Saturday, August 30, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
P.5 The Validity of Religious Language / Method II
Consider the following sermon from Goso:
If people ask me what Zen is like I will say that it is like learning the art of burglary. The son of a burglar saw his father growing older and thought: “if he is unable to carry out his profession, who will be the bread winner of this family, except myself? I must learn the trade.” He intimated the idea to his father, who approved it. One night the father took the son to a big house, broke through the fence, entered the house, and opening one of the large chests, told the son to go in and pick out the clothings. As soon as he got into it the lid was dropped and the lock was securely applied. The father now came out to the courtyard, and loudly knocking at the door woke up the family, whereas he himself quietly slipped away by the former hole in the fence. The residents got exited and lighted the candles, but found that the burglars had already gone. The son, who remained all the time in the chest securely confined, thought of his cruel father. He was greatly mortified, when a fine idea flashed upon him. He made a noise which sounded like the gnawing of a rat. The family told the maid to take a candle and examine the chest. When the lid was unlocked, out came the prisoner, who blew out the light, pushed away the maid, and fled. The people ran after him. Noticing a well by the road, he picked up a large stone and threw it into the water. The pursuers all gathered around the well trying to find the burglar drowning himself in the dark hole. In the meantime he was safely back in his fathers house. He blamed that latter very much for his narrow escape. Said the father, “Be not offended, my son. Just tell me how you got off.” When the son told him about all his adventures the father remarked, “There you are, you have learned the art!”
If people ask me what Zen is like I will say that it is like learning the art of burglary. The son of a burglar saw his father growing older and thought: “if he is unable to carry out his profession, who will be the bread winner of this family, except myself? I must learn the trade.” He intimated the idea to his father, who approved it. One night the father took the son to a big house, broke through the fence, entered the house, and opening one of the large chests, told the son to go in and pick out the clothings. As soon as he got into it the lid was dropped and the lock was securely applied. The father now came out to the courtyard, and loudly knocking at the door woke up the family, whereas he himself quietly slipped away by the former hole in the fence. The residents got exited and lighted the candles, but found that the burglars had already gone. The son, who remained all the time in the chest securely confined, thought of his cruel father. He was greatly mortified, when a fine idea flashed upon him. He made a noise which sounded like the gnawing of a rat. The family told the maid to take a candle and examine the chest. When the lid was unlocked, out came the prisoner, who blew out the light, pushed away the maid, and fled. The people ran after him. Noticing a well by the road, he picked up a large stone and threw it into the water. The pursuers all gathered around the well trying to find the burglar drowning himself in the dark hole. In the meantime he was safely back in his fathers house. He blamed that latter very much for his narrow escape. Said the father, “Be not offended, my son. Just tell me how you got off.” When the son told him about all his adventures the father remarked, “There you are, you have learned the art!”
Sunday, August 17, 2008
P.4 The Validity of Religious Language / Method I
NOTE: Religious language is a path to religious experience. It is not a truth in and of itself.
Certainly I’m well aware of the fact that what it is I ultimately want to say about the validity of religious language will escape me. As I’m thinking about it I’m reminded of the 6 verbal methods used to impart an understanding of Zen Buddhism laid out by DT Suzuki; those verbal methods are as follows:
1.) Paradox
2.) Going beyond opposite
3.) Contradiction
4.) Affirmation
5.) Repetition
6.) Exclamation
All of these represent a method of dialogue whose aim is to silence the intellect. An example comes to mind of looking at a picture, and one asking another, “What does it mean?” Now, it seems to me this question has a dual meaning, and at this point given the context of the question, we don’t really know what that is. I would presume that the duel meaning is:
A.) What did the painter who painted this mean by it?
B.) It’s a rhetorical question of the self.
“A” of course is simple, not that the answer is simple, only that the line of discourse is simple and natural. Both parties can talk about what may have been on Di Vinci’s mind, or what may have been his intended meaning when he painted the Mona Lisa. Following Pirsig, I’d say this is typical of the classic mind who wants to place things in nice little objective boxes such that we see meaning in the same way (it should be understood that for this, one doesn’t even need the picture). In other words it doesn’t matter what you think [feel] about it, this isn’t its’ meaning; however, Di Vinci didn’t write the book on “intended meaning” in art, the experience is still subjective. To say otherwise in a classic sense is only to say, this is what it meant subjectively to one such man, and to the rest of us, it will hold that one true objective meaning (what ever that may be). Well, where’s “goodness” in that? That’s like saying, the chef who made this stake intended it to have such and such a meaning (even sampled it himself to make sure he got it right) but lo, I put it in my mouth and it tastes like crap. Did I then miss the chef’s meaning? I suppose not if the intended meaning was crap, but surely it generally isn’t the case that a chef intends this (unless of course you’ve made a complaint before hand).
I suppose the bottom line with question “A” is that, in the case of art, there may indeed have been an intended meaning that the artist was trying to convey, but in determining that meaning one would then have to escape his own sentiments. Furthermore, simply because we may come to agree on whatever objective meaning we come to, doesn’t mean that that’s what you’ll see every time you look at it. This is much like the chef’s steak; where it may be the case that he intended a certain meaning, however simply because you have that meaning in mind as put it in your mouth doesn’t mean that you’ll ultimately “get it”. In this way, knowledge of intention doesn’t lead you to understanding the world YOU live in, only that other people seem to like shit. ONE A SIDE NOTE: my wife says I like ghetto food; this is true. I love those Salisbury steak meals out of a box, by On*cor. When my wife eats it, she doesn’t “get it”, but I do.
On to “B”: that the question, “What does it mean?” is a rhetorical question to the self. In the answer to this question may lie some of the essence that is the verbal method of imparting Zen. Of course, you cannot tell someone what something means any more then you can eat for them when they’re hungry. Answering the question directly only gives a person what your opinion is and an understanding that you have an opinion; but this gets them no closer to the meaning. My daughter, who’s 6 now, often asks me why I’m putting certain things on certain foods; for example, mayonnaise, mustard, so on. I never answer her directly, but simply say, “why do you like peanut butter on your sandwiches?” to which she responds, “because I like it.” Then of course I say, “then why do I like mayo on my sandwich.” Her answer to this is always the same, she “gets it”. My daughter understands that other people like other things, have different favorite colors and foods, yet she still asks these questions; which says to me, perhaps she’s continually wrapped up in question “A”. Anyway, I’m getting off track……
The purpose of the verbal methods is to silence the reason, to see without seeing, to “get it”. To answer the question, “what does the picture mean” under the paradox method one may simply say “it means everything, and yet it is entirely meaningless. The rest of the answers may flow as follows:
Going beyond opposites:
To paraphrase Kyogen - suppose there is a man over a precipice one thousand feet high, he is hanging himself there with a branch of a tree between his teeth; the feet are of course far from the ground and his hands are not taking hold of anything. Suppose another man coming to him proposes the question, “what is the meaning of the painting?”. If the man should open his mouth to answer, he is sure to fall and lose his life; but if he would make no answer, he must be said to ignore the inquirer. At this critical moment, what should he do? This is putting the negation of opposites in a most graphically illustrative manner.
Contradiction:
Lets suppose that I know the answer to the question, “what is the meaning of the painting?” according to meaning “A” above. After all, I have just attained a degree in arts from an authority on Di Vinci.
So one asks of me according to “B”:
“What is the meaning of this painting”, to which I respond,
“one who understands Di Vinci has attained the secrets of the Mona Lisa”. Following this the individual asks,
“Have you attained the secrets of the Mona Lisa?”
“No, I have not”
“How is it”, asks the individual, “That you have not?”
I respond, “I do not understand Di Vinci.”
(To not understand, in this case, is perhaps to understand)
Affirmation:
Plotinus states, “that the mind, when it turns back, thinks before it thinks itself”. One could also state, “The eye with which I see God is the same with which God see’s me.”
So again, to the question (changed for rhetorical purposes) “I understand that this painting means “Z”, but what does “Z” mean?” To which I may respond, “It looks like it’s going to rain this morning.
Repetition:
Consider the following – it is as if one stood before a high mountain and cried, “art thou there?” the echo comes back “art thou there?” If one cries “come out!” the echo comes back, “Come out!”
To the question, “what is the meaning of this picture?” the replay may be, “it is the meaning.” To which one may respond, “what is the meaning?” and one states, “it is the picture.”
Exclamation:
Here I take a statement from the Simpsons after the question “what is meaning of this painting.” In which case I respond, “My cats breath smells like cat food”
So now then, what’s my point? As stated above, religious language is a path to religious experience. Religious experience on the one hand, is realizing for oneself the answer to question “B”, without the need for senseless rhetoric. The language is a tool for arriving there such that, once there, the language becomes unnecessary, and utterly meaningless. There is no meaning behind the statement, “the Chef’s steak is excellent!” on it’s own, or to anyone else but you until you put the steak in your mouth. Once you eat, there is no need to speak further. Once you’ve found God, you can pack your Bible away with all the other useless things you’ve tucked away throughout the years.
Certainly I’m well aware of the fact that what it is I ultimately want to say about the validity of religious language will escape me. As I’m thinking about it I’m reminded of the 6 verbal methods used to impart an understanding of Zen Buddhism laid out by DT Suzuki; those verbal methods are as follows:
1.) Paradox
2.) Going beyond opposite
3.) Contradiction
4.) Affirmation
5.) Repetition
6.) Exclamation
All of these represent a method of dialogue whose aim is to silence the intellect. An example comes to mind of looking at a picture, and one asking another, “What does it mean?” Now, it seems to me this question has a dual meaning, and at this point given the context of the question, we don’t really know what that is. I would presume that the duel meaning is:
A.) What did the painter who painted this mean by it?
B.) It’s a rhetorical question of the self.
“A” of course is simple, not that the answer is simple, only that the line of discourse is simple and natural. Both parties can talk about what may have been on Di Vinci’s mind, or what may have been his intended meaning when he painted the Mona Lisa. Following Pirsig, I’d say this is typical of the classic mind who wants to place things in nice little objective boxes such that we see meaning in the same way (it should be understood that for this, one doesn’t even need the picture). In other words it doesn’t matter what you think [feel] about it, this isn’t its’ meaning; however, Di Vinci didn’t write the book on “intended meaning” in art, the experience is still subjective. To say otherwise in a classic sense is only to say, this is what it meant subjectively to one such man, and to the rest of us, it will hold that one true objective meaning (what ever that may be). Well, where’s “goodness” in that? That’s like saying, the chef who made this stake intended it to have such and such a meaning (even sampled it himself to make sure he got it right) but lo, I put it in my mouth and it tastes like crap. Did I then miss the chef’s meaning? I suppose not if the intended meaning was crap, but surely it generally isn’t the case that a chef intends this (unless of course you’ve made a complaint before hand).
I suppose the bottom line with question “A” is that, in the case of art, there may indeed have been an intended meaning that the artist was trying to convey, but in determining that meaning one would then have to escape his own sentiments. Furthermore, simply because we may come to agree on whatever objective meaning we come to, doesn’t mean that that’s what you’ll see every time you look at it. This is much like the chef’s steak; where it may be the case that he intended a certain meaning, however simply because you have that meaning in mind as put it in your mouth doesn’t mean that you’ll ultimately “get it”. In this way, knowledge of intention doesn’t lead you to understanding the world YOU live in, only that other people seem to like shit. ONE A SIDE NOTE: my wife says I like ghetto food; this is true. I love those Salisbury steak meals out of a box, by On*cor. When my wife eats it, she doesn’t “get it”, but I do.
On to “B”: that the question, “What does it mean?” is a rhetorical question to the self. In the answer to this question may lie some of the essence that is the verbal method of imparting Zen. Of course, you cannot tell someone what something means any more then you can eat for them when they’re hungry. Answering the question directly only gives a person what your opinion is and an understanding that you have an opinion; but this gets them no closer to the meaning. My daughter, who’s 6 now, often asks me why I’m putting certain things on certain foods; for example, mayonnaise, mustard, so on. I never answer her directly, but simply say, “why do you like peanut butter on your sandwiches?” to which she responds, “because I like it.” Then of course I say, “then why do I like mayo on my sandwich.” Her answer to this is always the same, she “gets it”. My daughter understands that other people like other things, have different favorite colors and foods, yet she still asks these questions; which says to me, perhaps she’s continually wrapped up in question “A”. Anyway, I’m getting off track……
The purpose of the verbal methods is to silence the reason, to see without seeing, to “get it”. To answer the question, “what does the picture mean” under the paradox method one may simply say “it means everything, and yet it is entirely meaningless. The rest of the answers may flow as follows:
Going beyond opposites:
To paraphrase Kyogen - suppose there is a man over a precipice one thousand feet high, he is hanging himself there with a branch of a tree between his teeth; the feet are of course far from the ground and his hands are not taking hold of anything. Suppose another man coming to him proposes the question, “what is the meaning of the painting?”. If the man should open his mouth to answer, he is sure to fall and lose his life; but if he would make no answer, he must be said to ignore the inquirer. At this critical moment, what should he do? This is putting the negation of opposites in a most graphically illustrative manner.
