On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:36:34 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated 1/25/2005 4:36:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, k > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I will add to this resend, that you are equating universal object truth with > > external reality. A common mistake. > > I'm intrigued. Since you brought it up, what's the difference? This > isn't a trap, I really don't know. > > cheers, > frank > =========== > There are consensual shared truths (families, nations, political parties). > But not going to get into that. > > True: In accordance with the actual state of affairs. Being that which is > the case rather than what is manifest or assumed. > > Well, some people believe there are hard and fast universal objective truths. > Right? And some people also feel those truths can be found in external > reality. That they exist independent of us, just laying out there waiting to > be > discovered. > > My original statement was that we always perceive reality through the filter > of our own world view, our own experience, our own lens -- whatever you want > to call it. > > How can we not? We are inside ourselves, looking out. > > So how do you know what's true? What's a universal objective truth out there > in reality? Are you sure? Or is it something someone else told you? Let's take > scientific truths. Don't they change all the time? Isn't that what someone > else told you? (Or did you do experiments in the lab to prove it? :-)) And > don't > scientists disagree all the time? And, even now, don't they not know how some > basic things work? So what is scientific truth? > > Take political truth -- George Bush, I think he is the worst President, the > worst thing to happen to the US in my life time. Others thing he is an okay > guy. I also think, no, he isn't our President, that he only apparently won by > fraud and lying, but he didn't actually win (in the previous election). Others > think he did win. > > What's true, what I believe, or what they believe? > > If you think there are hard and fast truths out there that you can discover, > you believe there are some immutable facts. You believe that things don't > change. That our perception of them doesn't change. That cultures doesn't > change > truths. That science doesn't change truths. That we don't change truths > sometimes just by our very existence, and our investigations. > > Assuming we can perceive reality untainted by our own perspective is rather > presumptuous. IMHO. > > We are not "god like" with the ability to be totally impassive. To stand > outside ourselves. > > And I can't explain it any better than that. And I don't want to. That's it. > > I also said, I don't believe we have discovered the nature of reality yet. > > As a postscript -- debating rules are silly, because they have a person take > one side and another person take another side. And somehow by debating, the > "truth" is supposed to emerge. When maybe to the person on one side, that is > their truth, and to the person on the other side, that is their "truth." No > amount of arguing is going to change that. Debating doesn't arrive at truths, > it > just sometimes arrives at a winner and loser (if both sides agree to abide by > debating rules). The winner is just the most persistent and articulate. See, > there is a presumption that by arguing, one side will see the logic of the > other > side, and "give way." But maybe both sides firmly believe what they believe. > And maybe what they are arguing are opinions, beliefs, and there is no point > arguing those. Unless you want flame wars. And maybe both sides will never > "give > way." > > Debating rules also don't really allow for humor, they encourage > straightlaced black and white thinking, allow for no tangents, don't allow > for changing > viewpoints, and I think were designed by men for men. ;-) They are a > formalized > way to manage verbal aggression. > > Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. > > I don't think I said it as well as I could have, but I have to run and make > Mom her dinner. > > If someone wants to debate it, find someone else who likes that kind of thing. > > I don't. :-) > > Marnie
Well, thank you Marnie. I just wanted to know what the difference (in your mind) is between a universal objective truth, and external reality (terms that you used), as I really didn't know what you were talking about without some idea of what you meant by those terms. Now I think I have ~some~ idea. I do, however, happen to disagree with much of what you said. However, this is getting quite far afield (even for this list), so like you, I have no intention of debating.or prolonging this much more. Have a good supper. I had chili. Mmmmmm! <vbg> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
