Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Inner Space

Expand Messages
  • Dick.
    Inner Space [ ....those postings you have done recently over the past 6 months have been especially of your own mark. Much Love and Blessings as we continue
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 27, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Inner Space



      [ ....those postings you have done recently over the past 6 months have
      been especially of your own mark. Much Love and Blessings as we continue
      to Journey on. ]



      The reason they are of my own mark is because I have found nobody else
      who writes and talks about inner space. Perhaps other than interior
      decorators and folks who convert your loft. Even so called mystics and
      psychics talk about the world, outer space, the universe, but they do
      not talk about inner pace or the journey through it. They talk a lot of
      irrelevant shite. They don't seem to know that there is such a
      thing as inner space; let alone what is there to find. That is why it
      all sounds different. Been doing it for fifty years ma'am, not six
      months. I sometimes feel as though I am the ONLY mystic. It sure makes
      you wonder doesn't it.



      For the record most say it is an illusion/hallucination. 75 years would
      be a long hallucination :- ) Some say everything is an illusion. Some
      say that only life is an illusion. Some say that only the things they
      don't like are an illusion. Some say that only the things which they
      don't understand are an illusion. So, you can see why talking to
      people is pointless. Apart for hello and goodbye.



      I hear tell that the USA has a lot of snow this Yuletide. We had rain,
      fog, more rain, and more fog :- ) Didn't see any floods on the way
      home from London but we sure saw a lot of rain and fog; even when we
      took a detour across Salisbury plain to miss a big hold up on the A303.
      Good to be home again. I slept for ten hours :- ) Did you know that they
      do not light up Stonehenge at Yuletide? I will have to complain to the
      gnomes of Zurich for permission.



      Journey on? I wonder what comes next. Peace and silence I hope.



      Merlin of Exmoor







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dick.
      Re: Inner Space Εσωτερική χώρος. Interioris Spatio. Inner Space. Binnenste Ruimte. 內部空� . внутреннее пространство.
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 27, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Re: Inner Space



        Εσωτερική χώρος. Interioris Spatio. Inner
        Space.



        Binnenste Ruimte. 內部空é–". внутреннее
        пространство. внутреннее
        пространство. vnitřní proctor. espace
        intérieur. インナースペース.
        आंतरिक अंतरिक्ष. belsÅ`
        tér. notranji proctor. spás istigh. gofod mewnol.



        [ Even if there were such a thing as inner space then it would be
        invisible. ]



        Have it your way lad. To you it may be invisible, but not to me. It is
        not invisible when you are IN inner space. And when you are IN inner
        space then outer space is invisible. But the BIG one is when you see
        inner space and outer space at the same time. There is an affinity twix
        Time and Eternity. (X) And I am the journeyman and the watcher at the
        gates of dawn. What are you? Blind maybe? I have written more than
        enough about Below the Waves of Time. You have not understood a jot of
        it have you. I said it would be a waste of time and effort. And it was.



        There are three worlds sonny Jim, the outer physical world (whatever
        that is). The world which people make (and which stinks) and there is
        the inner world which is personal and private for everybody. That is
        where I live. What are you? And where are you? I am BEING, from the
        Ground of Being. Are you something else? If so then find out what. And
        then the fog might lift to expose more to you. Not much point in looking
        if you don't know what is looking or what it is looking at or why.
        Or maybe you don't care. If so then so be it. There is plenty of
        time. Time will never run out, for it serves a good purpose. Ab Aeterno
        Ad Hoc.



        rwr







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • eduardathome
        Ultimately, everything is an illusion. That is, if you consider an illusion to be what we think we see. Humans are like the captain of a submarine. He
        Message 3 of 13 , Dec 27, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Ultimately, everything is an illusion. That is, if you consider an
          "illusion" to be what we "think" we see. Humans are like the captain of a
          submarine. He moves his boat through the ocean by means of sensors instead
          of "seeing" what is actually out there. We also have sensors [taste, ear,
          eye, touch, etc. ], but it still isn't a case of really knowing the truth of
          something. We can, however, get close and this then becomes a sort of
          definition of how good is our interpretation. The "rightness" of our
          interpretation is the degree of its success. If at night I interpret the
          shadow in the living room as being the coffee table, the "rightness" of my
          interpretation is confirmed by the pain from bumping into it.

          The "truth" then becomes our best guess that is successful in time and
          place.

          The same is the case for mysticism. A mystic is a person who provides an
          interpretation that may be successful at the time, but for which the means
          of interpretation is not easily known by others ... its a mystery ... beyond
          normal perception.

          For example, if a mystic [or perhaps more a shaman] says it is going to
          snow, by looking a pile of thrown bones, he/she will continue to be listened
          to if it does snow. The best mystics are those who can give a better
          explanation when instead it rains. The church is good at that, in providing
          a prediction which doesn't turn out, the church responds ... "we not meant
          to know the ways of God".

          The statement of the mystic may not necessarily be related to something
          concrete. It can be abstract as to say that if you do such-n-such you will
          "feel" different. If you then feel different, whether happy or sad or
          whatever, the mystic was right. If you don't feel differently, you and
          others don't go back to the mystic and he starves from lack of business.

          Better said; everything is an interpretation. For people whose business is
          that of broadcasting their interpretations to others [e.g. Jesus], they are
          notable in history when their sayings for the most part find a resonance in
          the minds of others. They are the producers of memes.

          I should think that this is the case for "inner space". I suspect that it
          works because it is a phrase to which we are attuned in our particular
          culture. In other cultures and in other times, it may not be understood. I
          wonder what might be the reaction of a person living in the middle ages in
          some hut near the walls of muddy London, if he were asked what he thought
          about his "inner space".

          In a way, to navigate our inner space. one needs a mystic to provide
          interpretations of what is found and directions to be taken. Mystics and
          initiates were big in old time Greece. Big as well in today's world.

          eduard


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Dick.
          Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:09 AM
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [existlist] Inner Space


          Inner Space



          [ ....those postings you have done recently over the past 6 months have
          been especially of your own mark. Much Love and Blessings as we continue
          to Journey on. ]



          The reason they are of my own mark is because I have found nobody else
          who writes and talks about inner space. Perhaps other than interior
          decorators and folks who convert your loft. Even so called mystics and
          psychics talk about the world, outer space, the universe, but they do
          not talk about inner pace or the journey through it. They talk a lot of
          irrelevant shite. They don't seem to know that there is such a
          thing as inner space; let alone what is there to find. That is why it
          all sounds different. Been doing it for fifty years ma'am, not six
          months. I sometimes feel as though I am the ONLY mystic. It sure makes
          you wonder doesn't it.



          For the record most say it is an illusion/hallucination. 75 years would
          be a long hallucination :- ) Some say everything is an illusion. Some
          say that only life is an illusion. Some say that only the things they
          don't like are an illusion. Some say that only the things which they
          don't understand are an illusion. So, you can see why talking to
          people is pointless. Apart for hello and goodbye.



          I hear tell that the USA has a lot of snow this Yuletide. We had rain,
          fog, more rain, and more fog :- ) Didn't see any floods on the way
          home from London but we sure saw a lot of rain and fog; even when we
          took a detour across Salisbury plain to miss a big hold up on the A303.
          Good to be home again. I slept for ten hours :- ) Did you know that they
          do not light up Stonehenge at Yuletide? I will have to complain to the
          gnomes of Zurich for permission.



          Journey on? I wonder what comes next. Peace and silence I hope.



          Merlin of Exmoor







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          ------------------------------------

          Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

          Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        • Mary
          What seems true to me, eduard, is that you specialize in a reductionist approach to phenomenology while mine is more dialectical. So it seems to me there is no
          Message 4 of 13 , Dec 27, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            What seems true to me, eduard, is that you specialize in a reductionist approach to phenomenology while mine is more dialectical. So it seems to me there is no out there, or ocean of phenomena, but an interactive relationship between objects in themselves, including human. Objects themselves are true in themselves as subject, and subjects are true objects. An appearance is truth but it's only arrived at dialectically and speculatively. Experience alone does not suffice to demonstrate what is true. The notion, concept, or idea of objects are an unfolding truth. Truth changes but I don't believe successful experiences alone determine it. Scepticism and speculative reason are philosophical thought.

