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

Re: [existlist] Digest Number 174

Expand Messages
  • Randy Zeitman
    ... I m not saying there s any truths! I m simply making the distinction between what I call a real truth (truth without perception) and what you and I call a
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 16, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      >
      >>From The Exist List...
      >http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >There are 7 messages in this issue.
      >
      >Topics in this digest:
      >
      > 1. Non-sense
      > From: "Jack Darach" <jack.darach@...>
      > 2. Re: Digest Number 173
      > From: Randy Zeitman <randzman@...>
      > 3. Re: Digest Number 173
      > From: Amber Leigh Griffioen <griffioe@...>
      > 4. Re: Digest Number 173
      > From: Stephanie <only_fantasy@...>
      > 5. Re: Digest Number 173
      > From: Stephanie <only_fantasy@...>
      > 6. Re: Digest Number 172
      > From: "paul john" <pxjohn@...>
      > 7. FW: RE: Digest Number 171
      > From: Misam Abbas <misam_abbas@...>
      >
      >
      >________________________________________________________________________
      >________________________________________________________________________
      >
      >Message: 1
      > Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:58:38 -0000
      > From: "Jack Darach" <jack.darach@...>
      >Subject: Non-sense
      >
      >Hey all,
      >
      >Hello Randy:
      >
      > No one said we don't perceive. I said if something is true it's
      >true
      > regardless of perception. And again, I mean *really true*
      > (existential true, not conventional true).
      >
      >You talk about Truth but seem to contradict yourself. You say there
      >are
      >two
      >truths? The true truth being the existential one, as opposed to the
      >other conventional truth?
      >I don't understand this. Does this tie in with what you talk about
      >later when you
      >make a distinction between the world of perception and a 'truly real'
      >world?

      I'm not saying there's any truths!

      I'm simply making the distinction between what I call a real truth
      (truth without perception) and what you and I call a truth which is
      really just a fact.

      Fact/Truth: I drove my car today.

      Existential Truth: It's my perception I drove my car today, It's just
      a perception and because I don't know the difference between what I
      perceive and what is truly real.

      >
      >
      > We can never know that what we observe is all that is
      > observable. (how would we know?...it's impossible...). So that
      >means
      > anything we observe isn't truly real and thus anything we infer
      >about
      > it can't be a truth. As such, nothing is truly real.
      >
      >Truly real? So we live in a world of illusion and behind this
      >illusion
      >is
      >a 'truly real' world?

      There's no claim being made about what is truly real...only that
      there's no way to prove that what we observe really, truly, exists.
      (Obviously one can't claim what is truly real if they only reality
      they know is through perception.)


      >For you to say, nothing is truly real implies to me that there
      >is something that IS truly real.

      Yes, it does imply that to you. It doesn't to me....why would
      statement nothing is real mean that something is real?

      ???

      >
      >Another point, how do we know about this other world? If we cannot
      >infer
      >anything about this world as a truth how can we infer from it to
      >another
      >world beyond it.
      >
      > For people that don't get this: This is an issue of context. This
      > discussion is about all possible realities, not simply the reality
      > knowable by human perception.
      >
      >What other reality is there?

      Never claimed there was one...simply said we can't know one way or the other.

      >Message: 3
      > Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:06:46 -0500
      > From: Amber Leigh Griffioen <griffioe@...>
      >Subject: Re: Digest Number 173
      >
      >Randy Zeitman <randzman@...> writes:
      >
      >> I don't think it implies it any more than defining a Unicorn implies
      >> it objectively exists. There's also no implication that truth needs
      >> to be perceived or not.
      >
      >Ah, but DOES defining a Unicorn mean it objectively exists?

      To me objectively and exist and superfluous...everything we know
      exists in the manner we know it. When people use the term Objective
      reality it means perception and evidence which is certainly limited
      to human ability.

      --

      Signature......
      "In the best relationships sex is the booby prize."

      "I'm gotten so out of shape sittin' at the computer all day that I
      get out of breath when I have to reach for the percent key!"

      - Zeitman
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.