Contradiction:
Lets suppose that I know the answer to the question, “what is the meaning of the painting?” according to meaning “A” above. After all, I have just attained a degree in arts from an authority on Di Vinci.
So one asks of me according to “B”:
“What is the meaning of this painting”, to which I respond,
“one who understands Di Vinci has attained the secrets of the Mona Lisa”. Following this the individual asks,
“Have you attained the secrets of the Mona Lisa?”
“No, I have not”
“How is it”, asks the individual, “That you have not?”
I respond, “I do not understand Di Vinci.”
(To not understand, in this case, is perhaps to understand)
Affirmation:
Plotinus states, “that the mind, when it turns back, thinks before it thinks itself”. One could also state, “The eye with which I see God is the same with which God see’s me.”
So again, to the question (changed for rhetorical purposes) “I understand that this painting means “Z”, but what does “Z” mean?” To which I may respond, “It looks like it’s going to rain this morning.
Repetition:
Consider the following – it is as if one stood before a high mountain and cried, “art thou there?” the echo comes back “art thou there?” If one cries “come out!” the echo comes back, “Come out!”
To the question, “what is the meaning of this picture?” the replay may be, “it is the meaning.” To which one may respond, “what is the meaning?” and one states, “it is the picture.”
Exclamation:
Here I take a statement from the Simpsons after the question “what is meaning of this painting.” In which case I respond, “My cats breath smells like cat food”
So now then, what’s my point? As stated above, religious language is a path to religious experience. Religious experience on the one hand, is realizing for oneself the answer to question “B”, without the need for senseless rhetoric. The language is a tool for arriving there such that, once there, the language becomes unnecessary, and utterly meaningless. There is no meaning behind the statement, “the Chef’s steak is excellent!” on it’s own, or to anyone else but you until you put the steak in your mouth. Once you eat, there is no need to speak further. Once you’ve found God, you can pack your Bible away with all the other useless things you’ve tucked away throughout the years.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
The Fate of a Blogger's World
Provided he makes and wins an argument about Buddhism with those who live there, any wondering monk can remain in a Zen temple. If he is defeated, he has to move on.
In a temple in the northern part of Japan two brother monks were dwelling together. The elder one was learned, but the younger one was stupid and had but one eye.
A wandering monk came and asked for lodging, properly challenging them to a debate about the sublime teachings. The elder brother, tired that day from much studying, told the younger one to take his place. "Go and request the dialogue in silence," he cautioned.
So the young monk and the stranger went to the shrine and sat down.
Shortly afterwards the traveler rose and went in to the elder brother and said:
"Your young brother is a wonderful fellow. He defeated me."
"Relate the dialogue to me," said the elder one.
"Well," explained the traveler, "first I held up one finger, representing Buddha, the enlightened one. So he held up two fingers, signifying Buddha and his teaching. I held up three fingers, representing Buddha, his teaching, and his followers, living the harmonious life. Then he shook his clenched fist in my face, indicating that all three come from one realization. Thus he won and so I have no right to remain here." With this, the traveler left.
"Where is that fellow?" asked the younger one, running in to his elder brother.
"I understand you won the debate."
"Won nothing. I'm going to beat him up."
"Tell me the subject of the debate," asked the elder one.
"Why, the minute he saw me he held up one finger, insulting me by insinuating that I have only one eye. Since he was a stranger I thought I would be polite to him, so I held up two fingers, congratulating him that he has two eyes. Then the impolite wretch held up three fingers, suggesting that between us we only have three eyes. So I got mad and started to punch him, but he ran out and that ended it!"
In a temple in the northern part of Japan two brother monks were dwelling together. The elder one was learned, but the younger one was stupid and had but one eye.
A wandering monk came and asked for lodging, properly challenging them to a debate about the sublime teachings. The elder brother, tired that day from much studying, told the younger one to take his place. "Go and request the dialogue in silence," he cautioned.
So the young monk and the stranger went to the shrine and sat down.
Shortly afterwards the traveler rose and went in to the elder brother and said:
"Your young brother is a wonderful fellow. He defeated me."
"Relate the dialogue to me," said the elder one.
"Well," explained the traveler, "first I held up one finger, representing Buddha, the enlightened one. So he held up two fingers, signifying Buddha and his teaching. I held up three fingers, representing Buddha, his teaching, and his followers, living the harmonious life. Then he shook his clenched fist in my face, indicating that all three come from one realization. Thus he won and so I have no right to remain here." With this, the traveler left.
"Where is that fellow?" asked the younger one, running in to his elder brother.
"I understand you won the debate."
"Won nothing. I'm going to beat him up."
"Tell me the subject of the debate," asked the elder one.
"Why, the minute he saw me he held up one finger, insulting me by insinuating that I have only one eye. Since he was a stranger I thought I would be polite to him, so I held up two fingers, congratulating him that he has two eyes. Then the impolite wretch held up three fingers, suggesting that between us we only have three eyes. So I got mad and started to punch him, but he ran out and that ended it!"
Friday, August 15, 2008
A reply to CC, from Pirig's ZMM
This is an clip from Robert Pirsig’s Book, “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance”. Let me set the scene: I’ve labeled all the dialogue with who is speaking, Pirsig is of course Pirsig, Chris is Pirsig’s son, John is a friend of Pirsig’s, and Sylvia is Johns wife. Where the are is not significant if you haven’t read the book……
CHRIS: "One of the kids at YMCA camp says he believes in ghosts."
PIRSIG "He was just spoofing you."
CHRIS: "No, he wasn't. He said that when people haven't been buried right, their ghosts come back to haunt people. He really believes in that."
PIRSIG: "He was just spoofing you," I repeat.
SYLVIA; "What's his name?" Sylvia says.
CHRIS: "Tom White Bear."
John and I exchange looks, suddenly recognizing the same thing.
JOHN: "Ohhh, Indian!" he says.
PIRSIG: I laugh. "I guess I'm going to have to take that back a little," I say. "I was thinking of European ghosts."
CHRIS: "What's the difference?"
JOHN: John roars with laughter. "He's got you," he says.
PIRSIG: I think a little and say, "Well, Indians sometimes have a different way of looking at things, which I'm not saying is completely wrong. Science isn't part of the Indian tradition."
CHRIS: "Tom White Bear said his mother and dad told him not to believe all that stuff. But he said his grandmother whispered it was true anyway, so he believes it."
PIRSIG: He looks at me pleadingly. He really does want to know things sometimes. Being facetious is not being a very good father. "Sure," I say, reversing myself, "I believe in ghosts too."
Now John and Sylvia look at me peculiarly. I see I'm not going to get out of this one easily and brace myself for a long explanation.
PIRSIG: "It's completely natural," I say, "to think of Europeans who believed in ghosts or Indians who believed in ghosts as ignorant. The scientific point of view has wiped out every other view to a point where they all seem primitive, so that if a person today talks about ghosts or spirits he is considered ignorant or maybe nutty. It's just all but completely impossible to imagine a world where ghosts can actually exist."
John nods affirmatively and I continue.
"My own opinion is that the intellect of modern man isn't that superior. IQs aren't that much different. Those Indians and medieval men were just as intelligent as we are, but the context in which they thought was completely different. Within that context of thought, ghosts and spirits are quite as real as atoms, particles, photons and quants are to a modern man. In that sense I believe in ghosts. Modern man has his ghosts and spirits too, you know."
CHRIS: "What?"
PIRSIG: "Oh, the laws of physics and of logic -- the number system -- the principle of algebraic substitution. These are ghosts. We just believe in them so thoroughly they seem real.
JOHN: "They seem real to me," John says.
CHRIS: "I don't get it," says Chris.
PIRSIG: So I go on. "For example, it seems completely natural to presume that gravitation and the law of gravitation existed before Isaac Newton. It would sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity."
JOHN: "Of course."
PIRSIG: "So when did this law start? Has it always existed?"
John is frowning, wondering what I am getting at.
PIRSIG: "What I'm driving at," I say, "is the notion that before the beginning of the earth, before the sun and the stars were formed, before the primal generation of anything, the law of gravity existed."
JOHN: "Sure."
PIRSIG: "Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy of its own, not in anyone's mind because there wasn't anyone, not in space because there was no space either, not anywhere...this law of gravity still existed?"
Now John seems not so sure.
PIRSIG: "If that law of gravity existed," I say, "I honestly don't know what a thing has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that law of gravity has passed every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single attribute of nonexistence that that law of gravity didn't have. Or a single scientific attribute of existence it did have. And yet it is still `common sense' to believe that it existed."
John says, "I guess I'd have to think about it."
PIRSIG: "Well, I predict that if you think about it long enough you will find yourself going round and round and round and round until you finally reach only one possible, rational, intelligent conclusion. The law of gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton. No other conclusion makes sense.
PIRSIG: "And what that means," I say before he can interrupt, "and what that means is that that law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's heads! It's a ghost! We are all of us very arrogant and conceited about running down other people's ghosts but just as ignorant and barbaric and superstitious about our own."
JOHN: "Why does everybody believe in the law of gravity then?"
PIRSIG: "Mass hypnosis. In a very orthodox form known as `education."'
JOHN: "You mean the teacher is hypnotizing the kids into believing the law of gravity?"
PIRSIG: "Sure."
CHRIS: "One of the kids at YMCA camp says he believes in ghosts."
PIRSIG "He was just spoofing you."
CHRIS: "No, he wasn't. He said that when people haven't been buried right, their ghosts come back to haunt people. He really believes in that."
PIRSIG: "He was just spoofing you," I repeat.
SYLVIA; "What's his name?" Sylvia says.
CHRIS: "Tom White Bear."
John and I exchange looks, suddenly recognizing the same thing.
JOHN: "Ohhh, Indian!" he says.
PIRSIG: I laugh. "I guess I'm going to have to take that back a little," I say. "I was thinking of European ghosts."
CHRIS: "What's the difference?"
JOHN: John roars with laughter. "He's got you," he says.
PIRSIG: I think a little and say, "Well, Indians sometimes have a different way of looking at things, which I'm not saying is completely wrong. Science isn't part of the Indian tradition."
CHRIS: "Tom White Bear said his mother and dad told him not to believe all that stuff. But he said his grandmother whispered it was true anyway, so he believes it."
PIRSIG: He looks at me pleadingly. He really does want to know things sometimes. Being facetious is not being a very good father. "Sure," I say, reversing myself, "I believe in ghosts too."
Now John and Sylvia look at me peculiarly. I see I'm not going to get out of this one easily and brace myself for a long explanation.
PIRSIG: "It's completely natural," I say, "to think of Europeans who believed in ghosts or Indians who believed in ghosts as ignorant. The scientific point of view has wiped out every other view to a point where they all seem primitive, so that if a person today talks about ghosts or spirits he is considered ignorant or maybe nutty. It's just all but completely impossible to imagine a world where ghosts can actually exist."
John nods affirmatively and I continue.
"My own opinion is that the intellect of modern man isn't that superior. IQs aren't that much different. Those Indians and medieval men were just as intelligent as we are, but the context in which they thought was completely different. Within that context of thought, ghosts and spirits are quite as real as atoms, particles, photons and quants are to a modern man. In that sense I believe in ghosts. Modern man has his ghosts and spirits too, you know."
CHRIS: "What?"
PIRSIG: "Oh, the laws of physics and of logic -- the number system -- the principle of algebraic substitution. These are ghosts. We just believe in them so thoroughly they seem real.
JOHN: "They seem real to me," John says.
CHRIS: "I don't get it," says Chris.
PIRSIG: So I go on. "For example, it seems completely natural to presume that gravitation and the law of gravitation existed before Isaac Newton. It would sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity."
JOHN: "Of course."
PIRSIG: "So when did this law start? Has it always existed?"
John is frowning, wondering what I am getting at.
PIRSIG: "What I'm driving at," I say, "is the notion that before the beginning of the earth, before the sun and the stars were formed, before the primal generation of anything, the law of gravity existed."
JOHN: "Sure."
PIRSIG: "Sitting there, having no mass of its own, no energy of its own, not in anyone's mind because there wasn't anyone, not in space because there was no space either, not anywhere...this law of gravity still existed?"
Now John seems not so sure.
PIRSIG: "If that law of gravity existed," I say, "I honestly don't know what a thing has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that law of gravity has passed every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single attribute of nonexistence that that law of gravity didn't have. Or a single scientific attribute of existence it did have. And yet it is still `common sense' to believe that it existed."
John says, "I guess I'd have to think about it."
PIRSIG: "Well, I predict that if you think about it long enough you will find yourself going round and round and round and round until you finally reach only one possible, rational, intelligent conclusion. The law of gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton. No other conclusion makes sense.
PIRSIG: "And what that means," I say before he can interrupt, "and what that means is that that law of gravity exists nowhere except in people's heads! It's a ghost! We are all of us very arrogant and conceited about running down other people's ghosts but just as ignorant and barbaric and superstitious about our own."