            Mary

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
            >
            > Ultimately, everything is an illusion. That is, if you consider an
            > "illusion" to be what we "think" we see. Humans are like the captain of a
            > submarine. He moves his boat through the ocean by means of sensors instead
            > of "seeing" what is actually out there. We also have sensors [taste, ear,
            > eye, touch, etc. ], but it still isn't a case of really knowing the truth of
            > something. We can, however, get close and this then becomes a sort of
            > definition of how good is our interpretation. The "rightness" of our
            > interpretation is the degree of its success. If at night I interpret the
            > shadow in the living room as being the coffee table, the "rightness" of my
            > interpretation is confirmed by the pain from bumping into it.
            >
            > The "truth" then becomes our best guess that is successful in time and
            > place.
          • eduardathome
            I was speaking to the issue of whether humans can actually know the truth of something. My view is that we can never know the truth for reason that the
            Message 5 of 13 , Dec 27, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              I was speaking to the issue of whether humans can actually "know" the truth
              of something. My view is that we can never know the truth for reason that
              the means to our knowledge is always a matter of interpretation.

              I suppose that in a way, mathematics is an area for which the truth can be
              identified. 2 + 2 = 4. But then it is true because we say it is. It is
              not necessarily the case that 2 of something, plus 2 of something is
              actually equal to 4 of something. Sometimes it isn't, as say for example
              when the values are vectors.

              I am not saying that experience demonstrates what is true in the sense of
              absolute truth. What I am saying is that experience can get sufficiently
              close that we can accept it as true in a specific time and place. I guess
              the label here would be relativism or something like that. The "truth" that
              we identify in this time/place may not be true in some other time/place or
              for some other person.

              Something is said to be true if it works and yes that relates to experience.
              That the shadow is a coffee table is true, because I experienced pain in
              bumping into it. But even then it may not be true. The pain may be from
              bumping into a chair. The search for truth is like peeling an onion till we
              get so close that it is obvious or we say it is obvious because further
              peeling is unlikely to reveal something else. And the stress is upon the
              "unlikely". Sometimes "unlikely" is dependent upon the degree of effort and
              worth of going further.

              Some think that the "laws" of science point to some kind of truth. But I
              doubt that any scientist would say that it is absolute. A law in science is
              a best guess whose result is repeatable through experimentation. If we get
              a different answer, the law is modified or abandoned. So much for truth.

              eduard



              -----Original Message-----
              From: Mary
              Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:00 PM
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [existlist] Re: Inner Space

              What seems true to me, eduard, is that you specialize in a reductionist
              approach to phenomenology while mine is more dialectical. So it seems to me
              there is no out there, or ocean of phenomena, but an interactive
              relationship between objects in themselves, including human. Objects
              themselves are true in themselves as subject, and subjects are true objects.
              An appearance is truth but it's only arrived at dialectically and
              speculatively. Experience alone does not suffice to demonstrate what is
              true. The notion, concept, or idea of objects are an unfolding truth. Truth
              changes but I don't believe successful experiences alone determine it.
              Scepticism and speculative reason are philosophical thought.

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
              >
              > Ultimately, everything is an illusion. That is, if you consider an
              > "illusion" to be what we "think" we see. Humans are like the captain of a
              > submarine. He moves his boat through the ocean by means of sensors
              > instead
              > of "seeing" what is actually out there. We also have sensors [taste, ear,
              > eye, touch, etc. ], but it still isn't a case of really knowing the truth
              > of
              > something. We can, however, get close and this then becomes a sort of
              > definition of how good is our interpretation. The "rightness" of our
              > interpretation is the degree of its success. If at night I interpret the
              > shadow in the living room as being the coffee table, the "rightness" of my
              > interpretation is confirmed by the pain from bumping into it.
              >
              > The "truth" then becomes our best guess that is successful in time and
              > place.




              ------------------------------------

              Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

              Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
            • Mary
              I think a couple of things are interesting about your perspective. The limitation of knowing the entire or whole truth about anything and this matter of
              Message 6 of 13 , Dec 28, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                I think a couple of things are interesting about your perspective. The limitation of knowing the entire or whole truth about anything and this matter of interpretation aren't really an obstacle or hindrance. These demonstrate not an intransigence on the part of phenomena and appearances in preventing our understanding but a structural reality. We don't try to get behind the appearance or to peel the layers away to reach some absolute truth; there is nothing at the core; appearance is reality. Certainly relative perception and personal experience play a role in this endeavor, but ultimately all our efforts point to a core of nothing rather than a something which is defying our efforts to reach it. What I've come to accept about understanding and the pursuit of truth is that the motion of thought itself demonstrates a circling around any absolute. The movement between contradictions and oppositions is just as significant. Scientific principles which are discovered and applied are similar to philosophical ones in that they change and develop through sublation. Something is kept as true but something is also discarded as false. Perception, though differing from person to person, is universal. All humans perceive, so relative perception plays a role in our understanding and can be studied in regards to reason. If our particular or personal perception differs extremely from others it can also reveal something about perception as much as more commonly agreed upon perceptions. Differences don't necessarily lead us to relativism or nihilism. Difference itself can become an important part of understanding, truth, knowledge, or reality. Think of all the neurological studies that are done on the brains of people who differ severely from so called normal brains. The differences can inform what is previously understood as normal. The current and somewhat annoying meme "the new normal" actually helps explain this but only when taken more seriously. Truth is a development of a notion; only the idea is real.

