t bound something with something that’s within its own bounds/less than itself. The same goes for Continuous Experience, which is just the concrete form of abstract existence. You don’t chuck it out just because it defies definition anymore than you do if it defies Falsificationism - so long as there’s a logical reason to keep it - as there necessarily is so for both existence and experience: they logically have to exist.

Me being grounded :confused: Yes, I’m on the fringe, philosophically, economically, musically, with regard to religion - everything really. You can’t push the boundaries if you’re not at the boundaries.
Question away & thanks for taking an interest.

Yes, the more correct question is whether you think the stick hitting you was an experience - and of course it was, just like everything else, necessarily.

To the extent others here do construe an exchange with me as a “fight”, I am more than willing to concede that my point of view is no less an existential contraption. I’m not arguing that my understanding of “universal truth” is the right one. I’m suggesting only that however it is understood by others [conceptually, by definition, in a world of words] it needs to be explored contextually out in the world of human interactions.

Out in the world that we live and interact in, there seem to be things and relationships able to be demonstrated as true for all of us. While other things are believed to be true by us in our heads but are less able to be demonstrated to others.

On this thread, others will either take the “statements” they make regarding “universal truth” and ground them in particular sets of circumstances or they won’t.

As for the fight with our selves, that is no less embedded, situated. Either in a world of words or in an actual existential context. What can we say regarding those things we think, feel, say or do? And, then, what can we in fact establish as true such that all rational men and women are going to share our assessment?

It’s not whether:

It’s whether you want me to tell you the story of the bald chicken?

Iambiguous,

I’m not sure how many times I have to repeat this before it sticks and/or you reply…

If any beings consent is being violated, anywhere in existence, we can objectively state that existence is ‘evil’.

We know people’s consent is currently being violated in existence; we know existence is currently evil.

The question then becomes, “will existence always be consent violating?”

If we can prove that existence will always be consent violating, we can objectively assess that existence is not only conditionally ‘evil’, but rather inherently and irreconcilably ‘evil’.

That would be an objective universal truth, but even further, a moral/ ethical objective universal truth.

There are ways to objectivly analyze these types of questions.

If it necessarily is the case that existence violates consent in perpetuity, then ethics solves as this: violate as much consent as you possibly can for the best life.

No, as a matter of fact, it doesn’t even come close. More to the point, that you are actually able to think yourself into believing that it does?!

From my frame of mind, you come at me with things like this:

How is this not just intellectual gibberish? What does it denote regarding the points I raise above pertaining to “the relationship between describing what some construe to be universal truths in regard to human interactions in conflict over value judgments, statements about them, and how to differentiate them technically…”

Choose a context and we can exchange our current understanding of “objective truth” and “universal truth”. Then in that actual substantive exchange if a straw man pops up you can pounce on him. Expose to everyone here exactly what you mean by the accusation itself.

Or, instead, are observations of this sort all just tongue in cheek?

Well, why don’t we start with what you construe to be the most epistemologically sound statement that can be made about “universal truth”; and then the most epistemologically sound statement that can be made about astrology.

And then bring both statements out into the world and, contextually, examine their relevance relating to that which is of most interest to me here: the nature of truth in regard to conflicting goods as the embodiment of daseins intertwined in any particular political economy out in a particular world.

Sure, Kid, go ahead, why not. :laughing:

I consent to you repeating it 3.14159265359 more times. Then, after consulting with Max Cohen and Darren Aronofsky, we’ll see.

Note to others:

That’s the best you can do? Trying to mock me for word salad? I can assure you, my reply to your posting history is clear and sane.

Okay, that’s 1.

2.14159265359 more to go.

Speaking of pi, how close does this…

geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5 … igits.html

…come to a universal truth?

You seemed incredulous that Faust did not think it was coherent. Then you defined it. If you don’t think your definition is the right one why is it your definition? I could understand you saying you are not sure if it is the right one, but to define X and they say that your definition of X is not one you think is right means that you are just wasting people’s time.

Sure. But if we don’t even know what ‘it’ is how could we possibly explore it contextually out in the world of human activities.

A: I don’t think alskdjflaölös is coherent.
Iamb: give us some concrete examples of alskdjflaölös.
A: huh?
Iamb: I think alskdjflaölös means Y. And why is no one applying it to concrete real world examples?

[pause]

Iamb: I don’t believe my definition of alskdjflaölös is right. But I want people to talk about alskdjflaölös in the world of conflicting goods.
A, B, C…etc.: huh?

Well, if Faust thinks the phrase makes no sense, he can’t. There are a few people who don’t think the phrase makes sense. Zero Sum does think it makes sense and he gave an example. For what it’s worth.

Right, if it is not considered coherent by others, that means they don’t understand what it means. So there is no how it is understood that can then be explored in via concrete examples.

You could acknowledge this, apologize to Faust for your humbler than thou irrelevent insults and then ask the minority of people here who think it makes sense how they would apply it in concrete situations.

Of course this would be a tangent. It’s not what the OP was about. This is your concern. It’s a good one, but as usual you try to move every thread into becoming one of the threads of yours people avoid. Which you may interpret as their great fear of nihilism. Might be that. Might be something else. Might vary.

But your interaction carries the weight of ‘should’, over and over. It should be talked about it like this, relating it to conflicting goods.

Despite your hypothetical nihilism.

Notice your use of the passive: it needs…

It doesn’t need. You want.

Why hide in the passive? Why present your desire as objective need?

[please consider that question rhetorical. not in the sense that I know the answer or that we do, but rather that you are being disingenuous…for some reason or other]

No no, it’s not:

It’s: do you want me to tell you the story of the bald chicken?

On the other hand, which came first, the bald chicken or the bald egg? You know, going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself. Or God, if He came first.

No, no, no… It is not:

It is: do you want me to tell you the story of the bald chicken?

Iambiguous,

Really!? That was your big trick? You’re coming at me with math? Dude. Bad idea.

Any irrational or transcendental number can be made rational by making it the base.

Base pi.

I really don’t want to bother with you if you’re going to pull this cutsie shit on me.

I have a real argument that is outstanding and you haven’t addressed it in your posting history, the argument against your posting history.