JOHN: "Why does everybody believe in the law of gravity then?"
PIRSIG: "Mass hypnosis. In a very orthodox form known as `education."'
JOHN: "You mean the teacher is hypnotizing the kids into believing the law of gravity?"
PIRSIG: "Sure."
P.3 The Validity of Religious Language / God and the Law
Pascal’s Wager:
If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).
In an off hand way I suppose that what I’m going to say here is akin to Pascal’s Wager, which I believe to be nonsense and surely many others do as well. The idea I have in my mind is; why should we believe in God? Or more importantly; why should we adhere to religious language?
So a simple example is Democratic law:
Thou shalt not speed; or else you get a ticket. Lets not speed then, for the sake of the punishment; this is nonsense. One shouldn’t raise they’re kids or live in a society where behavior is governed relative to punishment and punishment alone. What reason is there to follow the law that I may understand? If punishment governs our behavior, then we may just as easily decide how to best avoid punishment such that we can do what it is we please without really understanding what’s fundamentally wrong with it. Ultimately we’ve learned nothing, but punishment is bad and there’s ways around it.
The truth is, you abide by the speed limit for safety reasons. We post a speed limit (upper and lower) such that everyone has the same relative speed. When one understands this, then the law is followed not because we’re worried about tickets, but because we’re concerned about the safety of ourselves and others. Now of course there are some loose holes in this example that I won’t bother tying here as I hope you get the point. Which is you follow the law for the sake of others and yourself, not due to punishment or Democracy.
Of course we should also realize that the law and Democracy don’t really even exist per se’. What I mean to say is that, the law is nothing more then a set of principles (propositions in language) which are meant to serve as a guide to life in such a way that society has a certain solidarity and/or homogeneity. Those principles are immaterial in nature, and thus what’s true about them is only in what we say about them, and how we apply them.
Having said all that; why believe in God (adhere to religious language)? Again, it’s not enough for me to say that we should do so to avoid punishment. The purpose of believing in immaterial law never has anything to do with punishment; the purpose is a pragmatic one to some respect. Seeing where this is going I certainly don’t want to suggest that religion is some sort of social contract, but on the other hand that doesn’t mean that in some respect it isn’t one either; because there’s more to religious language then simply adhering to moral covenants…..
Here comes the bullshit, this is where I loose steam and/or taper off into Buddhism, but somehow I want to realize this idea and I’m going to continually exercise this until I get it:
Consider the placebo effect. The placebo effect is scientific in that, we can test and measure it; which doesn’t mean it makes any sense, but nonetheless the results are conclusive. If one believes that I’m ingesting something that’s going to make me feel better, voile, I feel better. What I ingested was just as much a piece of bullshit as what I’m saying right now, but that doesn’t mean that for some it isn’t working. Religious language in this way is the key to LIFE, not the key to avoiding punishment. Whether the after life is real or unreal should not even enter into the discussion. And what does one get from God, LIFE and GOODNESS. In this way there is no problem of evil, because life is neither good in itself, nor evil in itself. WE defined evil, not God. Evil enters the world only when one says and not in any other way; the same goes for good. Neither have any existence outside an assertion.
I’m thinking to myself now; what am I saying? Should we tell ourselves fairy tales to feel better? I’d argue that that isn’t what we’re actually doing. I believe in the dogmatic principles of architecture, because at the end of the day (whether life is real or unreal) I’m comfortable that the rain is pattering away at my head. This doesn’t mean that things are real, or that architectural principles actually exist, I simply believe that I’d feel better with them then without them; and here I am… Believing in the law, and feeling pretty good about it.
In an earlier post of mine named “Death and Tomorrow” I stated the following:
Man1 – “What happens when you die?”
Man2 – “Hm, let me ask you this. What’s going to happen tomorrow?”
Man1 – “I don’t know?”
Man2 – “Well why not?”
Man1 – “I have a good idea what may happen tomorrow, but I don’t have any definite plans, anything could happen in between.”
Man2 – “With all your vast experience you cannot even predict tomorrow. How can one predict the happenings in death?”
Man1 – “But is there a heaven or a hell?”
Man2 – “I don’t suppose it matters much.”
Man1 – “But if there is, shouldn’t you do what is necessary to avoid the latter?”
Man2 – “Does one not prepare today what is necessary for tomorrow?”
Man1 – “Not necessarily.”
Man2 – “Do you not prepare your bed for sleep – your dishes for a meal – your equipment for the work?”
Man1 – “I guess I do those things, but how do I know what is right and what is wrong?”Man2 – “If your sins leave a consequence for tomorrow, do you not try to avoid it?”
Man1 – “I don’t understand?”
Man2 – “Kill a man today, and suffer the consequences tomorrow. Do not leave yourself to suffer in death what one does not leave himself to suffer in life. What happens in death happens in death, these things we do not know. One should not ask such questions....." "If ones only worry is suffering in hell, then he lives on the hope to repent the following day. However if one understands Zen in the morning, it will be well with him if he dies in the evening."
If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).
In an off hand way I suppose that what I’m going to say here is akin to Pascal’s Wager, which I believe to be nonsense and surely many others do as well. The idea I have in my mind is; why should we believe in God? Or more importantly; why should we adhere to religious language?
So a simple example is Democratic law:
Thou shalt not speed; or else you get a ticket. Lets not speed then, for the sake of the punishment; this is nonsense. One shouldn’t raise they’re kids or live in a society where behavior is governed relative to punishment and punishment alone. What reason is there to follow the law that I may understand? If punishment governs our behavior, then we may just as easily decide how to best avoid punishment such that we can do what it is we please without really understanding what’s fundamentally wrong with it. Ultimately we’ve learned nothing, but punishment is bad and there’s ways around it.
The truth is, you abide by the speed limit for safety reasons. We post a speed limit (upper and lower) such that everyone has the same relative speed. When one understands this, then the law is followed not because we’re worried about tickets, but because we’re concerned about the safety of ourselves and others. Now of course there are some loose holes in this example that I won’t bother tying here as I hope you get the point. Which is you follow the law for the sake of others and yourself, not due to punishment or Democracy.
Of course we should also realize that the law and Democracy don’t really even exist per se’. What I mean to say is that, the law is nothing more then a set of principles (propositions in language) which are meant to serve as a guide to life in such a way that society has a certain solidarity and/or homogeneity. Those principles are immaterial in nature, and thus what’s true about them is only in what we say about them, and how we apply them.
Having said all that; why believe in God (adhere to religious language)? Again, it’s not enough for me to say that we should do so to avoid punishment. The purpose of believing in immaterial law never has anything to do with punishment; the purpose is a pragmatic one to some respect. Seeing where this is going I certainly don’t want to suggest that religion is some sort of social contract, but on the other hand that doesn’t mean that in some respect it isn’t one either; because there’s more to religious language then simply adhering to moral covenants…..
Here comes the bullshit, this is where I loose steam and/or taper off into Buddhism, but somehow I want to realize this idea and I’m going to continually exercise this until I get it:
Consider the placebo effect. The placebo effect is scientific in that, we can test and measure it; which doesn’t mean it makes any sense, but nonetheless the results are conclusive. If one believes that I’m ingesting something that’s going to make me feel better, voile, I feel better. What I ingested was just as much a piece of bullshit as what I’m saying right now, but that doesn’t mean that for some it isn’t working. Religious language in this way is the key to LIFE, not the key to avoiding punishment. Whether the after life is real or unreal should not even enter into the discussion. And what does one get from God, LIFE and GOODNESS. In this way there is no problem of evil, because life is neither good in itself, nor evil in itself. WE defined evil, not God. Evil enters the world only when one says and not in any other way; the same goes for good. Neither have any existence outside an assertion.
I’m thinking to myself now; what am I saying? Should we tell ourselves fairy tales to feel better? I’d argue that that isn’t what we’re actually doing. I believe in the dogmatic principles of architecture, because at the end of the day (whether life is real or unreal) I’m comfortable that the rain is pattering away at my head. This doesn’t mean that things are real, or that architectural principles actually exist, I simply believe that I’d feel better with them then without them; and here I am… Believing in the law, and feeling pretty good about it.
In an earlier post of mine named “Death and Tomorrow” I stated the following:
Man1 – “What happens when you die?”
Man2 – “Hm, let me ask you this. What’s going to happen tomorrow?”
Man1 – “I don’t know?”
Man2 – “Well why not?”
Man1 – “I have a good idea what may happen tomorrow, but I don’t have any definite plans, anything could happen in between.”
Man2 – “With all your vast experience you cannot even predict tomorrow. How can one predict the happenings in death?”
Man1 – “But is there a heaven or a hell?”
Man2 – “I don’t suppose it matters much.”
Man1 – “But if there is, shouldn’t you do what is necessary to avoid the latter?”
Man2 – “Does one not prepare today what is necessary for tomorrow?”
Man1 – “Not necessarily.”
Man2 – “Do you not prepare your bed for sleep – your dishes for a meal – your equipment for the work?”
Man1 – “I guess I do those things, but how do I know what is right and what is wrong?”Man2 – “If your sins leave a consequence for tomorrow, do you not try to avoid it?”
Man1 – “I don’t understand?”
Man2 – “Kill a man today, and suffer the consequences tomorrow. Do not leave yourself to suffer in death what one does not leave himself to suffer in life. What happens in death happens in death, these things we do not know. One should not ask such questions....." "If ones only worry is suffering in hell, then he lives on the hope to repent the following day. However if one understands Zen in the morning, it will be well with him if he dies in the evening."
A Response to "God as a Metaphor"
(NOTE: This is a cut and paste respone of mine from another blog regarding "proving God" and God as metaphor. It's a "lunch time" idea in that, I threw it out in haste, but somewhere in it theres some meat happening. I'm throwing it out here so I can spend some time thinking about it.)
Regarding the post: “You Just Can’t Do It”
my point is really, what isn't metaphorical? Is anything at all?
Let me spin it this way:
whats the difference between the world today, and the world 2000 years ago? What I would like to suggest is, nothing; everything “out there” is the same. The only difference is the way we talk about it. Whether angels push the planets around or gravity pushes the planets around, our experience of the planets moving is the same. Gravity in this case, is every bit as much a “ghost” as angels are. 1000 years ago, we couldn’t *test* for angels, the idea to do so was likely not even there. Then Newton came along with calculus, (just another way of speaking about the world) and defined the motion of the planets as a set of relationships. The only thing that changed [again], is the words, not reality. There is no right and wrong way of talking about reality, there is what works in talking about reality.
What I’m saying is that, Christianity is nothing more then a way of talking about reality. It isn’t right and it isn’t wrong, you judge it according to it’s usefulness. Of course relative to scientific language it’s “greek”. But that doesn’t mean that one is right and the other is wrong, because it’s two different ways of talking about things. The problem is however, science uses it’s techniques to critique religion; religion in turn sees this as an attack, then proceeds to defend itself on the same ground that it was attacked on (that being scientific grounds). In this case it’s transforming religious language into something it isn’t, in other words, it’s not scientific.
It’s not scientific to suggest that the world was created as it was in the genesis account. On the other hand, to people 2000 years ago it was perfectly plausible that creation happened in just this way. But, and this is a big but for me, is that even the point of the genesis account? Because again the only thing that changes is the way we talk about reality, so what’s important is the meaning of the account. In other words, the wise men that scrolled the bible (just as the wise men that scrolled Buddhism or any other religious text), were not conveying a scientific message, they were conveying a HUMAN message. What they wrote pertains to the human condition, it pertains to our relationships with each other, and with that which is unknown. Whether one would like to believe it or not, the bible speaks pretty accurately about human nature, from Moses, all the way down to Christ. The real test of Christianity is not whether or not any of these things are real in some objective sense, but whether they speak to the subjective nature of mankind in all is imperfections and whether or not being “Christ-like” has value to that condition. Or for that matter emulating Buddha, or Mohamed, or any other figure. Belief in Christ in this way, is not belief in objectivity, but belief in the idea that Christ represents and the idea of what he did and what that represents; whether real or not, what does it mean?
Christianity, as it is becoming in Rays [Comfort] eyes, is a complete abomination to be sure. I feel he misses the point entirely and because of this and his sort of defense, it creates an obvious turn towards atheism. That’s not to say there is a God per se’, I feel on occasions that atheists believe in “nothing” just as much as theists do. The difference is, the theist has a binding tradition, but tend to have a dogmatic view of it… But that’s another topic entirely.
Regarding the post: “You Just Can’t Do It”
my point is really, what isn't metaphorical? Is anything at all?
Let me spin it this way:
whats the difference between the world today, and the world 2000 years ago? What I would like to suggest is, nothing; everything “out there” is the same. The only difference is the way we talk about it. Whether angels push the planets around or gravity pushes the planets around, our experience of the planets moving is the same. Gravity in this case, is every bit as much a “ghost” as angels are. 1000 years ago, we couldn’t *test* for angels, the idea to do so was likely not even there. Then Newton came along with calculus, (just another way of speaking about the world) and defined the motion of the planets as a set of relationships. The only thing that changed [again], is the words, not reality. There is no right and wrong way of talking about reality, there is what works in talking about reality.