                Mary

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
                >
                > I was speaking to the issue of whether humans can actually "know" the truth
                > of something. My view is that we can never know the truth for reason that
                > the means to our knowledge is always a matter of interpretation.
                >
                > I suppose that in a way, mathematics is an area for which the truth can be
                > identified. 2 + 2 = 4. But then it is true because we say it is. It is
                > not necessarily the case that 2 of something, plus 2 of something is
                > actually equal to 4 of something. Sometimes it isn't, as say for example
                > when the values are vectors.
                >
                > I am not saying that experience demonstrates what is true in the sense of
                > absolute truth. What I am saying is that experience can get sufficiently
                > close that we can accept it as true in a specific time and place. I guess
                > the label here would be relativism or something like that. The "truth" that
                > we identify in this time/place may not be true in some other time/place or
                > for some other person.
                >
                > Something is said to be true if it works and yes that relates to experience.
                > That the shadow is a coffee table is true, because I experienced pain in
                > bumping into it. But even then it may not be true. The pain may be from
                > bumping into a chair. The search for truth is like peeling an onion till we
                > get so close that it is obvious or we say it is obvious because further
                > peeling is unlikely to reveal something else. And the stress is upon the
                > "unlikely". Sometimes "unlikely" is dependent upon the degree of effort and
                > worth of going further.
                >
                > Some think that the "laws" of science point to some kind of truth. But I
                > doubt that any scientist would say that it is absolute. A law in science is
                > a best guess whose result is repeatable through experimentation. If we get
                > a different answer, the law is modified or abandoned. So much for truth.
                >
                > eduard
                >
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Mary
                > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:00 PM
                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [existlist] Re: Inner Space
                >
                > What seems true to me, eduard, is that you specialize in a reductionist
                > approach to phenomenology while mine is more dialectical. So it seems to me
                > there is no out there, or ocean of phenomena, but an interactive
                > relationship between objects in themselves, including human. Objects
                > themselves are true in themselves as subject, and subjects are true objects.
                > An appearance is truth but it's only arrived at dialectically and
                > speculatively. Experience alone does not suffice to demonstrate what is
                > true. The notion, concept, or idea of objects are an unfolding truth. Truth
                > changes but I don't believe successful experiences alone determine it.
                > Scepticism and speculative reason are philosophical thought.
                >
                > Mary
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Ultimately, everything is an illusion. That is, if you consider an
                > > "illusion" to be what we "think" we see. Humans are like the captain of a
                > > submarine. He moves his boat through the ocean by means of sensors
                > > instead
                > > of "seeing" what is actually out there. We also have sensors [taste, ear,
                > > eye, touch, etc. ], but it still isn't a case of really knowing the truth
                > > of
                > > something. We can, however, get close and this then becomes a sort of
                > > definition of how good is our interpretation. The "rightness" of our
                > > interpretation is the degree of its success. If at night I interpret the
                > > shadow in the living room as being the coffee table, the "rightness" of my
                > > interpretation is confirmed by the pain from bumping into it.
                > >
                > > The "truth" then becomes our best guess that is successful in time and
                > > place.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                >
                > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                >
              • William
                Message 7 of 13 , Dec 28, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I think a couple of things are interesting about your perspective. The limitation of knowing the entire or whole truth about anything and this matter of interpretation aren't really an obstacle or hindrance. These demonstrate not an intransigence on the part of phenomena and appearances in preventing our understanding but a structural reality. We don't try to get behind the appearance or to peel the layers away to reach some absolute truth; there is nothing at the core; appearance is reality. Certainly relative perception and personal experience play a role in this endeavor, but ultimately all our efforts point to a core of nothing rather than a something which is defying our efforts to reach it. What I've come to accept about understanding and the pursuit of truth is that the motion of thought itself demonstrates a circling around any absolute. The movement between contradictions and oppositions is just as significant. Scientific principles which are discovered and applied are similar to philosophical ones in that they change and develop through sublation. Something is kept as true but something is also discarded as false. Perception, though differing from person to person, is universal. All humans perceive, so relative perception plays a role in our understanding and can be studied in regards to reason. If our particular or personal perception differs extremely from others it can also reveal something about perception as much as more commonly agreed upon perceptions. Differences don't necessarily lead us to relativism or nihilism. Difference itself can become an important part of understanding, truth, knowledge, or reality. Think of all the neurological studies that are done on the brains of people who differ severely from so called normal brains. The differences can inform what is previously understood as normal. The current and somewhat annoying meme "the new normal" actually helps explain this but only when taken more seriously. Truth is a development of a notion; only the idea is real.
                  >
                  > Mary
                  > Mary, Those abnormal brains could be called mutants. It is mutation that causes evolution . I think Dick says we are evolving toward his new species. Mystics are fringe people who have had unusual experiences. I will not go so far as to call Dick a mutant but I will use the term other evolved. He does not think like the rest of us but when he calls an end point something and we call it another we would seem to be on a common progress. I would like for Dick to be correct because he says it ushers in a better world. I would ask how these edge of the curve individuals can ever hyperpersonalise when they are the most distant and distracted of the species? I agee with you Mary that at the crux of supposed truth os a ever changing nidus of thoughts an as scientific theories are always susceptable to change. This super human will have to be a more survivable species and so far I see no particular group exhibiting vastly greater traits. I do not want to try and out guess evolution and I would not try to predict it. Now I might say it appears that smart people will become dominant. OK, Ill go that far as a bigger brain is where the primate species has been heading. We could call that a solid postulate and fewer,smarter people could probably run a better world. I do not know if it will go that way and find a sudden leap forward to new specis would be counter to the present rate of evolution. So I agree the ideas seemingly at some core are just hubs of ideas that may or may not remain. Chardin strongly hinted that only god could push mandkind to unite with him in an Omega point. Just too much theology for me . It seems to me a most improbable outcome ,especially since I am an athiest. Bill
                  > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I was speaking to the issue of whether humans can actually "know" the truth
                  > > of something. My view is that we can never know the truth for reason that
                  > > the means to our knowledge is always a matter of interpretation.
                  > >
                  > > I suppose that in a way, mathematics is an area for which the truth can be
                  > > identified. 2 + 2 = 4. But then it is true because we say it is. It is
                  > > not necessarily the case that 2 of something, plus 2 of something is
                  > > actually equal to 4 of something. Sometimes it isn't, as say for example
                  > > when the values are vectors.
                  > >
                  > > I am not saying that experience demonstrates what is true in the sense of
                  > > absolute truth. What I am saying is that experience can get sufficiently
                  > > close that we can accept it as true in a specific time and place. I guess
                  > > the label here would be relativism or something like that. The "truth" that
                  > > we identify in this time/place may not be true in some other time/place or
                  > > for some other person.
                  > >
                  > > Something is said to be true if it works and yes that relates to experience.
                  > > That the shadow is a coffee table is true, because I experienced pain in
                  > > bumping into it. But even then it may not be true. The pain may be from
                  > > bumping into a chair. The search for truth is like peeling an onion till we
                  > > get so close that it is obvious or we say it is obvious because further
                  > > peeling is unlikely to reveal something else. And the stress is upon the
                  > > "unlikely". Sometimes "unlikely" is dependent upon the degree of effort and
                  > > worth of going further.
                  > >
                  > > Some think that the "laws" of science point to some kind of truth. But I
                  > > doubt that any scientist would say that it is absolute. A law in science is
                  > > a best guess whose result is repeatable through experimentation. If we get
                  > > a different answer, the law is modified or abandoned. So much for truth.
                  > >
                  > > eduard
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: Mary
                  > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:00 PM
                  > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Inner Space
                  > >
                  > > What seems true to me, eduard, is that you specialize in a reductionist
                  > > approach to phenomenology while mine is more dialectical. So it seems to me
                  > > there is no out there, or ocean of phenomena, but an interactive
                  > > relationship between objects in themselves, including human. Objects
                  > > themselves are true in themselves as subject, and subjects are true objects.
                  > > An appearance is truth but it's only arrived at dialectically and
                  > > speculatively. Experience alone does not suffice to demonstrate what is
                  > > true. The notion, concept, or idea of objects are an unfolding truth. Truth
                  > > changes but I don't believe successful experiences alone determine it.
                  > > Scepticism and speculative reason are philosophical thought.
                  > >
                  > > Mary
                  > >
                  > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Ultimately, everything is an illusion. That is, if you consider an
                  > > > "illusion" to be what we "think" we see. Humans are like the captain of a
                  > > > submarine. He moves his boat through the ocean by means of sensors
                  > > > instead
                  > > > of "seeing" what is actually out there. We also have sensors [taste, ear,
                  > > > eye, touch, etc. ], but it still isn't a case of really knowing the truth
                  > > > of
                  > > > something. We can, however, get close and this then becomes a sort of
                  > > > definition of how good is our interpretation. The "rightness" of our
                  > > > interpretation is the degree of its success. If at night I interpret the
                  > > > shadow in the living room as being the coffee table, the "rightness" of my
                  > > > interpretation is confirmed by the pain from bumping into it.
                  > > >
                  > > > The "truth" then becomes our best guess that is successful in time and
                  > > > place.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                  > >
                  > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  >
                • eduardathome
                  Truth is a development of a notion . But is it the truth ?? My use of the analogy of peeling back an onion is only to show that even if we were to
                  Message 8 of 13 , Dec 28, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "Truth is a development of a notion".

                    But is it the "truth"?? My use of the analogy of peeling back an onion is
                    only to show that even if we were to investigate further, we still do not
                    come to the absolute truth of anything. I am no suggesting that the real
                    truth lies at the core of something. We cannot know the truth, because
                    whatever we do it is always an interpretation and not the thing itself.
                    What this leads to, and which I have been thinking about for some time, is
                    that if you cannot know the absolute truth, then there is some validity in
                    making up a truth to suit yourself and your needs at the time. A good
                    fantasy may do you good; given that we live such short lives.

                    It gets back to Saint Paul and why he kick-started Christianity. Most of
                    the letters in the New Testament as well as Romans are his writing. Now one
                    could say that he did not have much of a choice considering that human
                    outlook at the time included gods of whatever nature or religion. Saint
                    Paul was not in a position to consider being an atheist. At least I don't
                    think so. Even Epicurus believed in gods, albeit he was of the opinion that
                    the gods did not really care about humans.

