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

Re: [existlist] Re: Inner Space

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.