What I’m saying is that, Christianity is nothing more then a way of talking about reality. It isn’t right and it isn’t wrong, you judge it according to it’s usefulness. Of course relative to scientific language it’s “greek”. But that doesn’t mean that one is right and the other is wrong, because it’s two different ways of talking about things. The problem is however, science uses it’s techniques to critique religion; religion in turn sees this as an attack, then proceeds to defend itself on the same ground that it was attacked on (that being scientific grounds). In this case it’s transforming religious language into something it isn’t, in other words, it’s not scientific.
It’s not scientific to suggest that the world was created as it was in the genesis account. On the other hand, to people 2000 years ago it was perfectly plausible that creation happened in just this way. But, and this is a big but for me, is that even the point of the genesis account? Because again the only thing that changes is the way we talk about reality, so what’s important is the meaning of the account. In other words, the wise men that scrolled the bible (just as the wise men that scrolled Buddhism or any other religious text), were not conveying a scientific message, they were conveying a HUMAN message. What they wrote pertains to the human condition, it pertains to our relationships with each other, and with that which is unknown. Whether one would like to believe it or not, the bible speaks pretty accurately about human nature, from Moses, all the way down to Christ. The real test of Christianity is not whether or not any of these things are real in some objective sense, but whether they speak to the subjective nature of mankind in all is imperfections and whether or not being “Christ-like” has value to that condition. Or for that matter emulating Buddha, or Mohamed, or any other figure. Belief in Christ in this way, is not belief in objectivity, but belief in the idea that Christ represents and the idea of what he did and what that represents; whether real or not, what does it mean?
Christianity, as it is becoming in Rays [Comfort] eyes, is a complete abomination to be sure. I feel he misses the point entirely and because of this and his sort of defense, it creates an obvious turn towards atheism. That’s not to say there is a God per se’, I feel on occasions that atheists believe in “nothing” just as much as theists do. The difference is, the theist has a binding tradition, but tend to have a dogmatic view of it… But that’s another topic entirely.
Monday, August 11, 2008
No Dogma
In modern times a great deal of nonsense is talked about masters and disciples, and about the inheritance of a master's teaching by favorite pupils, entitling them to pass the truth on to their adherents. Of course Zen should be imparted in this way, from heart to heart, and in the past it was really accomplished. Silence and humility reigned rather than profession and assertion. The one who received such a teaching kept the matter hidden even after twenty years. Not until another discovered through his own need that a real master was at hand was it learned that the teaching had been imparted, and even then the occasion arose quite naturally and the teaching made its way in its own right. Under no circumstances did the teacher even claim "I am the successor of So-and-so." Such a claim would prove quite the contrary.
The Zen master Mu-nan had only one successor. His name was Shoju. After Shoju had completed his study of Zen, Mu-nan called him into his room. "I am getting old," he said, "and as far as I know, Shoju, you are the only one who will carry on this teaching. Here is a book. It has been passed down from master to master for seven generations. I also have added many points according to my understanding. The book is very valuable, and I am giving it to you to represent your successorship."
"If the book is such an important thing, you had better keep it," Shoju replied. "I received your Zen without writing and am satisfied with it as it is."
"I know that," said Mu-nan. "Even so, this work has been carried from master to master for seven generations, so you may keep it as a symbol of having received the teaching. Here."
The two happened to be talking before a brazier. The instant Shoju felt the book in his hands he thrust it into the flaming coals. He had no lust for possessions.
Mu-nan, who never had been angry before, yelled: "What are you doing!"
Shoju shouted back: "What are you saying!"
The Zen master Mu-nan had only one successor. His name was Shoju. After Shoju had completed his study of Zen, Mu-nan called him into his room. "I am getting old," he said, "and as far as I know, Shoju, you are the only one who will carry on this teaching. Here is a book. It has been passed down from master to master for seven generations. I also have added many points according to my understanding. The book is very valuable, and I am giving it to you to represent your successorship."
"If the book is such an important thing, you had better keep it," Shoju replied. "I received your Zen without writing and am satisfied with it as it is."
"I know that," said Mu-nan. "Even so, this work has been carried from master to master for seven generations, so you may keep it as a symbol of having received the teaching. Here."
The two happened to be talking before a brazier. The instant Shoju felt the book in his hands he thrust it into the flaming coals. He had no lust for possessions.
Mu-nan, who never had been angry before, yelled: "What are you doing!"
Shoju shouted back: "What are you saying!"
Sunday, August 10, 2008
House by the Sea
"House by the Sea" by Iron & Wine.
Category - INDIE FOLK
This is a wonderful group. The only criticism I have is a popular one; the voice of lead singer, Samuel Beam, is often overshadowed by the music (which is superb to a degree that makes up for this phenomenon).
Category - INDIE FOLK
This is a wonderful group. The only criticism I have is a popular one; the voice of lead singer, Samuel Beam, is often overshadowed by the music (which is superb to a degree that makes up for this phenomenon).
Saturday, August 09, 2008
P.2. The Validity of Religious Language
I’m not necessarily an advocate of GOD, but I’d like to comment on a particular argument. That is, that God exists only in the mind. I don’t disagree with this by any means, but I’m forced to ask myself the question then, what doesn’t just exist in the mind?
Surely we can make the usual arguments for the objective world and I won’t dive into all of that at this point, but only to say this; certainly what exists in the mind is somewhat a product of what exists in the world, unless of course we’re a brain in the vat (which I don’t advocate either). Having said that, surely all ideas come from the world, yes? Does David Hume’s senseless individual have ideas? Does he have any idea that he’s alive? Who knows I suppose.
The idea of God, you could say, also comes from the world. It’s not something fabricated by the mind, how can fabrication take place without stimuli. Is it possible that people are right or wrong? And in what sense is this possible? If I say for example, that 2 + 2 = 6, you’d say I was wrong. But why am I wrong? Typically (we could say) it’s because one doesn’t completely understand the symbolism. Surely if you set one apple in front of me, then a second apple a minute or so later I would understand the change. One might not be able to communicate it logically (as in 1 + 1 = 2), but this doesn’t mean that I haven’t seen or understand my change in reality.
Mathematics, science and logic are (to me) nothing more then a language whose goal is painting a picture of the world that is homogenous. One in which we all “agree” to objectively, with special attention to the quotes there. When an individual is found to be wrong after proposing a certain thing, it’s not because his eyes deceived him, or that reality somehow shifted its focus for him; what we see is what we see, the world is as it is. What’s wrong is what we *say* about what we experience relative to our communal language. What was communicated was not accurate relative to the rules of language.
That said, the language of religion is simply not compatible with the language of science. They both deal in two separate realities. The basis with which they may be wrong is not relative to reality, but relative to the way we speak about reality. Part of the problem that I see today, is that religion is starting to borrow from science to validate its own existence, and this is a problem due to they’re incompatibility. Creation again (following from below) is a scientific idea, not a religious one; religion should leave it at that. Furthermore, to say that God exists in the mind is just as ridiculous as saying science exists in the mind.
The ultimate question will be then, what does religion talk about and what is God anyway?
Surely we can make the usual arguments for the objective world and I won’t dive into all of that at this point, but only to say this; certainly what exists in the mind is somewhat a product of what exists in the world, unless of course we’re a brain in the vat (which I don’t advocate either). Having said that, surely all ideas come from the world, yes? Does David Hume’s senseless individual have ideas? Does he have any idea that he’s alive? Who knows I suppose.
The idea of God, you could say, also comes from the world. It’s not something fabricated by the mind, how can fabrication take place without stimuli. Is it possible that people are right or wrong? And in what sense is this possible? If I say for example, that 2 + 2 = 6, you’d say I was wrong. But why am I wrong? Typically (we could say) it’s because one doesn’t completely understand the symbolism. Surely if you set one apple in front of me, then a second apple a minute or so later I would understand the change. One might not be able to communicate it logically (as in 1 + 1 = 2), but this doesn’t mean that I haven’t seen or understand my change in reality.
Mathematics, science and logic are (to me) nothing more then a language whose goal is painting a picture of the world that is homogenous. One in which we all “agree” to objectively, with special attention to the quotes there. When an individual is found to be wrong after proposing a certain thing, it’s not because his eyes deceived him, or that reality somehow shifted its focus for him; what we see is what we see, the world is as it is. What’s wrong is what we *say* about what we experience relative to our communal language. What was communicated was not accurate relative to the rules of language.
That said, the language of religion is simply not compatible with the language of science. They both deal in two separate realities. The basis with which they may be wrong is not relative to reality, but relative to the way we speak about reality. Part of the problem that I see today, is that religion is starting to borrow from science to validate its own existence, and this is a problem due to they’re incompatibility. Creation again (following from below) is a scientific idea, not a religious one; religion should leave it at that. Furthermore, to say that God exists in the mind is just as ridiculous as saying science exists in the mind.
The ultimate question will be then, what does religion talk about and what is God anyway?
Not Far From Buddhahood
A university student while visiting Gasan asked him: "Have you ever read the Christian Bible?"
"No, read it to me," said Gasan.
The student opened the Bible and read from St. Matthew: "And why take ye thought for rainment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these... Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."
Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider an enlightened man."
The student continued reading: "Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened."
Gasan remarked: "That is excellent. Whoever said that is not far from Buddhahood."
"No, read it to me," said Gasan.
The student opened the Bible and read from St. Matthew: "And why take ye thought for rainment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these... Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."
Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider an enlightened man."
The student continued reading: "Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened."
Gasan remarked: "That is excellent. Whoever said that is not far from Buddhahood."
P.1. The Validity of Religious Language
NOTE: This is some disjointed thinking here. I put it out there only so I don’t loose or forget it.
I would like to say, for the sake of discussion, that there are two ways to view religious language. It is either objectively valid, or subjectively valid; both of course, are dependent upon language.
For something to be objectively valid there has to be mutual assent. So the proposition for example, “the grass is green”, is objectively valid insofar as we assent to this being the case. Whether or not what you see as green is what I see as green is an open question; the bottom line is however, we objectively agree upon this. Furthermore of course, grass is an “object” which we can point to. To go in yet another direction, it could be said that our propositions (whether they hold true about an object or not) have a certain usefulness, which to some degree is why we propose things in the first place. It's a way of making a distinction if you will, of setting up a given characteristic (in this case color) against a backdrop of a multitude of others where we see there to be a difference. What it is we ultimately choose to call things is completely arbitrary; green after all is nothing but a symbol which represents an idea.
Objective validity, I will say, is contingent upon an assent to the material world through propositions. First through a given language we will agree with what is this and that (apples and oranges). The truth or facts about an object lie not in the object, but in what we say about the object. It would sound silly to say that an apple is true, but it makes perfect sense to say that an apple is red. Again however, it should be understood that red is merely a word that describes a relationship.
What would it mean then, for something to be subjectively valid? Let's stick to something simple, like the statement, "this tastes good." Certainly in this case the only way to be certain that what an individual is telling you is true is by way of belief. Perhaps you could argue that, well, it was the expression on they're face, or the way they said it that lead you to the truth of that statement. However there is no object for us to share in. Furthermore, how could someone prove to you that something in fact tasted good? Let's say you tried it yourself and found it horribly bad. The first thing that may come to mind is, how could someone stomach this? Eventually though, as you watched the person eat this horrible food, you'd relate in the facial expressions and affirmations you tend to make yourself and infer that, this person must really like this. So where-as you find it horrible, another finds it Good, both at the same time, and both subjectively valid.
A question might be whether things have goodness or not. Good is an attribute we assign to things relative to our own taste. In much the same way, things don’t have redness, hotness, they’re not rough, one could even question whether a thing exists. Goodness, redness and existence, is a revelation of sorts. Something is good because it's revealed to be so subjectively, something is red because it is revealed that it is differentiated from other things via our senses with respect to hue, and mutual assent is recognition of this. For example it's been said that Eskimos have several different names for the color white, where we only have one, but it's useful for them to think and see in this ways. So calling the things which reveal themselves to us in certain ways, whether it is objective or subjective, has a certain practicality.
Subjective validity deals in “goodness” and “badness” if you will, it’s a matter of quality. In the same way that objects are neither true nor false, (as it is only propositions which are true or false), they are also, in and of themselves, neither good nor bad. Unlike objective validity though, goodness (as a product of subjective experience) is not a matter of proposition, but of personal revelation.
What of religious language then? I suppose the first thing that comes to mind in grappling with this, is just what religious language deals with. Goodness on the one hand, deals in simple raw emotion. A greasy piece of New York pizza makes my mouth water just thinking about it, it makes me happy. I might not in fact be good for me, however that’s another sort of goodness all by itself. So again, (I ask myself) what are the raw components of religious experience and language? I’ll throw out some words; hope, peace, spirituality, connectedness, purpose, meaning, piece of mind, solidarity. So the next question is, whether objectively valid or not, does religious language deal with these things? Does it address the human spirit? I think, yes, of course it does.
