Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote:Is there another “value in voicing such things” other than formulating a concept or principle to be applied to future events that one thinks are similar to events that gave shape to the principle?

Sure. Entertainment!

Walker wrote:If so, then we can say that true principles accurately predict the events of unfolding reality. We can say that Hourglass is a sound pick for the daily double in the seventh because she’s a mudrunner and skies are gray.

Well, you can say whatever you want, in whatever convoluted way you want to say it. It does not define ultimate truth or boundaries.

Strange that you ask me to speak plainly, when you are one of the most garbled speakers on this forum!

Lacewing wrote:

Walker wrote:Is there another “value in voicing such things” other than formulating a concept or principle to be applied to future events that one thinks are similar to events that gave shape to the principle?

Sure. Entertainment!

Walker wrote:If so, then we can say that true principles accurately predict the events of unfolding reality. We can say that Hourglass is a sound pick for the daily double in the seventh because she’s a mudrunner and skies are gray.

Well, you can say whatever you want, in whatever convoluted way you want to say it. It does not define ultimate truth or boundaries.

Strange that you ask me to speak plainly, when you are one of the most garbled speakers on this forum!

I think folks often confuse wisdom with having all your ducks in a row. I daresay not even a whisper of garble adorns the words you have carefully selected for comment. Perchance acclimated eyes veil the dynamic and active philosophy in motion of conceptual knowns displacing non-dual openness to the unknown, which would account for static in the reception of possibilities subject to known probabilities that otherwise would not exist under conditions of non-attachment to belief in those concepts. In your book what are specific causes for apology?

Lacewing wrote:ultimate truth

Here’s one: Truth is ubiquitous and can be discovered in memory, in imagination, and in the present moment.

Pretty please show me one?

Walker wrote:I daresay not even a whisper of garble adorns the words you have carefully selected for comment. Perchance acclimated eyes veil the dynamic and active philosophy in motion of conceptual knowns displacing non-dual openness to the unknown, which would account for static in the reception of possibilities subject to known probabilities that otherwise would not exist under conditions of non-attachment to belief in those concepts. In your book what are specific causes for apology?

I'm not diving into your crazy-ass mindset, which looks like a self-indulgent gas swamp, complete with hungry and burping swamp creatures. Clearly it entertains you... so good for you. But I can't wade through it to even politely answer your questions.

Lacewing wrote:

Walker wrote:I daresay not even a whisper of garble adorns the words you have carefully selected for comment. Perchance acclimated eyes veil the dynamic and active philosophy in motion of conceptual knowns displacing non-dual openness to the unknown, which would account for static in the reception of possibilities subject to known probabilities that otherwise would not exist under conditions of non-attachment to belief in those concepts. In your book what are specific causes for apology?

I'm not diving into your crazy-ass mindset, which looks like a self-indulgent gas swamp, complete with hungry and burping swamp creatures. Clearly it entertains you... so good for you. But I can't wade through it to even politely answer your questions.

I can just follow it myself, and for that I don't apologize for it is full and true. Those monsters are yorn.

So? How about that ultimate truth you promised to reveal by suggesting such things exist? I named one. You name one. One please pretty and polite should suffice for one ultimate truth. Savvy?

Walker wrote:So? How about that ultimate truth you promised to reveal by suggesting such things exist? I named one. You name one. One please pretty and polite should suffice for one ultimate truth. Savvy?

I'm guessing that you're talking to me.

I said this:

you can say whatever you want, in whatever convoluted way you want to say it. It does not define ultimate truth or boundaries.

And I said this because I don't think there ARE any ultimate truths or boundaries.

I wasn't saying that there are some that you don't get. I'm saying there aren't any for you to know. Get it?

Lacewing wrote:

Walker wrote:So? How about that ultimate truth you promised to reveal by suggesting such things exist? I named one. You name one. One please pretty and polite should suffice for one ultimate truth. Savvy?

I'm guessing that you're talking to me.

I said this:

you can say whatever you want, in whatever convoluted way you want to say it. It does not define ultimate truth or boundaries.

And I said this because I don't think there ARE any ultimate truths or boundaries.

I wasn't saying that there are some that you don't get. I'm saying there aren't any for you to know. Get it?

Truth is ubiquitous and can be discovered in memory, in imagination, and in the present moment. Why is this not an absolute truth?

Walker wrote:Truth is ubiquitous and can be discovered in memory, in imagination, and in the present moment. Why is this not an absolute truth?

Because everything is continually shifting, including the perspectives that label something "truth" in the first place.

That does not invalidate the statement. That truth is ubiquitous does not mean that you always perceive the truth.

Walker wrote:That does not invalidate the statement. That truth is ubiquitous does not mean that you always perceive the truth.

If parts of reality do not perceive the truth then the truth is not ubiquitous, just widespread. Besides, there's too much truth around to take in. It'd drive you batty to try. That's why we ignore almost everything, reducing it all to abstractions, almost never quite in touch. It's a suboptimal situation, but preferable to being overwhelmed by input.

Truth is not an object of perception, Duh.

Truth is a relationship. It relates to your conception, and perception. It is the measure of coherence and correspondence between the phenomena and your conception of them. It is relative between your world view and reality.

Apology, like many other social rituals, is promissory.

By apologizing, we make it clear that we're not going to do the bad thing we apologized for again, so that we become predictable as a good-behaving person again, not only with the person we're apologizing to, but to observing others who might subsequently come into contact with us.

The degree of sincerity of the apology induces a degree of trust in the promise of good future behaviour.

Not always, but generally, most social stuff is about co-ordination, about how human beings co-ordinate their behaviour, co-operate, compete in a friendly way, etc., etc.

That's why there are social norms, so that we become to some extent (when it really counts, in our behaviour wrt how it affects others) predictable to each other, so that we can trust each other and count on each other. That allows us to project into the future, make long-term plans, etc., which is one of the requirements of civilization.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Truth is not an object of perception, Duh.

Truth is a relationship. It relates to your conception, and perception. It is the measure of coherence and correspondence between the phenomena and your conception of them. It is relative between your world view and reality.

Relationships are perceived and deduced, which is a form of mind perception.

With life as the objective standard against which particulars are measured, for the same reason that the source of evil is ubiquitous but evil is not ubiquitous, truth is ubiquitious.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Truth is not an object of perception, Duh.

Truth is a relationship. It relates to your conception, and perception. It is the measure of coherence and correspondence between the phenomena and your conception of them. It is relative between your world view and reality.

Relationships are perceived and deduced, which is a form of mind perception.

Do not be ridiculous.

With life as the objective standard against which particulars are measured, for the same reason that the source of evil is ubiquitous but evil is not ubiquitous, truth is ubiquitious.

You are just not on the right Forum.
One man's good is another's evil.