                    Saint Paul identified the particular "truth" that he wanted to believe. And
                    we know today that most of it was likely not actually true ... in regard to
                    Jesus. Actually we just don't know. The gospels in their original
                    versions are not available. We do not even have the copies of the copies of
                    copies of the original versions. For 300 years or so, the gospels were
                    amended to suit the particular thinking at the time and what was later to
                    become the orthodox canon. Saint Paul chose to believe the developing
                    mythology/truth and to broadcast it to the Gentiles. My guess is that he
                    truly believed that the end of days was to occur in his generation and thus
                    the need for the creation of churches to which he corresponded to get people
                    prepared. Like organizing people in preparation of 21 December 2012.

                    Truth is indeed a development. And since we you can't know the absolute
                    truth ... then substitute whatever suits you.

                    eduardathome

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Mary
                    Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 12:29 PM
                    To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [existlist] Re: Inner Space

                    I think a couple of things are interesting about your perspective. The
                    limitation of knowing the entire or whole truth about anything and this
                    matter of interpretation aren't really an obstacle or hindrance. These
                    demonstrate not an intransigence on the part of phenomena and appearances in
                    preventing our understanding but a structural reality. We don't try to get
                    behind the appearance or to peel the layers away to reach some absolute
                    truth; there is nothing at the core; appearance is reality. Certainly
                    relative perception and personal experience play a role in this endeavor,
                    but ultimately all our efforts point to a core of nothing rather than a
                    something which is defying our efforts to reach it. What I've come to accept
                    about understanding and the pursuit of truth is that the motion of thought
                    itself demonstrates a circling around any absolute. The movement between
                    contradictions and oppositions is just as significant. Scientific principles
                    which are discovered and applied are
                    similar to philosophical ones in that they change and develop through
                    sublation. Something is kept as true but something is also discarded as
                    false. Perception, though differing from person to person, is universal. All
                    humans perceive, so relative perception plays a role in our understanding
                    and can be studied in regards to reason. If our particular or personal
                    perception differs extremely from others it can also reveal something about
                    perception as much as more commonly agreed upon perceptions. Differences
                    don't necessarily lead us to relativism or nihilism. Difference itself can
                    become an important part of understanding, truth, knowledge, or reality.
                    Think of all the neurological studies that are done on the brains of people
                    who differ severely from so called normal brains. The differences can inform
                    what is previously understood as normal. The current and somewhat annoying
                    meme "the new normal" actually helps explain this but only when taken more
                    seriously. Truth is a development
                    of a notion; only the idea is real.

                    Mary

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I was speaking to the issue of whether humans can actually "know" the
                    > truth
                    > of something. My view is that we can never know the truth for reason that
                    > the means to our knowledge is always a matter of interpretation.
                    >
                    > I suppose that in a way, mathematics is an area for which the truth can be
                    > identified. 2 + 2 = 4. But then it is true because we say it is. It is
                    > not necessarily the case that 2 of something, plus 2 of something is
                    > actually equal to 4 of something. Sometimes it isn't, as say for example
                    > when the values are vectors.
                    >
                    > I am not saying that experience demonstrates what is true in the sense of
                    > absolute truth. What I am saying is that experience can get sufficiently
                    > close that we can accept it as true in a specific time and place. I guess
                    > the label here would be relativism or something like that. The "truth"
                    > that
                    > we identify in this time/place may not be true in some other time/place or
                    > for some other person.
                    >
                    > Something is said to be true if it works and yes that relates to
                    > experience.
                    > That the shadow is a coffee table is true, because I experienced pain in
                    > bumping into it. But even then it may not be true. The pain may be from
                    > bumping into a chair. The search for truth is like peeling an onion till
                    > we
                    > get so close that it is obvious or we say it is obvious because further
                    > peeling is unlikely to reveal something else. And the stress is upon the
                    > "unlikely". Sometimes "unlikely" is dependent upon the degree of effort
                    > and
                    > worth of going further.
                    >
                    > Some think that the "laws" of science point to some kind of truth. But I
                    > doubt that any scientist would say that it is absolute. A law in science
                    > is
                    > a best guess whose result is repeatable through experimentation. If we
                    > get
                    > a different answer, the law is modified or abandoned. So much for truth.
                    >
                    > eduard
                    >
                  • Mary
                    I suppose another way to explain this is to say there is no absolute truth except the developing notion of particular phenomena. The motion of thought between
                    Message 9 of 13 , Dec 28, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I suppose another way to explain this is to say there is no absolute truth except the developing notion of particular phenomena. The motion of thought between opposites and contradictions might cause one to adopt nihilistic or postmodern stances, but the motion itself is truth. This development of a notion between what is observed and the observer is true but is guided by principles such as those found in science. I generally doubt self-tailoring truth will work in the sciences, so I reject it for philosophy. But since existentialism is not generally accorded the same respect and rigor as other philosophical systems, I suppose postmodernity will forever be how existentialism is interpreted. As an engineer, I'm surprised you don't demand this thoroughness from philosophy. Personally, I think ethical nihilism is closer to existentialism than postmodernity. If there is nothing at the core of objects, only their pure appearance, our resulting freedom towards them should be an attitude of responsibility. This is the foundation of existentialism as I see it.