I don’t find it at all important to think of religious language as being objectively valid. For example in Christianity; what’s true, intelligent design or evolution, did Jesus really walk on water, did he raise from the dead, did god flood the entire earth and man built a boat and filled it with animals? These to me and the countless others like it are fruitless ridiculous questions and do not deal with the goals of religion. Those who would argue that it is important that the world was created in the way Genesis says it was are missing the point. In much the same way, it isn’t important what the origin of the painting on my wall is. It’s existence isn’t to represent an historical account, it isn’t to hold to a propositional truth of something, it’s up there because I LIKE it, it makes me feel GOOD to see it there.
So the big question: is belief in God GOOD? Is it subjectively valid? Again, things are neither true nor false, right nor wrong, good nor bad, it’s WHAT WE SAY about things that have these characteristics. It seems ridiculous to believe in something you can’t prove, so an atheist may say. I say again though, prove to me that ice cream tastes good. Belief in God should not be a matter of existence or non existence, of whether or not something is objectively valid. Most if not all of the things we believe are based wholly on it’s usefulness. The key is, religion IS NOT objectively valid as folks like Ray Comfort may suggest, and this is where the waters of religion are muddied.
I would like to say, for the sake of discussion, that there are two ways to view religious language. It is either objectively valid, or subjectively valid; both of course, are dependent upon language.
For something to be objectively valid there has to be mutual assent. So the proposition for example, “the grass is green”, is objectively valid insofar as we assent to this being the case. Whether or not what you see as green is what I see as green is an open question; the bottom line is however, we objectively agree upon this. Furthermore of course, grass is an “object” which we can point to. To go in yet another direction, it could be said that our propositions (whether they hold true about an object or not) have a certain usefulness, which to some degree is why we propose things in the first place. It's a way of making a distinction if you will, of setting up a given characteristic (in this case color) against a backdrop of a multitude of others where we see there to be a difference. What it is we ultimately choose to call things is completely arbitrary; green after all is nothing but a symbol which represents an idea.
Objective validity, I will say, is contingent upon an assent to the material world through propositions. First through a given language we will agree with what is this and that (apples and oranges). The truth or facts about an object lie not in the object, but in what we say about the object. It would sound silly to say that an apple is true, but it makes perfect sense to say that an apple is red. Again however, it should be understood that red is merely a word that describes a relationship.
What would it mean then, for something to be subjectively valid? Let's stick to something simple, like the statement, "this tastes good." Certainly in this case the only way to be certain that what an individual is telling you is true is by way of belief. Perhaps you could argue that, well, it was the expression on they're face, or the way they said it that lead you to the truth of that statement. However there is no object for us to share in. Furthermore, how could someone prove to you that something in fact tasted good? Let's say you tried it yourself and found it horribly bad. The first thing that may come to mind is, how could someone stomach this? Eventually though, as you watched the person eat this horrible food, you'd relate in the facial expressions and affirmations you tend to make yourself and infer that, this person must really like this. So where-as you find it horrible, another finds it Good, both at the same time, and both subjectively valid.
A question might be whether things have goodness or not. Good is an attribute we assign to things relative to our own taste. In much the same way, things don’t have redness, hotness, they’re not rough, one could even question whether a thing exists. Goodness, redness and existence, is a revelation of sorts. Something is good because it's revealed to be so subjectively, something is red because it is revealed that it is differentiated from other things via our senses with respect to hue, and mutual assent is recognition of this. For example it's been said that Eskimos have several different names for the color white, where we only have one, but it's useful for them to think and see in this ways. So calling the things which reveal themselves to us in certain ways, whether it is objective or subjective, has a certain practicality.
Subjective validity deals in “goodness” and “badness” if you will, it’s a matter of quality. In the same way that objects are neither true nor false, (as it is only propositions which are true or false), they are also, in and of themselves, neither good nor bad. Unlike objective validity though, goodness (as a product of subjective experience) is not a matter of proposition, but of personal revelation.
What of religious language then? I suppose the first thing that comes to mind in grappling with this, is just what religious language deals with. Goodness on the one hand, deals in simple raw emotion. A greasy piece of New York pizza makes my mouth water just thinking about it, it makes me happy. I might not in fact be good for me, however that’s another sort of goodness all by itself. So again, (I ask myself) what are the raw components of religious experience and language? I’ll throw out some words; hope, peace, spirituality, connectedness, purpose, meaning, piece of mind, solidarity. So the next question is, whether objectively valid or not, does religious language deal with these things? Does it address the human spirit? I think, yes, of course it does.
I don’t find it at all important to think of religious language as being objectively valid. For example in Christianity; what’s true, intelligent design or evolution, did Jesus really walk on water, did he raise from the dead, did god flood the entire earth and man built a boat and filled it with animals? These to me and the countless others like it are fruitless ridiculous questions and do not deal with the goals of religion. Those who would argue that it is important that the world was created in the way Genesis says it was are missing the point. In much the same way, it isn’t important what the origin of the painting on my wall is. It’s existence isn’t to represent an historical account, it isn’t to hold to a propositional truth of something, it’s up there because I LIKE it, it makes me feel GOOD to see it there.
So the big question: is belief in God GOOD? Is it subjectively valid? Again, things are neither true nor false, right nor wrong, good nor bad, it’s WHAT WE SAY about things that have these characteristics. It seems ridiculous to believe in something you can’t prove, so an atheist may say. I say again though, prove to me that ice cream tastes good. Belief in God should not be a matter of existence or non existence, of whether or not something is objectively valid. Most if not all of the things we believe are based wholly on it’s usefulness. The key is, religion IS NOT objectively valid as folks like Ray Comfort may suggest, and this is where the waters of religion are muddied.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Answer to Kyle S on the Law of Non-Contradiction
Recall that my premise is below HERE
What I state below is merely meant to be supplemental and not a complete proof. Again, I'm merely trying to clear some confusion that seems to exist.
So the question is regarding the “Law of Non-Contradiction”. More specifically, (and I’ll quote Aristotle – who might I say was not a Christian): "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". And in its simple form, A cannot be –A at the same time. So how then is this not absolutely true, and simply systemically true?
Lets first recall that for something to be absolute it must :
1.) Exist Independently
2.) Exist not in relation to other things
3.) Exist not relative to other things
4.) Be true for every possible circumstance
So all we have to do to test whether or not the law of contradiction is absolute is to test it up against the above 4 items.
1.) Let’s first consider that in order to be absolute it must EXIST INDEPENDENTLY:
Here is the law again: “A” cannot be “-A” at the same time. I think we both could agree that by itself that statement is meaningless, and what I mean by that is “A” by itself is arbitrary. It’s meaningless until applied to something, lets say your wallet, or an apple, or a car. Furthermore we cannot even come to apply such a “law” to the world without first having the world; in other words, things to apply to “A”, and I’d think we’d both agree on that. In this way the law does not exist independently because it is systemically dependent upon the existence of things in the world to make propositions about.
Further yet, to apply such a law to objects, first requires a mind to do so, and a mind with a language. Recall what Aristotle says: "one cannot *say* of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". And notice that I highlighted the key word in the proposition, that being “SAY”.
2 & 3.) It must not exist in relation to other things and it must not be relative.
What I state in #1 adequately answers to points 2 & 3. It stands in relation and relative to other things because without the systemic whole we would be unable to make such a proposition, it wouldn’t make sense.
5.) True for every possible circumstance.
Again, refer to 1 above. “A” cannot be “-A” at the same time is meaningless and would not exists without the system as a whole. Further, it only makes sense when applied to things in the world. Finally, one wasn’t SAYING anything before there was mind.
Let’s address another anomaly:
Consider the following
[1.]All men are mortal
[2.]Socrates is a man
[3.]Therefore Socrates is mortal."
Sye compared this argument to his, and stated that they were the same:
1. The existence of God is a nec precondition of the existence of logic
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore: God exists
I pointed out the following:
1.)That men are mortal can be shown to be true by itself.
2.)That Socrates is man can also be shown to be true by itself.
3.) Therefore we can conclude that 2 is 1.
Following this Sye challenged me to prove that “all men are mortal” is true as according to him it begs the question. So here it goes:
The fundamental problem with this, and the reason Sye believes it to beg the question is that he has an absolute world view. So he looks at “ALL MEN ARE MORTAL” as meaning absolute; where as I look at it systemically. That all men are mortal is systemically true in that, we know that up to this point all men have died. It IS NOT a presupposition; it is simply fitting with our experience of systemic reality. So to say that all men are mortal is simply pointing what we agree to be a valid/true proposition regarding our experience. Again, it is only propositions which are true or false, things by themselves do not carry the property truth.
For example: we may agree it is true that an apple is red, but we would never say, “an apple is true”, this simply doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, that the apple is red is true not in any absolute sense, but because we systemically agree. Whether what you see as being red is the same as what I see as being red, no one knows, what’s important is that we agree. If we don’t, this doesn’t necessarily point to one party being wrong on the matter, what we see is what we see. What’s wrong is the word that we used to represent what we’re seeing amongst a community of people who share a language. Again, our senses are not wrong, and the apple is not wrong, the word simply did not fit the context of the language you were using.
To get back to my point:
As a result, systemically it IS TRUE that all men are mortal. Now we could probably argue about Socrates’ existence, but that’s neither here nor there. I can simply refer to Socrates [Bob], my next door neighbor.
What I state below is merely meant to be supplemental and not a complete proof. Again, I'm merely trying to clear some confusion that seems to exist.
So the question is regarding the “Law of Non-Contradiction”. More specifically, (and I’ll quote Aristotle – who might I say was not a Christian): "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". And in its simple form, A cannot be –A at the same time. So how then is this not absolutely true, and simply systemically true?
Lets first recall that for something to be absolute it must :
1.) Exist Independently
2.) Exist not in relation to other things
3.) Exist not relative to other things
4.) Be true for every possible circumstance
So all we have to do to test whether or not the law of contradiction is absolute is to test it up against the above 4 items.
1.) Let’s first consider that in order to be absolute it must EXIST INDEPENDENTLY:
Here is the law again: “A” cannot be “-A” at the same time. I think we both could agree that by itself that statement is meaningless, and what I mean by that is “A” by itself is arbitrary. It’s meaningless until applied to something, lets say your wallet, or an apple, or a car. Furthermore we cannot even come to apply such a “law” to the world without first having the world; in other words, things to apply to “A”, and I’d think we’d both agree on that. In this way the law does not exist independently because it is systemically dependent upon the existence of things in the world to make propositions about.
Further yet, to apply such a law to objects, first requires a mind to do so, and a mind with a language. Recall what Aristotle says: "one cannot *say* of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". And notice that I highlighted the key word in the proposition, that being “SAY”.
2 & 3.) It must not exist in relation to other things and it must not be relative.
What I state in #1 adequately answers to points 2 & 3. It stands in relation and relative to other things because without the systemic whole we would be unable to make such a proposition, it wouldn’t make sense.
5.) True for every possible circumstance.
Again, refer to 1 above. “A” cannot be “-A” at the same time is meaningless and would not exists without the system as a whole. Further, it only makes sense when applied to things in the world. Finally, one wasn’t SAYING anything before there was mind.
Let’s address another anomaly:
Consider the following
[1.]All men are mortal
[2.]Socrates is a man
[3.]Therefore Socrates is mortal."
Sye compared this argument to his, and stated that they were the same:
1. The existence of God is a nec precondition of the existence of logic
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore: God exists
I pointed out the following:
1.)That men are mortal can be shown to be true by itself.
2.)That Socrates is man can also be shown to be true by itself.
3.) Therefore we can conclude that 2 is 1.
Following this Sye challenged me to prove that “all men are mortal” is true as according to him it begs the question. So here it goes:
The fundamental problem with this, and the reason Sye believes it to beg the question is that he has an absolute world view. So he looks at “ALL MEN ARE MORTAL” as meaning absolute; where as I look at it systemically. That all men are mortal is systemically true in that, we know that up to this point all men have died. It IS NOT a presupposition; it is simply fitting with our experience of systemic reality. So to say that all men are mortal is simply pointing what we agree to be a valid/true proposition regarding our experience. Again, it is only propositions which are true or false, things by themselves do not carry the property truth.
For example: we may agree it is true that an apple is red, but we would never say, “an apple is true”, this simply doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, that the apple is red is true not in any absolute sense, but because we systemically agree. Whether what you see as being red is the same as what I see as being red, no one knows, what’s important is that we agree. If we don’t, this doesn’t necessarily point to one party being wrong on the matter, what we see is what we see. What’s wrong is the word that we used to represent what we’re seeing amongst a community of people who share a language. Again, our senses are not wrong, and the apple is not wrong, the word simply did not fit the context of the language you were using.
To get back to my point:
As a result, systemically it IS TRUE that all men are mortal. Now we could probably argue about Socrates’ existence, but that’s neither here nor there. I can simply refer to Socrates [Bob], my next door neighbor.
