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

Re: [seerseeker] re: are we naturally good or bad?

Expand Messages
  • Bhanu Padmo
    (The Post-Modern Fuss)   Hey, hey Mr Holman! I mean Brother Kyva! Don*t run away so abruptly putting such a label on my back so surreptitiously. I am sure you
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 16, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      (The Post-Modern Fuss)

       

      Hey, hey Mr
      Holman! I mean Brother Kyva! Don*t run away so abruptly putting such a label on
      my back so surreptitiously. I am sure you have mistaken the *generic* lower
      subject for yourself.

       

      Had we been
      talking about our personal selves all these whiles, Kyva?

       

      My
      insistence on inequality of truth-content in multiple narrations over the same
      context is about *nature of truth*, not about your *personal truthfulness*. I
      think we have been juxtaposing each other with an initial phase difference.

       

      We can
      preen out this latent inconsistency in our restful hours.

       

      Even in the
      poorest opinion about me from your side, you seem to have overestimated me! Contrary
      to your observation that not many people like me, the truth is that no one
      likes me - maybe.

       

      But I shall
      always find an alibi to justify myself. I would continue to think that no one
      has the same (good!) attitude as mine - maybe.

       

      Let*s
      return to our normal business. I have something to say about the following
      Kyva-speak :

       

      **As
      it should be patently evident by now, personal
      experience is completely subjective, complex and multilayered, hence the
      postmodern dilemma.  In my experience, the more investigation, the more
      fluid and in flux apparent reality is.  It's an illusion, albeit a very
      convincing one like Einstein said.  Thus a dynamic relationship to truth.** 


       

      It is a
      tautology that *personal experience* is *subjective*. But when you say that
      *any* personal experience is *completely* subjective, you are pushing yourself
      into a quicksand-like deep problem. When you acknowledge and appreciate
      complexity and multi-layered nature of subjectivity, you automatically admit
      the fact that a personal experience is tantamount to contingent/ partial/
      limited permeating of *meaning* in the complex and multi-layered subjective
      domain.

       

      Modern?
      Post-modern? What sort of chronology you apply to inertness? You are trying to
      assign a clock to a piece of rock, Kyva! Did you find sufficient/ desired
      clarity in any corner of the philosophical domain? Isn*t your detection of
      patency a bit ridiculous therefore? And especially when we are considering
      mutability of the purported fundamentality that supports the several purported
      patents which are being thrown around by the questionable (suspectedly lesser)
      subjects!

       

      Coming back
      to the matter of *contingent/ partial meaning* begotten of partially permeated
      (with personal experience) complex and multi-layered subjectivity, aren*t we
      convinced of the fact that two different statements in the same context could
      have different meaning-content or truth-content? So what is this post-modern
      big fuss about *subjective/ personal sovereignty* when we know that it is
      *limited*?

       

      Why should
      deeper investigation make apparent reality more fluid or cause it to be in flux
      or make it seem to be another illusion when more of the originally-complex
      subjectivity is being drawn into the process of meaning-making
      (truth-harvesting)?

       

      It is true
      that the winning line of a race would yet to be arrived at. But the gap between
      the runner and the winning line would be reducing constantly. Isn*t it more
      than enough?

       

      It isn*t that
      you, Kyva, don*t understand all these. You are intelligent. However, I have a
      suspicion hanging over you. Could it be that you don*t want me to understand
      what you have already understood?




      (Bhanu
      Padmo)

      http://www.bhanupadmo.com


      You may
      reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0 as well

      or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended
      discussions.



      --- On Sat, 2/16/13, Kyva Holman <kyholm7@...> wrote:

      From: Kyva Holman <kyholm7@...>
      Subject: Re: [seerseeker] re: are we naturally good or bad?
      To: seerseeker@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, February 16, 2013, 6:39 AM
















       










      huh... I hear you.  But when a discourse (especially anonymous and online) begins with "welcome to the world of positive critiquing" right away, it seems the writer is assuming a great deal about the conversant which may not at all be correct.  They may have spent many years, decades, in the world of critiquing - positive and otherwise.  So it can be received like: "let me straighten you out..."  I don't think many people like that.  And then if, over the course of the discussion, one reads


       


          


       


      >>> All these statements about where you live aren*t equally true. None of these statements are perfectly/ completely true, though there is a degree of truth in each statement. The degree of truth varies across these statements most certainly. <<<


       


       


      now it's like being told that you don't have ownership of your own experience of reality... that your truth is inferior to someone else's because THEY KNOW truth's "final authority."  As it should be patently evident by now, personal experience is completely subjective, complex and multilayered, hence the postmodern dilemma.  In my experience, the more investigation, the more fluid and in flux apparent reality is.  It's an illusion, albeit a very convincing one like Einstein said.  Thus a dynamic relationship to truth. 


       


       


      So it's probably not a matter of bleaching white ideas as much as simply responding - and in moments reacting - to what's coming up.


       


       


      So you've made your convictions known, which doesn't require a response from me. We can totally let it ride ~  



      been interesting tho'




       


      -----Original Message-----

      From: Bhanu Padmo <greenbhanu@...>

      To: seerseeker <seerseeker@yahoogroups.com>; greenlogic <greenlogic@yahoogroups.com>; TheRampaPath <TheRampaPath@yahoogroups.com>; Wisdom-l <Wisdom-l@yahoogroups.com>; exitlist <exitlist@yahoogroups.com>; TheBecoming <TheBecoming@yahoogroups.com>

      Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 9:33 pm

      Subject: Re: [seerseeker] re: are we naturally good or bad?