                      Mary

                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > "Truth is a development of a notion".
                      >
                      > But is it the "truth"?? My use of the analogy of peeling back an onion is
                      > only to show that even if we were to investigate further, we still do not
                      > come to the absolute truth of anything. I am no suggesting that the real
                      > truth lies at the core of something. We cannot know the truth, because
                      > whatever we do it is always an interpretation and not the thing itself.
                      > What this leads to, and which I have been thinking about for some time, is
                      > that if you cannot know the absolute truth, then there is some validity in
                      > making up a truth to suit yourself and your needs at the time. A good
                      > fantasy may do you good; given that we live such short lives.
                      >
                      > It gets back to Saint Paul and why he kick-started Christianity. Most of
                      > the letters in the New Testament as well as Romans are his writing. Now one
                      > could say that he did not have much of a choice considering that human
                      > outlook at the time included gods of whatever nature or religion. Saint
                      > Paul was not in a position to consider being an atheist. At least I don't
                      > think so. Even Epicurus believed in gods, albeit he was of the opinion that
                      > the gods did not really care about humans.
                      >
                      > Saint Paul identified the particular "truth" that he wanted to believe. And
                      > we know today that most of it was likely not actually true ... in regard to
                      > Jesus. Actually we just don't know. The gospels in their original
                      > versions are not available. We do not even have the copies of the copies of
                      > copies of the original versions. For 300 years or so, the gospels were
                      > amended to suit the particular thinking at the time and what was later to
                      > become the orthodox canon. Saint Paul chose to believe the developing
                      > mythology/truth and to broadcast it to the Gentiles. My guess is that he
                      > truly believed that the end of days was to occur in his generation and thus
                      > the need for the creation of churches to which he corresponded to get people
                      > prepared. Like organizing people in preparation of 21 December 2012.
                      >
                      > Truth is indeed a development. And since we you can't know the absolute
                      > truth ... then substitute whatever suits you.
                      >
                      > eduardathome
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Mary
                      > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 12:29 PM
                      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Inner Space
                      >
                      > I think a couple of things are interesting about your perspective. The
                      > limitation of knowing the entire or whole truth about anything and this
                      > matter of interpretation aren't really an obstacle or hindrance. These
                      > demonstrate not an intransigence on the part of phenomena and appearances in
                      > preventing our understanding but a structural reality. We don't try to get
                      > behind the appearance or to peel the layers away to reach some absolute
                      > truth; there is nothing at the core; appearance is reality. Certainly
                      > relative perception and personal experience play a role in this endeavor,
                      > but ultimately all our efforts point to a core of nothing rather than a
                      > something which is defying our efforts to reach it. What I've come to accept
                      > about understanding and the pursuit of truth is that the motion of thought
                      > itself demonstrates a circling around any absolute. The movement between
                      > contradictions and oppositions is just as significant. Scientific principles
                      > which are discovered and applied are
                      > similar to philosophical ones in that they change and develop through
                      > sublation. Something is kept as true but something is also discarded as
                      > false. Perception, though differing from person to person, is universal. All
                      > humans perceive, so relative perception plays a role in our understanding
                      > and can be studied in regards to reason. If our particular or personal
                      > perception differs extremely from others it can also reveal something about
                      > perception as much as more commonly agreed upon perceptions. Differences
                      > don't necessarily lead us to relativism or nihilism. Difference itself can
                      > become an important part of understanding, truth, knowledge, or reality.
                      > Think of all the neurological studies that are done on the brains of people
                      > who differ severely from so called normal brains. The differences can inform
                      > what is previously understood as normal. The current and somewhat annoying
                      > meme "the new normal" actually helps explain this but only when taken more
                      > seriously. Truth is a development
                      > of a notion; only the idea is real.
                      >
                      > Mary
                      >
                      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > I was speaking to the issue of whether humans can actually "know" the
                      > > truth
                      > > of something. My view is that we can never know the truth for reason that
                      > > the means to our knowledge is always a matter of interpretation.
                      > >
                      > > I suppose that in a way, mathematics is an area for which the truth can be
                      > > identified. 2 + 2 = 4. But then it is true because we say it is. It is
                      > > not necessarily the case that 2 of something, plus 2 of something is
                      > > actually equal to 4 of something. Sometimes it isn't, as say for example
                      > > when the values are vectors.
                      > >
                      > > I am not saying that experience demonstrates what is true in the sense of
                      > > absolute truth. What I am saying is that experience can get sufficiently
                      > > close that we can accept it as true in a specific time and place. I guess
                      > > the label here would be relativism or something like that. The "truth"
                      > > that
                      > > we identify in this time/place may not be true in some other time/place or
                      > > for some other person.
                      > >
                      > > Something is said to be true if it works and yes that relates to
                      > > experience.
                      > > That the shadow is a coffee table is true, because I experienced pain in
                      > > bumping into it. But even then it may not be true. The pain may be from
                      > > bumping into a chair. The search for truth is like peeling an onion till
                      > > we
                      > > get so close that it is obvious or we say it is obvious because further
                      > > peeling is unlikely to reveal something else. And the stress is upon the
                      > > "unlikely". Sometimes "unlikely" is dependent upon the degree of effort
                      > > and
                      > > worth of going further.
                      > >
                      > > Some think that the "laws" of science point to some kind of truth. But I
                      > > doubt that any scientist would say that it is absolute. A law in science
                      > > is
                      > > a best guess whose result is repeatable through experimentation. If we
                      > > get
                      > > a different answer, the law is modified or abandoned. So much for truth.
                      > >
                      > > eduard
                      > >
                      >
                    • Mary
                      Bill, The current trend is to predict a post-human or trans-human species, one microchip enhanced and/or genetically modified. I don t think this will happen
                      Message 10 of 13 , Dec 28, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Bill,

                        The current trend is to predict a post-human or trans-human species, one microchip enhanced and/or genetically modified. I don't think this will happen because thought, though it tends to be slavish, is also rebellious. Many people confuse power and success with intelligence, and it's my hope this perception ends.

                        Mary

                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > I think a couple of things are interesting about your perspective. The limitation of knowing the entire or whole truth about anything and this matter of interpretation aren't really an obstacle or hindrance. These demonstrate not an intransigence on the part of phenomena and appearances in preventing our understanding but a structural reality. We don't try to get behind the appearance or to peel the layers away to reach some absolute truth; there is nothing at the core; appearance is reality. Certainly relative perception and personal experience play a role in this endeavor, but ultimately all our efforts point to a core of nothing rather than a something which is defying our efforts to reach it. What I've come to accept about understanding and the pursuit of truth is that the motion of thought itself demonstrates a circling around any absolute. The movement between contradictions and oppositions is just as significant. Scientific principles which are discovered and applied are similar to philosophical ones in that they change and develop through sublation. Something is kept as true but something is also discarded as false. Perception, though differing from person to person, is universal. All humans perceive, so relative perception plays a role in our understanding and can be studied in regards to reason. If our particular or personal perception differs extremely from others it can also reveal something about perception as much as more commonly agreed upon perceptions. Differences don't necessarily lead us to relativism or nihilism. Difference itself can become an important part of understanding, truth, knowledge, or reality. Think of all the neurological studies that are done on the brains of people who differ severely from so called normal brains. The differences can inform what is previously understood as normal. The current and somewhat annoying meme "the new normal" actually helps explain this but only when taken more seriously. Truth is a development of a notion; only the idea is real.
                        > >
                        > > Mary
                        > > Mary, Those abnormal brains could be called mutants. It is mutation that causes evolution . I think Dick says we are evolving toward his new species. Mystics are fringe people who have had unusual experiences. I will not go so far as to call Dick a mutant but I will use the term other evolved. He does not think like the rest of us but when he calls an end point something and we call it another we would seem to be on a common progress. I would like for Dick to be correct because he says it ushers in a better world. I would ask how these edge of the curve individuals can ever hyperpersonalise when they are the most distant and distracted of the species? I agee with you Mary that at the crux of supposed truth os a ever changing nidus of thoughts an as scientific theories are always susceptable to change. This super human will have to be a more survivable species and so far I see no particular group exhibiting vastly greater traits. I do not want to try and out guess evolution and I would not try to predict it. Now I might say it appears that smart people will become dominant. OK, Ill go that far as a bigger brain is where the primate species has been heading. We could call that a solid postulate and fewer,smarter people could probably run a better world. I do not know if it will go that way and find a sudden leap forward to new specis would be counter to the present rate of evolution. So I agree the ideas seemingly at some core are just hubs of ideas that may or may not remain. Chardin strongly hinted that only god could push mandkind to unite with him in an Omega point. Just too much theology for me . It seems to me a most improbable outcome ,especially since I am an athiest. Bill
                        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > I was speaking to the issue of whether humans can actually "know" the truth
                        > > > of something. My view is that we can never know the truth for reason that
                        > > > the means to our knowledge is always a matter of interpretation.
                        > > >
                        > > > I suppose that in a way, mathematics is an area for which the truth can be
                        > > > identified. 2 + 2 = 4. But then it is true because we say it is. It is
                        > > > not necessarily the case that 2 of something, plus 2 of something is
                        > > > actually equal to 4 of something. Sometimes it isn't, as say for example
                        > > > when the values are vectors.
                        > > >
                        > > > I am not saying that experience demonstrates what is true in the sense of
                        > > > absolute truth. What I am saying is that experience can get sufficiently
                        > > > close that we can accept it as true in a specific time and place. I guess
                        > > > the label here would be relativism or something like that. The "truth" that
                        > > > we identify in this time/place may not be true in some other time/place or
                        > > > for some other person.
                        > > >
                        > > > Something is said to be true if it works and yes that relates to experience.
                        > > > That the shadow is a coffee table is true, because I experienced pain in
                        > > > bumping into it. But even then it may not be true. The pain may be from
                        > > > bumping into a chair. The search for truth is like peeling an onion till we
                        > > > get so close that it is obvious or we say it is obvious because further
                        > > > peeling is unlikely to reveal something else. And the stress is upon the
                        > > > "unlikely". Sometimes "unlikely" is dependent upon the degree of effort and
                        > > > worth of going further.
                        > > >
                        > > > Some think that the "laws" of science point to some kind of truth. But I
                        > > > doubt that any scientist would say that it is absolute. A law in science is
                        > > > a best guess whose result is repeatable through experimentation. If we get
                        > > > a different answer, the law is modified or abandoned. So much for truth.
                        > > >
                        > > > eduard
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > > From: Mary
                        > > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:00 PM
                        > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Inner Space
                        > > >
                        > > > What seems true to me, eduard, is that you specialize in a reductionist
                        > > > approach to phenomenology while mine is more dialectical. So it seems to me
                        > > > there is no out there, or ocean of phenomena, but an interactive
                        > > > relationship between objects in themselves, including human. Objects
                        > > > themselves are true in themselves as subject, and subjects are true objects.
                        > > > An appearance is truth but it's only arrived at dialectically and
                        > > > speculatively. Experience alone does not suffice to demonstrate what is
                        > > > true. The notion, concept, or idea of objects are an unfolding truth. Truth
                        > > > changes but I don't believe successful experiences alone determine it.
                        > > > Scepticism and speculative reason are philosophical thought.
                        > > >
                        > > > Mary
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Ultimately, everything is an illusion. That is, if you consider an
                        > > > > "illusion" to be what we "think" we see. Humans are like the captain of a
                        > > > > submarine. He moves his boat through the ocean by means of sensors
                        > > > > instead
                        > > > > of "seeing" what is actually out there. We also have sensors [taste, ear,
                        > > > > eye, touch, etc. ], but it still isn't a case of really knowing the truth
                        > > > > of
                        > > > > something. We can, however, get close and this then becomes a sort of
                        > > > > definition of how good is our interpretation. The "rightness" of our
                        > > > > interpretation is the degree of its success. If at night I interpret the
                        > > > > shadow in the living room as being the coffee table, the "rightness" of my
                        > > > > interpretation is confirmed by the pain from bumping into it.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > The "truth" then becomes our best guess that is successful in time and
                        > > > > place.
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > ------------------------------------
                        > > >
                        > > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                        > > >
                        > > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • William
                        ... I agree with you that no majority will opt for chosen mutation or chip driven mass culture. Democracy is big ship that takes huge energy to change
                        Message 11 of 13 , Dec 29, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Bill,
                          >
                          > The current trend is to predict a post-human or trans-human species, one microchip enhanced and/or genetically modified. I don't think this will happen because thought, though it tends to be slavish, is also rebellious. Many people confuse power and success with intelligence, and it's my hope this perception ends.
                          >
                          > Mary
                          > Mary,I think at the core is the law. That which is written and signed has the weight of full perusal and engrossed involement. Single person opinion presents ideas but they are not ratified by any majority or judicial authority. The law precludes anarchy and as Mao proclamed "all power comes from the barrel of a gun".The law is backed up with force and post modernist concepts of deconstruction and irresponsibility are just the musings of disquieted individuals.Philosophy is an individual endeavour and is thrown in the pool of ideas to be considered and endlessly adjusted.
                          I agree with you that no majority will opt for chosen mutation or chip driven mass culture. Democracy is big ship that takes huge energy to change course.The recent legislative debates in Washington demonstrate the slowness of process and the gradual evolution of law . I picked existentialism because it refuted moral authorites and said nothing contra to the law or science. I agree with you that science changes and it has an empirical substrate that sets standards that must be met.I find that rational and in line with Deccartes seminal concepts. Existentialism does not try to make law or force virtue. It sets forth a very general framework that spends more energy fighting moralisms and single person dogma.That sits in good position with the definition of philosophy as the things to which you cleve .You notice I do not use the term love.That is not a rational term and does not belong in my philosophy.Way too emotional with no thought out checks and balances.Existentialism in a basic way allows for change it takes into account very little, it is just a general philosophy that does not delve into personal specifics. Personal conduct is governed by law and customs derived in other systems already in existance. Any philosophy that imposes rules that have no general agreement as to their validity is beyond its scope and immediately suspect.Yes the things to which we cleve change. But all around us doe not move to our musings. Throw things out there as seeds an perhaps some will grow. Its a mesage in a bottle game. Bill