My Continued Debate with Sye
See Part 1 HERE
See my premise for Systemic Truth HERE
See Sye's argument HERE
(MY COMMENTS IN BOLD)
Sye,
(food for thought, I don't want to interrupt the flow of the discussion with Stephen; so no need to answer to any of this at this time.)
I believe I’ve already accounted for the propositions of logic in my world view. I realize once again that you do not agree with my world view, but you have also never accounted for it. You simply say, "Why should I believe in your system of truth?" Which is where I respond, because you cannot prove yours. You also say, "Your system of truth is absurd." Yet you've never offered proof as to how and why it is. So following that, Sye does not exist because he is absurd.
That a logical proposition is immaterial MAY be the case, and according to your assertion it MAY even be the case that God exists - but neither has been proven. A logical proposition correlates to objective reality and that it is immaterial can be seen to be somewhat of a misnomer. For example one might say that 1+1=2 is an immaterial proposition. However this proposition is meaningless by itself as it was derived from the experience of reality as in 1[apple]+1[apple]=2[apples]. In this case the law of logic here is not immaterial in that what our language (the proposition) is reflecting is a change of state in reality. 1+1=2 in this case is a mere linguistic affirmation that this was the case. To say that any logical proposition stands by itself in some immaterial way is to suggest that it is the case outside an object in which it applies to. Which means it would be not relative, or absolute. But this is impossible. Truth is [after all] systemic.
As a result, logical propositions (which are what you call the LAWS of logic) cannot stand by themselves in any absolute sense, so further are not really immaterial at all. If all you mean by immaterial is that thought and language are void of substance, I say that they are contingent (systemically dependent) upon substance. In this way the laws of logic are not derived from God, but systemically from the world. Again (as I’ve said to you before) in order to even put forth a proposition one first needs a method of resolution and in this way your “IMMATERIAL LAWS OF LOGIC” do not stand as being contingent upon God, but relative to the world [system] at large. Furthermore, before there was mind to make propositions, no propositions even existed, therefore no absolute law of logic existed in this instance. The only propositions that exist with regard to the past are ones we make relative to our current position. To put it another way, if the laws of logic are immaterial and absolute (not relative & true for every possible circumstance) then you must show that these laws necessarily existe[d] without mind and without the material world. if you cannot, then it stands that truth is then necessarily systemic.
So what "law of logic" then, is necessarily absolute, and what proof can you offer that it is not contingent [relative to] upon mind and/or matter? Without this, you can throw your proof out the window. If you can't do that, in the vary least offer a proof against systemic truth that doesn't borrow from my world view.
And might I remind you Sye (followng from your tactics) that you struck Stephens argument here:
"(1) The existence of the Great Cosmic Wombat is a necessary precondition of there being laws of logic
(2) Laws of logic exist
Therefore: The Great Cosmic Wombat exists."
Because he was abandoning his world view. So be careful that if you engage my argument that you stay within the confines of your own absolute worldview. So calling it absurd, or reflecting on the possibility of other world views is no longer a valid argument in this case.
Sye, (just a reminder)
I posited my contrary justification for logic, but you were never able to refuted it; on 3 different bloggs. Regardless of whether I'm amateur at best (if even that), you've never answered to the fundamental questions I asked because you couldn't.
And,
if someone else here posits yet another system, chances are they will get the following response from you as I've seen it before (it's a canned response from you):
"What you fail to realize, is that even if your system of truth is valid, it would only be true for the system in which you are working. Anyone could posit another system, and it would necessarily have to be true. I could easily say “Well, you may think that I haven't proven anything according to your system of truth, but according to my system of truth, I have.”
This is hardly a refutation, it's merely a denial of the need for one. Furthermore it beggs the question as to why we should appeal to your system of truth.
You said to Kyle:
"Posit the[a] contrary justifiction for the laws of logic, that you hold to, and I will be pleased to refute it. "
But you won't, so why should Kyle bother?
Sye, (here is my pink slip)
let my contention be(following systemic truth as my proof of ownership of logic), that your proof is not a proof for it contains an unargued for premise.
The statement, "It may be true for your system but not for mine", would be begging the question and not answer as to why I should buy into your system of truth.
This is where you say:
"that the proof is valid based on the impossibility of the contrary."
This too does not prove my claim to logic as being false.
Andre Louis said: "Sye, (here is my pink slip)"
Look Andrew, you don't even believe in absolutes, so how in the world can you justify absolute laws of logic?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
you stated:
"Look Andrew, you don't even believe in absolutes, so how in the world can you justify absolute laws of logic?"
Yes, that's in my premise which is posted here and at my blogg. You know it, you've read it.
Bottom line: I've posited a counter justification for the laws of logic with my premise on Systimic Truth (which states that the the laws of logic are SYSTEMIC, NOT absolute). In my proof I've shown how your idea of truth is not propositional, and furthermore not valid.
So,
staying within the confines of your worldview, prove me wrong. Recall that this requires you to:
A.)Show how the statement "Absolute truth exists" is propositional.
B.)Give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is not Systemic.
Here's what you're doing Sye.
You state:
"Posit the[a] contrary justifiction for the laws of logic, that you hold to, and I will be pleased to refute it. "
Now that I've done that you say essentially, "well, it doesn't fit with my absolute world view so I'm not going to refute it."
I reminded of this:
http://idiotphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/07/stb-debate.html
@ Andrew
I said: ”Posit a contrary justifiction for the laws of logic, that you hold to, and I will be pleased to refute it.”
You said: ”Now that I've done that you say essentially, "well, it doesn't fit with my absolute world view so I'm not going to refute it."
Problem is, Andrew, we aren’t even on the same page. You are talking about arbitrary laws that only apply in your made-up system, not universal laws. If you want to get into the debate and posit your justification for the universal, absract, invariant laws of logic, fine, but I could not care less about laws which you claim are only true to you.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
you said:
"Problem is, Andrew, we aren’t even on the same page. You are talking about arbitrary laws that only apply in your made-up system, not universal laws."
Eureka! You fail to realize the most fundamental element here Sye.
PROVE that my system is arbitrary and that absolute idealism is true? There is nothing arbitrary about my position. I posited a system for truth, refute it. I think YOUR system is made up, at least in my case I proved why I believe that to be the case, you offer nothing.
The problem is, Sye, is that you've perhaps figured out that the only way to refute my proof is to subscribe to my world view.
Furthermore, the whole point of this is that we're all on different pages and you need to prove that yours is the right page, as I/ME/ANDREW have already done.
Andrew Louis said: "PROVE that my system is arbitrary"
Um Andrew, if it aint absolute, it's arbitrary. Simple as that.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
You said:
"Um Andrew, if it aint absolute, it's arbitrary. Simple as that."
Sye,
I don't believe in absolute truth, I've already shown it is an impossability. Your proposition above is therefore not valid in my worldview.
So, in light of that, what proof do you have that absolutes exist? Prove to me that, "absolute truth exists" is a proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Andrew Louis said: "I don't believe in absolute truth"
I can't believe I'm doing this (again). Andrew, is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye you said:
"is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?"
That is not a valid proposition in my world view, so you must first prove that it is, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Andrew Louis said: "That is not a valid proposition in my world view"
It's not a proposition, it's a question.
Sye,
you said:
"It's not a proposition, it's a question." Regarding: "is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?"
You are presenting it for my consideration, and therefore it is a proposal, and systemically invalid.
So I say again:
prove that it is, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Andrew Louis said: "You are presenting it for my consideration, and therefore it is a proposal, and systemically invalid."
Look Andrew, I am only asking you a question, which you obviously cannot answer. Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid.
Sorry man, but you are boring me to tears, give it a rest already. The very owner of this blog has no problem with absolute truth, so go argue this where people are interested in hearing it.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
you said:
Look Andrew, I am only asking you a question, which you obviously cannot answer.
Given that I have proven that absolute truth is no such thing, I have already answered your question. You need only to re-read my proof, which I know you already know quite well.
So I say again:
prove that it is, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
And you said:
"Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid."
Prove this to be the case Sye. And understand that in doing so you must:
prove , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
You're just mad because I'm out Sye-ing you and you have no way to save face from this.
Andrew Louis said:” You're just mad because I'm out Sye-ing you and you have no way to save face from this.”
I’m not at all mad, just extremely bored by you.
I said: “Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid."
You said: ”Prove this to be the case Sye.”
Yikes Andrew, this is your very claim. You are the one who believes in systemic truth, by definition, if your argument was valid, it would be only valid in your system. If you claim that your argument is valid outside of your system, you refute yourself. If you can’t see that. I really can’t help you.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye:
Lets try this again.
You said: “Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid."
I said: ”Prove this to be the case Sye.”
Perhaps you are having a lapse in understanding. Prove that it's only invalid in my system and that absolutes necessarily exist. Which of course requires you to:
prove , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Nutcase:
You said:
"I am male" isn't absolute, but it's not arbitrary.
That's right, it's SYSTEMIC, like all truths.
Nutcase, (I love that name)
You don't understand, I've already offered a proof for systemic truth, Sye knows that (recall that Sye's first condition for being able to argue with him was that you needed to establish a justification for your use of logic). Now that I have, Sye refuses to refute that my claims are invalid and/or offer a proof that absolute truth necessarily exists. So he has nothing.
Absolutism [you see] is the vary foundation of his claim that God exists and I have undermined it. If he CANNOT offer a proof against systemic truth and show that, "that absolute truth exists" is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is not systemic. Then the show is all over, his argument is toast.
Sye,
if you are trying to suggest that the proposition, "nutcasenightmare is a male", is absolutely true, then it must be so in every possible circumstance. Was he male before he was conceived. If not then how is that absolute?
Systemically it's true that he's male.
You know what, my proof is there. When you feel like refuting it Sye, and showing that,"that absolutes truth exists" is a proposition, then give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is not systemic, you let me know. You can post it on my blogg.
Andrew Louis said: "Systemically it's true that he's male."
Andrew, where is it true that HE is not male?
Cheers,
Sye
Andrew Louis said: "I'm not going to keep repeating it for you."
Thank goodness.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
you said:
"where is it true that HE is not male?"
I cover this vary explicitly in my proof. You're more then welcome to read it again.
Until you can define the standard of logic which you use to evaluate me, then everything you say is invalid. (your pink slip is suspect)
If your claim is that standard of logic you use is absolute, then surely you can see how it is not consistent with my proof, and therefor you should first refute my claims by:
proving , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Recall Sye,
youve never refuted my world view.
You've never answered to the questions:
prove , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Yet by my proof (and in the string) I've answered ALL of your questions.
According to my world view the logic that your using to evaluate everyone is invalid unless you prove the above.
Once again YOU HAVE NOTHING.
Sye, (good)
You said: (not to me, but...)
"Do you have any problem with this argument?
[1.]All men are mortal
[2.]Socrates is a man
[3.]Therefore Socrates is mortal."
So, Sye, compare this to:
1. The existence of God is a nec precondition of the existence of logic
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore: God exists
So uhhh, do I have to point out the obvious? Perhaps I will anyway.
1.)That men are mortal can be shown to be true by itself.
2.)That Socrates is man can also be shown to be true by itself.
3.) Therefore we can conclude that 2 is 1.
So,
if you're suggesting that both arguements are the same. Then surely you have the missing proof for 1 that Stephen has been looking for and that shows it is true.
Also, you stated early on that "All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circularity". Following that, where is the necessary element of circularity in the Socrates arguement? If there isn't one, then surely the two arguements are not the same afterall.
Andrew Louis said: ”you stated early on that "All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circularity".”
Yip
”Following that, where is the necessary element of circularity in the Socrates arguement?”
Um, it is not an ultimate authority claim, but I’ll be glad to point it out to you anyway.
Premise one states “All men are mortal” and it begs the question that all men are in fact mortal. Of course you changed it by saying that it can be shown that men are mortal, but I’d love to see how it can be shown that all men are mortal.
Cheers,
Sye
INDEED SYE! PROOF!
And I would like to see you prove that, “that absolute truth exists” is a proposition, and show me an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
But you’re not going to do that because you can’t. Which is why, from my perspective, your argument is a failure from the start.
@ Andrew,
Don't take this the wrong way Andrew, but do you do drugs?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
When you can prove me wrong you have my blogg address, drop me the proof anytime.
He's all yours you guys.
Andrew, it was a simple question. A simple 'yes' or 'no' would suffice.
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. Just for your future consideration,'blog' is short for "web log," hence the one 'g.'
Sye,
sorry I wasn't clear the first time.
When you can prove my proof wrong, "SYSTEMIC TRUTH", by showing, "That absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition and give and example of an absolute truth and how it's not systemic....
(as I said before, all your questions are already answered via what I've already stated and within my proof itself)
So drop me a line at my bloggggg when you have it, But you’re not going to do that because you can’t. Which is why, from my perspective, your argument is a failure from the start.
So,
he's all your guys.
Sye,
I just caught this as I was trolling through.
Is it really your defense that systemic truth is invalid because I’m on drugs?