       












      Kyva !
      Internet page is not a place to teach or learn immediately. It is a place we only exchange our views. Though this is a place of contact, the actual dialectics between the two sets of views would generally follow when we wouldn*t be in contact.
      Are we in a haste to have our ideas bleached white immediately?
      If no, we can afford to be less emotional about any exchange of views. Of course, next meeting can be indefinitely postponed at will.
      (Lesser Subject*s Limited Epistemic Sovereignty/ Authority)  
      To alleviate confusions I might have initiated inadvertently, I shall quickly run over a sequence of personal convictions which I deem relevant to our on-going dialog.
      1)      Subjective experience is sovereign insofar as it is the indispensable (necessary) material from which truth would be constructed. However, it may not be and usually not sufficient to complete the construction. Limit to subjective capacity and efficiency curtails subject*s truth-fetching (epistemic) sovereignty.
      2)      A larger truth is a hierarchy of smaller truths and no truth-constituent thus may be taken as eternally independent and complete.
      3)      Lesser subjective sensibility may lower the quality of personal inferences to a point when the latter may no longer be deemed by the neighboring sensible subject to be acceptable truths.
      4)      There is no exclusive/ personal domain of knowing for any subject. That domain can be intruded upon/ transcended by any empathetic subject through latter*s faculty of empathy that is a very efficient contrivance for epistemic extrapolation over matters of neighboring personal territories.
      5)      This notion of *curtailed/ limited epistemic sovereignty/ authority of the lesser (relatively insensible) subject* sows the seed for *cogent autocracy of superior truth*.

      (Bhanu Padmo)


      http://www.bhanupadmo.com


      You may reply this thread upon http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/greenlogic/%c2%a0 as well

      or consign a copy to greenlogic@...   for extended discussions.




      --- On Fri, 2/15/13, Kyva Holman <kyholm7@...> wrote:




      From: Kyva Holman <kyholm7@...>

      Subject: [seerseeker] re: are we naturally good or bad?

      To: seerseeker@yahoogroups.com

      Date: Friday, February 15, 2013, 8:43 AM







       



       














      Kyva!


       


      Sorry for the delayed response to your prompt last reply. Local/ personal exigencies thwart my internet operations.


       


      (Cogent Autocracy)


       


      >>> All these statements about where you live aren*t equally true. None of these statements are perfectly/ completely true, though there is a degree of truth in each statement. The degree of truth varies across these statements most certainly. <<<


       


      YES they ARE... minus context.  In and of themselves all the statements are perfectly autonomous and true. How are they not?  Are you lecturing me about about my personal experience?  Even if you were - and you're in a deficient position to do that - what you're saying is actually confirming my point, especially the last sentence.  It's only when context is injected and the question of getting picked up arises that the equally relevant truths become relative, ordered and value-based, with the possibility of producing one that's absolute.        


       


      >>> By whose standard do the degree of truth varies across these statements? <<<


       


      Mine.  It's MY EXPERIENCE.


       


      >>> These statements about your place of abode do portend an approach line that points to the virtual (unsaid) absoluteness. This is akin to the ever-approached *limit* of an indeterminate/ variable mathematical expression in calculus. <<<


       


      I don't know what this means.  Calculus, while fascinating, is completely irrelevant to my experience of what's true at the deepest levels.  Math is only one language, albeit a compelling one. 


       


       


      >>> The *virtual absolute answer* presages the *potential final semantic authority*. The *contemporary semantic authority* is presaged by the answer that currently contains highest truth in the form of the most accurate description of reality (place of your abode). <<<


       


      I can't follow any of it.  Again: I know what each of the words means in isolation, but this passage - I'm sorry - is meaningless to me.


       


      *Autocracy* smacks of absoluteness and underscores absolute supremacy. Isn*t *autocracy* then most appropriately/ accurately ascribable to authoritativeness of *contemporary highest truth* and its *virtual absoluteness*?


       


      We haven't established the absoluteness of truth at all at this point.  So truth's absolute supremacy is being assumed without logical precedent.  What are your proofs?  How did you gather them?  Did you ask me how I experience what's true?  No. You made a blanket statement based on YOUR experience of truth and then superimposed it onto my reality.  I'm telling you that your mental constructs don't map to what's true for me.  PERIOD.  (no dis) 


       


      absoluteness + "virtual" (unreal) absoluteness = anomaly / contradiction.



       

       


      >>> Ability is the natural byproduct of truth. Greater truth is endowed with both greater semantic clarity and greater potential physical prowess. Thus autocracy is the natural legacy in the world of truth. <<<


       


      I somewhat agree ~ except that truth is a mental abstraction with no tangible physical characteristics like potential prowess... which itself is not existent if it's potentiality, but again... what's your POINT?  If you really follow what happens in my example: there are a number of things that... before a specific situation is introduced... are equally true - with none taking precedence over the other


       


      I live in an apartment


      I live in Oakland


      I live in the Bay Area


      Northern california


      in the present moment... etc.


       


      as they are, which of these is autocratic?  It's only when the context of being picked up is introduced that one particular truth (I live at so-and so specific address) rises to the status of "autocratic."  Since every single experience I have will not conform to this scenario, the specific address "autocratic" in this instance hardly applies universally.  If I were asked instead: 'do you wish you were 23 again?'  And I gave my address - the supposed autocracy of that answer disappears in this new context and the response "I live in the present moment" rises to so-called absoluteness.








































      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.