                          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > I think a couple of things are interesting about your perspective. The limitation of knowing the entire or whole truth about anything and this matter of interpretation aren't really an obstacle or hindrance. These demonstrate not an intransigence on the part of phenomena and appearances in preventing our understanding but a structural reality. We don't try to get behind the appearance or to peel the layers away to reach some absolute truth; there is nothing at the core; appearance is reality. Certainly relative perception and personal experience play a role in this endeavor, but ultimately all our efforts point to a core of nothing rather than a something which is defying our efforts to reach it. What I've come to accept about understanding and the pursuit of truth is that the motion of thought itself demonstrates a circling around any absolute. The movement between contradictions and oppositions is just as significant. Scientific principles which are discovered and applied are similar to philosophical ones in that they change and develop through sublation. Something is kept as true but something is also discarded as false. Perception, though differing from person to person, is universal. All humans perceive, so relative perception plays a role in our understanding and can be studied in regards to reason. If our particular or personal perception differs extremely from others it can also reveal something about perception as much as more commonly agreed upon perceptions. Differences don't necessarily lead us to relativism or nihilism. Difference itself can become an important part of understanding, truth, knowledge, or reality. Think of all the neurological studies that are done on the brains of people who differ severely from so called normal brains. The differences can inform what is previously understood as normal. The current and somewhat annoying meme "the new normal" actually helps explain this but only when taken more seriously. Truth is a development of a notion; only the idea is real.
                          > > >
                          > > > Mary
                          > > > Mary, Those abnormal brains could be called mutants. It is mutation that causes evolution . I think Dick says we are evolving toward his new species. Mystics are fringe people who have had unusual experiences. I will not go so far as to call Dick a mutant but I will use the term other evolved. He does not think like the rest of us but when he calls an end point something and we call it another we would seem to be on a common progress. I would like for Dick to be correct because he says it ushers in a better world. I would ask how these edge of the curve individuals can ever hyperpersonalise when they are the most distant and distracted of the species? I agee with you Mary that at the crux of supposed truth os a ever changing nidus of thoughts an as scientific theories are always susceptable to change. This super human will have to be a more survivable species and so far I see no particular group exhibiting vastly greater traits. I do not want to try and out guess evolution and I would not try to predict it. Now I might say it appears that smart people will become dominant. OK, Ill go that far as a bigger brain is where the primate species has been heading. We could call that a solid postulate and fewer,smarter people could probably run a better world. I do not know if it will go that way and find a sudden leap forward to new specis would be counter to the present rate of evolution. So I agree the ideas seemingly at some core are just hubs of ideas that may or may not remain. Chardin strongly hinted that only god could push mandkind to unite with him in an Omega point. Just too much theology for me . It seems to me a most improbable outcome ,especially since I am an athiest. Bill
                          > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I was speaking to the issue of whether humans can actually "know" the truth
                          > > > > of something. My view is that we can never know the truth for reason that
                          > > > > the means to our knowledge is always a matter of interpretation.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I suppose that in a way, mathematics is an area for which the truth can be
                          > > > > identified. 2 + 2 = 4. But then it is true because we say it is. It is
                          > > > > not necessarily the case that 2 of something, plus 2 of something is
                          > > > > actually equal to 4 of something. Sometimes it isn't, as say for example
                          > > > > when the values are vectors.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I am not saying that experience demonstrates what is true in the sense of
                          > > > > absolute truth. What I am saying is that experience can get sufficiently
                          > > > > close that we can accept it as true in a specific time and place. I guess
                          > > > > the label here would be relativism or something like that. The "truth" that
                          > > > > we identify in this time/place may not be true in some other time/place or
                          > > > > for some other person.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Something is said to be true if it works and yes that relates to experience.
                          > > > > That the shadow is a coffee table is true, because I experienced pain in
                          > > > > bumping into it. But even then it may not be true. The pain may be from
                          > > > > bumping into a chair. The search for truth is like peeling an onion till we
                          > > > > get so close that it is obvious or we say it is obvious because further
                          > > > > peeling is unlikely to reveal something else. And the stress is upon the
                          > > > > "unlikely". Sometimes "unlikely" is dependent upon the degree of effort and
                          > > > > worth of going further.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Some think that the "laws" of science point to some kind of truth. But I
                          > > > > doubt that any scientist would say that it is absolute. A law in science is
                          > > > > a best guess whose result is repeatable through experimentation. If we get
                          > > > > a different answer, the law is modified or abandoned. So much for truth.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > eduard
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > -----Original Message-----
                          > > > > From: Mary
                          > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:00 PM
                          > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Inner Space
                          > > > >
                          > > > > What seems true to me, eduard, is that you specialize in a reductionist
                          > > > > approach to phenomenology while mine is more dialectical. So it seems to me
                          > > > > there is no out there, or ocean of phenomena, but an interactive
                          > > > > relationship between objects in themselves, including human. Objects
                          > > > > themselves are true in themselves as subject, and subjects are true objects.
                          > > > > An appearance is truth but it's only arrived at dialectically and
                          > > > > speculatively. Experience alone does not suffice to demonstrate what is
                          > > > > true. The notion, concept, or idea of objects are an unfolding truth. Truth
                          > > > > changes but I don't believe successful experiences alone determine it.
                          > > > > Scepticism and speculative reason are philosophical thought.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Mary
                          > > > >
                          > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > Ultimately, everything is an illusion. That is, if you consider an
                          > > > > > "illusion" to be what we "think" we see. Humans are like the captain of a
                          > > > > > submarine. He moves his boat through the ocean by means of sensors
                          > > > > > instead
                          > > > > > of "seeing" what is actually out there. We also have sensors [taste, ear,
                          > > > > > eye, touch, etc. ], but it still isn't a case of really knowing the truth
                          > > > > > of
                          > > > > > something. We can, however, get close and this then becomes a sort of
                          > > > > > definition of how good is our interpretation. The "rightness" of our
                          > > > > > interpretation is the degree of its success. If at night I interpret the
                          > > > > > shadow in the living room as being the coffee table, the "rightness" of my
                          > > > > > interpretation is confirmed by the pain from bumping into it.
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > The "truth" then becomes our best guess that is successful in time and
                          > > > > > place.
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > ------------------------------------
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • eduardathome
                          I sometimes wonder what postmodern , postmodernism or postmodernity is. I find that these words are used from time to time in opinion pieces of newspaper
                          Message 12 of 13 , Dec 29, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I sometimes wonder what "postmodern", "postmodernism" or "postmodernity" is.
                            I find that these words are used from time to time in opinion pieces of
                            newspaper columnists, yet I have never found a concise definition as to know
                            the meaning. I am inclined to think ... as Dick Hebdige [see
                            "postmodernism" in Wikipedia] ... that it's a buzzword that points to
                            something else than that which is the subject of discussion. It's that
                            "other" thing.