Perhaps you’d like to point out how Systemic Truth is invalid according to your world view. That would be the sane, non-drug induced thing to do. You seem to be really good at refuting everyone else here, but as of yet you have not refuted me, and in terms of intelligence I can assure you I’m the dummy here. So what does that make you Sye?
I’ll give it to you that you made an attempt, but you continually fail at:
Proving, “that systemic truth exists” is a valid proposition, and stating something that is an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
If your world view is correct, you should have no problem with this. I fail to understand why you cannot answer those fundamental questions. If you cannot, the system of logic you use on everyone else is invalid, and you have no claim to truth of your proof.
Then what Nietzsche said was true, “[Sye’s]God is dead”.
Andrew said: "Is it really your defense that systemic truth is invalid because I’m on drugs?"
Knew it! That explains alot actually.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
So then it should be quite easy for you to tear through the idea of Systemic Truth and prove it wrong. But first realize that to do so you must prove that your system of truth/logic is valid.
Why is that so difficult for you Sye? If you can’t, just say so.
The validity of your claim hangs upon your ability to do that.
Sye,
your knowledge of eastern religion is pathetic. Eastern religion is not pantheistic. You want pantheism, read Spinoza.
You have no idea what your talking about.
And by the way:
prove, "that absolute truth exists" is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
Cheers,
Andy
Andrew said: "Eastern religion is not pantheistic."
What type of drugs do you actually take Andrew?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
don't you find it at all odd that I've already given you a proof of my world view and you have yet to be able to refute it with 2 basic questions:
Prove, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
yes, that is odd indeed.
Andrew said: "Sye, don't you find it at all odd that I've already given you a proof of my world view and you have yet to be able to refute it"
What you fail to realise, Andrew, is that even if you could prove your worldview, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it is only true in the system to which you subscribe. Since BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, your worldview is NOT ABSOLUTELY TRUE, it might not be true!
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessaraly apply to me.
If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:
Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
It is not only true for MY system, because I've shown, it is the only system.
Prove otherwise Sye.
Andrew said: "It is not only true for MY system, because I've shown, it is the only system."
Um, Andrew, is it absolutely true that yours is the only system, or is it systemically true? And if yours is the only system, doesn't that MAKE any truth within that system absolutely true???
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessaraly apply to me.
If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:
Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
@ Steven Carr
”traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. (Britannica online Encyclopedia)"
Sye,
nice jod on quoting the three fundamental laws of logic.
But, there seems to be one missing. Do you know the one? It's the one you use most often, and it's not in your list.
Sye says: (and I quote)
"All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circularity, but not each (read only one) is valid."
So uhhhh, hm, how come that isn't in your list of laws Sye, don't you find that a bit interesting?
Sye,
(Regarding being nice)
You’ll recall that as a result of you not being able to answer this:
Prove, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
You simply said:
“Your on drugs” (yes, that’s real nice, and quite Christian.)
Then, when you finally do attempt to answer my question you don’t even answer the question, you simply ask more questions, as follows:
“What you fail to realise, Andrew, is that even if you could prove your worldview, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it is only true in the system to which you subscribe. Since BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, your worldview is NOT ABSOLUTELY TRUE, it might not be true!”
From here Sye I respond appropriately with the following:
“what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessarily apply to it."
If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:
Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.”
Now Sye,
I’m not sure if you can see whats going on here, but I’m doing to you what you do to everyone else. Whether or not you agree with my worldview or not, the fact remains that I’ve proved it, it stands in direct opposition to what you believe, and if you cannot account for it (refute it) by answering those two basic questions; then your logic within an absolute world view is invalid and I’m going to go smoke my victory cigar.
Andrew said: "You simply said:
“Your on drugs”"
No Andrew, your memory is clouded, I, out of sincere curiosity asked if you took drugs.
Sye,
Lets recap.
Prove that, "absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
What's that matter Sye, can't do it? Just say so.
Sye,
I'll make this easier for you. You say:
"The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant."
State a "law of logic" and show how it is absolute and not systemic.
Keep in mind that once you start typing, you're doing so RELATIVE to a system of proof with you (your mind, your language, what you propose) and everything around you as the method of resolution. So, I'm not really sure how you're going to do this, but anyway, you may proceed.
Say something for me like, "can the sun be the sun and not the sun?" What I love about you saying things like this is that, THE SUN IS NOT TRUE (lets say it together, "the sun is true?", sounds odd doesn't it Sye). That the sun exists is not absolute, nor is it that it's yellow, or hot, or bigger then the earth. Although it is systemically true that all these propositions are true right now.
Things, remember, do not hold the property truth. The only thing true about things, is what we say ABOUT them. In the same way, the laws of logic are not true. What we say about logic (meta-logic) however, may be either true of false.
So come on Sye, let's get to your proof now... Pretty please, with some sugar on top, and a cherry.
SYE: Andrew, is that absolutely true?
ANDREW: Oh that's right, you don't know how to answer questions
Andew Louis said: "Prove that, "absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic."
Andrew I said that I would only be addressing posts in this thread that address my 3 questions. Please post on another thread so I can ignore you there.
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. Is it absolutely true that truth is not absolute?
Sye said essentailly:
I cannot prove that absolute truth exists. As a result I'm going to ignor it and continue saying:
"Is it absolutely true that truth is not absolute?"
Sye also essentialy said:
"I cannot give an example of an absolute truth, and I cannot even prove it's a valid proposition."
Come on Sye, if you're so absolutely sure you're right, then answer the questions. I've already answered yours.
Guess I was on the wrong thread:
Sye,
I'll make this easier for you. You say:
"The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant."
State a "law of logic" and show how it is absolute and not systemic.
Keep in mind that once you start typing, you're doing so RELATIVE to a system of proof with you (your mind, your language, what you propose) and everything around you as the method of resolution. So, I'm not really sure how you're going to do this, but anyway, you may proceed.
Say something for me like, "can the sun be the sun and not the sun?" What I love about you saying things like this is that, THE SUN IS NOT TRUE (lets say it together, "the sun is true?", sounds odd doesn't it Sye). That the sun exists is not absolute, nor is it that it's yellow, or hot, or bigger then the earth. Although it is systemically true that all these propositions are true right now.
Things, remember, do not hold the property truth. The only thing true about things, is what we say ABOUT them. In the same way, the laws of logic are not true. What we say about logic (meta-logic) however, may be either true of false.
So come on Sye, let's get to your proof now... Pretty please, with some sugar on top, and a cherry.
SYE: Andrew, is that absolutely true?
ANDREW: Oh that's right, you don't know how to answer questions
Sye,
I have given you the basis for my beliefs. Now:
"Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in relation to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".
Andrew said: "Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in relation to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".
The law of non-contradiction.
Sye,
you said:
"the law of contradiction"
Sorry, this won't do, but thankyou Sye for finally TRYING to answer my questions.
how does the "law of non-contradiction" not stand in relation to other things? How is it independent? How is it not systemic? Where in a priori space doth float the proposition without objects and subjects.
For things to contradict, there exists things in RELATION to contradict with, and thereofore it is NOT INDEPENDENT. Therefore it's systemic and relative to a system of proof and requires a method of resolution to come to a conclusion.
@ Andrew Louis,
The law of non-contradiction exists in the absolute, independent mind of God.
Sye,
ok Sye, I get where you're at now. So what your're saying is that you can't actually prove that anything like laws of logic so and so forth are actually absolute. And you can't actually prove that truth is not systemic. What you're saying is that since GOD is absolute (or so you assume), then so are the laws of logic, so on.
What this means is that, you start your argument out on an ASSUMPTION that there is absolute truth, and go on to assume that math and logic are absolute, and then go on to assume that morality is absolute, and then go on to assume that God is absolute.
So really, as Stephen initially suggested, you really have no proof at all for anything, other then to simply assert that God exists.
Which gets me to my original point. You use the assumed idea that laws are absolute to prove God, but since we now know that you freely admit you don't know this to be true (and can't prove it) you're really just working off the assumption (faith) of God.
Ahhhhh, yes. You definately lost now Sye, your argument is DONE.
Thankyou, drive through. ALL HAIL SYSTEMIC TRUTH
Andrew Louis said: "Sye,
ok Sye, I get where you're at now. So what your're saying is that you can't actually prove that anything like laws of logic so and so forth are actually absolute. And you can't actually prove that truth is not systemic. What you're saying is that since GOD is absolute (or so you assume), then so are the laws of logic, so on."
Nope. You asked a simple question, I gave you a simple answer. Nice straw-man though :-D
Heading out now, hope to get to more later.
Cheers,
Sye
Furthermore Sye,
if everything is absolute in the mind of God. Then EVERYTHING is absolute. Which is hopelessly meaningless and essentailly says nothing is absolute.
And.... We're right back to systemic truth.
POW! It's magic.
Andrew said: "Furthermore Sye,
if everything is absolute in the mind of God. Then EVERYTHING is absolute."
Lovely more straw-men. I really am heading out, but it looks like you don't need anyone to argue with anyways :-D
Cheers,
Sye
Evidently you don't know what straw man means Sye.
At any rate, what form of logic are you using to evaluate my claim and how does that logic necessarily apply to it.
If your logic is absolute, the give me an example of an absolute truth and how it's not systemic.
oh right, you can't. We jsut covered that.
Sye,
Let me take a moment to reminisce in your crappie flop.
Here is how you lay down the argument on your website:
1.)Absolute truth exists
2.)Laws of Logic
3.)Laws of Math
4.)Laws of Science
5.)Absolute Moral Laws Exist
6.)All these laws are absolute and immaterial
7.)They are universal
8.)They are unchanging
9.)Only a universe Governed by god can 2 – 4 exist. God is universal and unchanging.
So Sye,
It’s clear that you proceed on the assumption that absolute truth exists, and that 2-5 are examples of that. So I’ve been attacking your idea of absolute truth with systemic truth, and you’ve never been able to refute or give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
So I refrased the question in the following way:
"Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in RELATION to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".
And finally you responded with this:
“The law of non-contradiction.”
To which I pointed out that:
For things to contradict, there exists things IN RELATION to contradict with, and therefore it is NOT INDEPENDENT. Therefore it's systemic and relative to a system of proof and requires a method of resolution to come to a conclusion.
You ready for this Sye, You responded by saying:
“The law of non-contradiction exists in the absolute, independent mind of God.”
Do you see it? Yeah, you do don’t you Sye:
So in other words, the [laws of logic] are not absolute in the world (they’re systemic), but, it’s absolute in the mind of God. This is shown by the fact that you could not refute what I said and simply retreated to God. Above Sye, you said that the laws of logic were absolute just by themselves. That we can see and prove that, and that falls into the argument for God.
But now, you can’t do that. I’ve shown that you cannot prove that absolute laws of logic exist and as a result you fold up into merely one point. GOD EXISTS, with no proof at all that he does and no claim or proof to absolute laws in the world.
So Sye’s argument now looks like this:
1.) God exists.
OH SNAP
Sye,
first off the SUN is not TRUE. Secondly, without a method of resolution your proposition is merely a relative statement about the past and not an absolute (not relative) one.
The "law of non-contradiction" is a language game that applies to your experience, not the world. In other words, before there was mind there were no objects to contradict eachother or themselves. There was nothing being proposed. Therefore the law is systemic, not absolute.
All the law of non-contradiction says is that you cannot have contradicting propositions (A cannot be -A). And again, where are the propositions without mind? What you say about the world is relative to you, what you say (your language), and what your saying it about, and contingent upon the means of coming to a given conclusion.
Answer me this Sye, what color was your hair before you were born?
Sye,
you're doing your bit on ignoring where you can't use the script.
So, I said:
Here is how you lay down the argument on your website:
1.)Absolute truth exists
2.)Laws of Logic
3.)Laws of Math
4.)Laws of Science
5.)Absolute Moral Laws Exist
6.)All these laws are absolute and immaterial
7.)They are universal
8.)They are unchanging
9.)Only a universe Governed by god can 2 – 4 exist. God is universal and unchanging.
So Sye,
It’s clear that you proceed on the assumption that absolute truth exists, and that 2-5 are examples of that. So I’ve been attacking your idea of absolute truth with systemic truth, and you’ve never been able to refute or give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
So I refrased the question in the following way:
"Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in RELATION to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".
And finally you responded with this:
“The law of non-contradiction.”
To which I pointed out that:
For things to contradict, there exists things IN RELATION to contradict with, and therefore it is NOT INDEPENDENT. Therefore it's systemic and relative to a system of proof and requires a method of resolution to come to a conclusion.
You responded by saying:
“The law of non-contradiction exists in the absolute, independent mind of God.”
Do you see it?
So in other words, the [laws of logic] are not absolute in the world (they’re systemic), but, it’s absolute in the mind of God. This is shown by the fact that you could not refute what I said and simply retreated to God. Above Sye, you said that the laws of logic were absolute just by themselves. Which is to say we can see and prove it, and that falls into the argument for God.