                            As an engineer, I give recognition to things that work, even though they may
                            not have the best efficacy. Some things are just sufficient. With regard
                            to philosophy, as an outlook in life, our lives are so short that whatever
                            gets us from our teens to death with least unhappiness, is good enough.

                            As an engineer, I do indeed demand thoroughness from philosophy. Actually
                            of anything. My criteria is that it have a clarity so as to be immediately
                            understood. Which is not to say that one [the reader] should not be
                            forearmed with some level of knowledge, but too often a philosophy is
                            covered in words that have little meaning or at least do not serve to
                            illuminate the text. I used to read a columnist in the Ottawa Citizen
                            newspaper and more often than not I would end my reading with ... "what
                            the??".

                            "If there is nothing at the core of objects, only their pure appearance, our
                            resulting freedom towards them should be an attitude of responsibility".

                            I did not say that there was nothing at the core of objects. I said that
                            "peeling an onion" is an allegory for doing further investigation. One
                            hopes, in stripping away all the confounding elements, that the truth will
                            eventually be reached. My point of course is that the "absolute truth" is
                            never reached, since at each new level one has to interpret what is there.
                            I am positing that you can reach a level which may not be absolute truth,
                            but is sufficient truth, since it works for you. The corollary also
                            applies. If you do not find the real truth, you can make one up from first
                            cloth and it becomes the truth if it works for you.

                            How can I have "freedom" towards an object?? Or rather freedom towards
                            their appearance?? And how is this freedom qualified by an attitude of
                            responsibility?? I would suggest that if I feel a responsibility to an
                            object [assuming that such is indeed possible] then this would be the
                            opposite of "freedom". The idea of "free" is to be completely detached from
                            something. As soon as you are connected by responsibility, there is no
                            freedom.

                            eduard


                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: Mary
                            Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 10:33 PM
                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [existlist] Re: Inner Space

                            I suppose another way to explain this is to say there is no absolute truth
                            except the developing notion of particular phenomena. The motion of thought
                            between opposites and contradictions might cause one to adopt nihilistic or
                            postmodern stances, but the motion itself is truth. This development of a
                            notion between what is observed and the observer is true but is guided by
                            principles such as those found in science. I generally doubt self-tailoring
                            truth will work in the sciences, so I reject it for philosophy. But since
                            existentialism is not generally accorded the same respect and rigor as other
                            philosophical systems, I suppose postmodernity will forever be how
                            existentialism is interpreted. As an engineer, I'm surprised you don't
                            demand this thoroughness from philosophy. Personally, I think ethical
                            nihilism is closer to existentialism than postmodernity. If there is nothing
                            at the core of objects, only their pure appearance, our resulting freedom
                            towards them should be an attitude of
                            responsibility. This is the foundation of existentialism as I see it.

                            Mary
                          • eduardathome
                            I think that the advent of a post-human or trans-human species is a valid possibility. In fact, I would say that this is a necessary step in human
                            Message 13 of 13 , Dec 29, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I think that the advent of a post-human or trans-human species is a valid
                              possibility. In fact, I would say that this is a necessary step in human
                              development. We disconnect from nature and create our own replacement. The
                              movie I, Robot with Will Smith, shows an evil side which is also a
                              possibility, but the movie does not negate the envisaged future of a race of
                              robots that will carry on after us.

                              Another movie on a similar concept is Blade Runner with Harrison Ford. The
                              idea is presented that without a death gene, the replicants could live
                              forever. We all want Rachel to live on. I like Roy's last little speech
                              ....

                              Roy: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off
                              the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the
                              Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
                              Time to die.

                              eduardathome

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: William
                              Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:21 PM
                              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: [existlist] Re: Inner Space



                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Bill,
                              >
                              > The current trend is to predict a post-human or trans-human species, one
                              > microchip enhanced and/or genetically modified. I don't think this will
                              > happen because thought, though it tends to be slavish, is also rebellious.
                              > Many people confuse power and success with intelligence, and it's my hope
                              > this perception ends.
                              >
                              > Mary
                              > Mary,I think at the core is the law. That which is written and signed has
                              > the weight of full perusal and engrossed involement. Single person opinion
                              > presents ideas but they are not ratified by any majority or judicial
                              > authority. The law precludes anarchy and as Mao proclamed "all power comes
                              > from the barrel of a gun".The law is backed up with force and post
                              > modernist concepts of deconstruction and irresponsibility are just the
                              > musings of disquieted individuals.Philosophy is an individual endeavour
                              > and is thrown in the pool of ideas to be considered and endlessly
                              > adjusted.
                              I agree with you that no majority will opt for chosen mutation or chip
                              driven mass culture. Democracy is big ship that takes huge energy to change
                              course.The recent legislative debates in Washington demonstrate the slowness
                              of process and the gradual evolution of law . I picked existentialism
                              because it refuted moral authorites and said nothing contra to the law or
                              science. I agree with you that science changes and it has an empirical
                              substrate that sets standards that must be met.I find that rational and in
                              line with Deccartes seminal concepts. Existentialism does not try to make
                              law or force virtue. It sets forth a very general framework that spends more
                              energy fighting moralisms and single person dogma.That sits in good
                              position with the definition of philosophy as the things to which you cleve
                              .You notice I do not use the term love.That is not a rational term and does
                              not belong in my philosophy.Way too emotional with no thought out checks
                              and balances.Existentialism
                              in a basic way allows for change it takes into account very little, it is
                              just a general philosophy that does not delve into personal specifics.
                              Personal conduct is governed by law and customs derived in other systems
                              already in existance. Any philosophy that imposes rules that have no general
                              agreement as to their validity is beyond its scope and immediately
                              suspect.Yes the things to which we cleve change. But all around us doe not
                              move to our musings. Throw things out there as seeds an perhaps some will
                              grow. Its a mesage in a bottle game. Bill

                              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <vize9938@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > I think a couple of things are interesting about your perspective. The
                              > > > limitation of knowing the entire or whole truth about anything and
                              > > > this matter of interpretation aren't really an obstacle or hindrance.
                              > > > These demonstrate not an intransigence on the part of phenomena and
                              > > > appearances in preventing our understanding but a structural reality.
                              > > > We don't try to get behind the appearance or to peel the layers away
                              > > > to reach some absolute truth; there is nothing at the core; appearance
                              > > > is reality. Certainly relative perception and personal experience play
                              > > > a role in this endeavor, but ultimately all our efforts point to a
                              > > > core of nothing rather than a something which is defying our efforts
                              > > > to reach it. What I've come to accept about understanding and the
                              > > > pursuit of truth is that the motion of thought itself demonstrates a
                              > > > circling around any absolute. The movement between contradictions and
                              > > > oppositions is just as significant. Scientific principles which are
                              > > > discovered and applied are
                              similar to philosophical ones in that they change and develop through
                              sublation. Something is kept as true but something is also discarded as
                              false. Perception, though differing from person to person, is universal. All
                              humans perceive, so relative perception plays a role in our understanding
                              and can be studied in regards to reason. If our particular or personal
                              perception differs extremely from others it can also reveal something about
                              perception as much as more commonly agreed upon perceptions. Differences
                              don't necessarily lead us to relativism or nihilism. Difference itself can
                              become an important part of understanding, truth, knowledge, or reality.
                              Think of all the neurological studies that are done on the brains of people
                              who differ severely from so called normal brains. The differences can inform
                              what is previously understood as normal. The current and somewhat annoying
                              meme "the new normal" actually helps explain this but only when taken more
                              seriously. Truth is a development
                              of a notion; only the idea is real.
                              > > >
                              > > > Mary
                              > > > Mary, Those abnormal brains could be called mutants. It is mutation
                              > > > that causes evolution . I think Dick says we are evolving toward his
                              > > > new species. Mystics are fringe people who have had unusual
                              > > > experiences. I will not go so far as to call Dick a mutant but I will
                              > > > use the term other evolved. He does not think like the rest of us but
                              > > > when he calls an end point something and we call it another we would
                              > > > seem to be on a common progress. I would like for Dick to be correct
                              > > > because he says it ushers in a better world. I would ask how these
                              > > > edge of the curve individuals can ever hyperpersonalise when they are
                              > > > the most distant and distracted of the species? I agee with you Mary
                              > > > that at the crux of supposed truth os a ever changing nidus of
                              > > > thoughts an as scientific theories are always susceptable to change.
                              > > > This super human will have to be a more survivable species and so far
                              > > > I see no particular group exhibiting vastly greater traits. I do not
                              > > > want to try and out guess
                              evolution and I would not try to predict it. Now I might say it appears that
                              smart people will become dominant. OK, Ill go that far as a bigger brain
                              is where the primate species has been heading. We could call that a solid
                              postulate and fewer,smarter people could probably run a better world. I do
                              not know if it will go that way and find a sudden leap forward to new
                              specis would be counter to the present rate of evolution. So I agree the
                              ideas seemingly at some core are just hubs of ideas that may or may not
                              remain. Chardin strongly hinted that only god could push mandkind to unite
                              with him in an Omega point. Just too much theology for me . It seems to me a
                              most improbable outcome ,especially since I am an athiest. Bill
                              > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > I was speaking to the issue of whether humans can actually "know"
                              > > > > the truth
                              > > > > of something. My view is that we can never know the truth for
                              > > > > reason that
                              > > > > the means to our knowledge is always a matter of interpretation.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > I suppose that in a way, mathematics is an area for which the truth
                              > > > > can be
                              > > > > identified. 2 + 2 = 4. But then it is true because we say it is.
                              > > > > It is
                              > > > > not necessarily the case that 2 of something, plus 2 of something is
                              > > > > actually equal to 4 of something. Sometimes it isn't, as say for
                              > > > > example
                              > > > > when the values are vectors.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > I am not saying that experience demonstrates what is true in the
                              > > > > sense of
                              > > > > absolute truth. What I am saying is that experience can get
                              > > > > sufficiently
                              > > > > close that we can accept it as true in a specific time and place. I
                              > > > > guess
                              > > > > the label here would be relativism or something like that. The
                              > > > > "truth" that
                              > > > > we identify in this time/place may not be true in some other
                              > > > > time/place or
                              > > > > for some other person.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Something is said to be true if it works and yes that relates to
                              > > > > experience.
                              > > > > That the shadow is a coffee table is true, because I experienced
                              > > > > pain in
                              > > > > bumping into it. But even then it may not be true. The pain may be
                              > > > > from
                              > > > > bumping into a chair. The search for truth is like peeling an onion
                              > > > > till we
                              > > > > get so close that it is obvious or we say it is obvious because
                              > > > > further
                              > > > > peeling is unlikely to reveal something else. And the stress is
                              > > > > upon the
                              > > > > "unlikely". Sometimes "unlikely" is dependent upon the degree of
                              > > > > effort and
                              > > > > worth of going further.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Some think that the "laws" of science point to some kind of truth.
                              > > > > But I
                              > > > > doubt that any scientist would say that it is absolute. A law in
                              > > > > science is
                              > > > > a best guess whose result is repeatable through experimentation. If
                              > > > > we get
                              > > > > a different answer, the law is modified or abandoned. So much for
                              > > > > truth.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > eduard
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > -----Original Message-----
                              > > > > From: Mary
                              > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 3:00 PM
                              > > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              > > > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Inner Space
                              > > > >
                              > > > > What seems true to me, eduard, is that you specialize in a
                              > > > > reductionist
                              > > > > approach to phenomenology while mine is more dialectical. So it
                              > > > > seems to me
                              > > > > there is no out there, or ocean of phenomena, but an interactive
                              > > > > relationship between objects in themselves, including human. Objects
                              > > > > themselves are true in themselves as subject, and subjects are true
                              > > > > objects.
                              > > > > An appearance is truth but it's only arrived at dialectically and
                              > > > > speculatively. Experience alone does not suffice to demonstrate what
                              > > > > is
                              > > > > true. The notion, concept, or idea of objects are an unfolding
                              > > > > truth. Truth
                              > > > > changes but I don't believe successful experiences alone determine
                              > > > > it.
                              > > > > Scepticism and speculative reason are philosophical thought.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Mary
                              > > > >
                              > > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@> wrote:
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Ultimately, everything is an illusion. That is, if you consider
                              > > > > > an
                              > > > > > "illusion" to be what we "think" we see. Humans are like the
                              > > > > > captain of a
                              > > > > > submarine. He moves his boat through the ocean by means of
                              > > > > > sensors
                              > > > > > instead
                              > > > > > of "seeing" what is actually out there. We also have sensors
                              > > > > > [taste, ear,
                              > > > > > eye, touch, etc. ], but it still isn't a case of really knowing
                              > > > > > the truth
                              > > > > > of
                              > > > > > something. We can, however, get close and this then becomes a
                              > > > > > sort of
                              > > > > > definition of how good is our interpretation. The "rightness" of
                              > > > > > our
                              > > > > > interpretation is the degree of its success. If at night I
                              > > > > > interpret the
                              > > > > > shadow in the living room as being the coffee table, the
                              > > > > > "rightness" of my
                              > > > > > interpretation is confirmed by the pain from bumping into it.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > The "truth" then becomes our best guess that is successful in time
                              > > > > > and
                              > > > > > place.
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > ------------------------------------
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
                              > > > > nothing!
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >




                              ------------------------------------

                              Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                              Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.