But now, you can’t do that. I’ve shown that you cannot prove absolute laws of logic exist and as a result you fold up into merely one point. GOD EXISTS, with no proof at all that he does and no claim or proof to absolute laws in the world.
So Sye’s argument now looks like this:
1.) God exists.
Sye,
you said:
"Well, if they aren’t universal, they don’t necessarily apply to my argument, if they aren’t abstract, please show me where they are, and if they aren’t invariant, please show me one that has changed, or tell me on what basis you proceed with the assumption that they will not change."
As you can see from my post above (#4 down) YOU HAVE YET TO PROVE THAT THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE ABSOLUTE. So your argument doesn't even get off the ground.
Sye,
I'll comment on one thing here, you said:
"So, if someone says that 2 + 2 = penguin, you can’t say that their course of thinking needs correction??? How do you know that your experiences, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are themselves valid?"
2+2=4 is meaningless until applied to "SOMETHING". There is nothing valid or invalid about this, and also nothing absolute about it, it's jsut scribles. However when we understand these signs to represent quantities relative to the world (notice I said RELATIVE), we see that penguin is absurde, because we know penguine not to correspond to quantity. But perhaps there is a language where "penguine" is "4". However we wouldn't know such things unless you ask what a person means by that.
Whatever language and sybolism someone uses to communicate the idea of quantity is arbitrary. I could just as easily say, C&t#L. Now clearly you can see this statement is nonesense. But if I said to you that the symbol "C" represented a quantity 2 of something, "t" likewise 3, L was 5, and that the & sign represented the idea that we were summing these two quantities, and # equals the final answer 5. We now know that penguine, doesn't fit here, because of course a penguine is not an idea of quantity, it's word that correspnds to an object / mamal, that lives in the south pole.
Furthermore our idea of quantity is directly taken (systemicaly) from the world. From here the language and symbolism we use and assent to (relative to our community), is judged right or wrong based on how we use it relative to our current situation.
To put it another way:
What we sense with our senses is not what's in the wrong; what ends up being in the wrong is the way we communicate what we're sensing relative to the language we speak, and the meanings of the words we're using in context. In other words it's not nature that's right or wrong (nature holds no property of truth), it's the way we're communicating it relative to our communal language that's wrong.
Which gets me back to SYSTEMIC TRUTH where it is only propositions which are true or false. And we (mind) are the method of resolution to get to that.
Sye,
a vary brief point (phrased differently from earlier):
You often accuse us of "begging the question". Since you believe in the absolute nature of logic, then you'd certainly agree that "begging the question" refers to a circular argument, and therefore is not a proof. I say "NOT A PROOF", because you of course accuse us of not having proof as we're, again, begging the question.
However, you state vary succinctly that:
"All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circular logic, but not each (read only one) is valid."
So you're admitting that your argument begs the question and is therefore not a proof. Not only are you admitting it, but you’re saying it's NECESSARY. So really you’re saying that it's NECESSARILY the case that you don't have a proof because you’re violating one of your absolute and thus violating the nature of God.
(oh boy, violating God)
The only way for you to salvage this is to break one of your absolute laws of logic. From what I've said above it's clear that you’d have to violate the LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION (which you believe to be absolute as well). I say this because of course, in order to follow the laws of logic and conclude to a valid proof, you cannot be circular without begging the question. But, if your argument is necessarily circular as you say, then as you use it it must not be circular at the same time in order to be valid, therefore violating the non-contradiction law.
(and violating God’s nature yet again, sheesh)
So you only have a proof if you can violate God’s nature.
See my premise for Systemic Truth HERE
See Sye's argument HERE
(MY COMMENTS IN BOLD)
Sye,
(food for thought, I don't want to interrupt the flow of the discussion with Stephen; so no need to answer to any of this at this time.)
I believe I’ve already accounted for the propositions of logic in my world view. I realize once again that you do not agree with my world view, but you have also never accounted for it. You simply say, "Why should I believe in your system of truth?" Which is where I respond, because you cannot prove yours. You also say, "Your system of truth is absurd." Yet you've never offered proof as to how and why it is. So following that, Sye does not exist because he is absurd.
That a logical proposition is immaterial MAY be the case, and according to your assertion it MAY even be the case that God exists - but neither has been proven. A logical proposition correlates to objective reality and that it is immaterial can be seen to be somewhat of a misnomer. For example one might say that 1+1=2 is an immaterial proposition. However this proposition is meaningless by itself as it was derived from the experience of reality as in 1[apple]+1[apple]=2[apples]. In this case the law of logic here is not immaterial in that what our language (the proposition) is reflecting is a change of state in reality. 1+1=2 in this case is a mere linguistic affirmation that this was the case. To say that any logical proposition stands by itself in some immaterial way is to suggest that it is the case outside an object in which it applies to. Which means it would be not relative, or absolute. But this is impossible. Truth is [after all] systemic.
As a result, logical propositions (which are what you call the LAWS of logic) cannot stand by themselves in any absolute sense, so further are not really immaterial at all. If all you mean by immaterial is that thought and language are void of substance, I say that they are contingent (systemically dependent) upon substance. In this way the laws of logic are not derived from God, but systemically from the world. Again (as I’ve said to you before) in order to even put forth a proposition one first needs a method of resolution and in this way your “IMMATERIAL LAWS OF LOGIC” do not stand as being contingent upon God, but relative to the world [system] at large. Furthermore, before there was mind to make propositions, no propositions even existed, therefore no absolute law of logic existed in this instance. The only propositions that exist with regard to the past are ones we make relative to our current position. To put it another way, if the laws of logic are immaterial and absolute (not relative & true for every possible circumstance) then you must show that these laws necessarily existe[d] without mind and without the material world. if you cannot, then it stands that truth is then necessarily systemic.
So what "law of logic" then, is necessarily absolute, and what proof can you offer that it is not contingent [relative to] upon mind and/or matter? Without this, you can throw your proof out the window. If you can't do that, in the vary least offer a proof against systemic truth that doesn't borrow from my world view.
And might I remind you Sye (followng from your tactics) that you struck Stephens argument here:
"(1) The existence of the Great Cosmic Wombat is a necessary precondition of there being laws of logic
(2) Laws of logic exist
Therefore: The Great Cosmic Wombat exists."
Because he was abandoning his world view. So be careful that if you engage my argument that you stay within the confines of your own absolute worldview. So calling it absurd, or reflecting on the possibility of other world views is no longer a valid argument in this case.
Sye, (just a reminder)
I posited my contrary justification for logic, but you were never able to refuted it; on 3 different bloggs. Regardless of whether I'm amateur at best (if even that), you've never answered to the fundamental questions I asked because you couldn't.
And,
if someone else here posits yet another system, chances are they will get the following response from you as I've seen it before (it's a canned response from you):
"What you fail to realize, is that even if your system of truth is valid, it would only be true for the system in which you are working. Anyone could posit another system, and it would necessarily have to be true. I could easily say “Well, you may think that I haven't proven anything according to your system of truth, but according to my system of truth, I have.”
This is hardly a refutation, it's merely a denial of the need for one. Furthermore it beggs the question as to why we should appeal to your system of truth.
You said to Kyle:
"Posit the[a] contrary justifiction for the laws of logic, that you hold to, and I will be pleased to refute it. "
But you won't, so why should Kyle bother?
Sye, (here is my pink slip)
let my contention be(following systemic truth as my proof of ownership of logic), that your proof is not a proof for it contains an unargued for premise.
The statement, "It may be true for your system but not for mine", would be begging the question and not answer as to why I should buy into your system of truth.
This is where you say:
"that the proof is valid based on the impossibility of the contrary."
This too does not prove my claim to logic as being false.
Andre Louis said: "Sye, (here is my pink slip)"
Look Andrew, you don't even believe in absolutes, so how in the world can you justify absolute laws of logic?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
you stated:
"Look Andrew, you don't even believe in absolutes, so how in the world can you justify absolute laws of logic?"
Yes, that's in my premise which is posted here and at my blogg. You know it, you've read it.
Bottom line: I've posited a counter justification for the laws of logic with my premise on Systimic Truth (which states that the the laws of logic are SYSTEMIC, NOT absolute). In my proof I've shown how your idea of truth is not propositional, and furthermore not valid.
So,
staying within the confines of your worldview, prove me wrong. Recall that this requires you to:
A.)Show how the statement "Absolute truth exists" is propositional.
B.)Give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is not Systemic.
Here's what you're doing Sye.
You state:
"Posit the[a] contrary justifiction for the laws of logic, that you hold to, and I will be pleased to refute it. "
Now that I've done that you say essentially, "well, it doesn't fit with my absolute world view so I'm not going to refute it."
I reminded of this:
http://idiotphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/07/stb-debate.html
@ Andrew
I said: ”Posit a contrary justifiction for the laws of logic, that you hold to, and I will be pleased to refute it.”
You said: ”Now that I've done that you say essentially, "well, it doesn't fit with my absolute world view so I'm not going to refute it."
Problem is, Andrew, we aren’t even on the same page. You are talking about arbitrary laws that only apply in your made-up system, not universal laws. If you want to get into the debate and posit your justification for the universal, absract, invariant laws of logic, fine, but I could not care less about laws which you claim are only true to you.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
you said:
"Problem is, Andrew, we aren’t even on the same page. You are talking about arbitrary laws that only apply in your made-up system, not universal laws."
Eureka! You fail to realize the most fundamental element here Sye.
PROVE that my system is arbitrary and that absolute idealism is true? There is nothing arbitrary about my position. I posited a system for truth, refute it. I think YOUR system is made up, at least in my case I proved why I believe that to be the case, you offer nothing.
The problem is, Sye, is that you've perhaps figured out that the only way to refute my proof is to subscribe to my world view.
Furthermore, the whole point of this is that we're all on different pages and you need to prove that yours is the right page, as I/ME/ANDREW have already done.
Andrew Louis said: "PROVE that my system is arbitrary"
Um Andrew, if it aint absolute, it's arbitrary. Simple as that.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
You said:
"Um Andrew, if it aint absolute, it's arbitrary. Simple as that."
Sye,
I don't believe in absolute truth, I've already shown it is an impossability. Your proposition above is therefore not valid in my worldview.
So, in light of that, what proof do you have that absolutes exist? Prove to me that, "absolute truth exists" is a proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Andrew Louis said: "I don't believe in absolute truth"
I can't believe I'm doing this (again). Andrew, is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye you said:
"is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?"
That is not a valid proposition in my world view, so you must first prove that it is, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Andrew Louis said: "That is not a valid proposition in my world view"
It's not a proposition, it's a question.
Sye,
you said:
"It's not a proposition, it's a question." Regarding: "is it absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist?"
You are presenting it for my consideration, and therefore it is a proposal, and systemically invalid.
So I say again:
prove that it is, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Andrew Louis said: "You are presenting it for my consideration, and therefore it is a proposal, and systemically invalid."
Look Andrew, I am only asking you a question, which you obviously cannot answer. Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid.
Sorry man, but you are boring me to tears, give it a rest already. The very owner of this blog has no problem with absolute truth, so go argue this where people are interested in hearing it.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
you said:
Look Andrew, I am only asking you a question, which you obviously cannot answer.
Given that I have proven that absolute truth is no such thing, I have already answered your question. You need only to re-read my proof, which I know you already know quite well.
So I say again:
prove that it is, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
And you said:
"Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid."
Prove this to be the case Sye. And understand that in doing so you must:
prove , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
You're just mad because I'm out Sye-ing you and you have no way to save face from this.
Andrew Louis said:” You're just mad because I'm out Sye-ing you and you have no way to save face from this.”
I’m not at all mad, just extremely bored by you.
I said: “Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid."
You said: ”Prove this to be the case Sye.”
Yikes Andrew, this is your very claim. You are the one who believes in systemic truth, by definition, if your argument was valid, it would be only valid in your system. If you claim that your argument is valid outside of your system, you refute yourself. If you can’t see that. I really can’t help you.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye:
Lets try this again.
You said: “Still though, if what you say WERE true, then it would only be invalid in YOUR arbitrary system, and not absolutely invalid."
I said: ”Prove this to be the case Sye.”
Perhaps you are having a lapse in understanding. Prove that it's only invalid in my system and that absolutes necessarily exist. Which of course requires you to:
prove , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Nutcase:
You said:
"I am male" isn't absolute, but it's not arbitrary.
That's right, it's SYSTEMIC, like all truths.
Nutcase, (I love that name)
You don't understand, I've already offered a proof for systemic truth, Sye knows that (recall that Sye's first condition for being able to argue with him was that you needed to establish a justification for your use of logic). Now that I have, Sye refuses to refute that my claims are invalid and/or offer a proof that absolute truth necessarily exists. So he has nothing.
Absolutism [you see] is the vary foundation of his claim that God exists and I have undermined it. If he CANNOT offer a proof against systemic truth and show that, "that absolute truth exists" is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is not systemic. Then the show is all over, his argument is toast.
Sye,
if you are trying to suggest that the proposition, "nutcasenightmare is a male", is absolutely true, then it must be so in every possible circumstance. Was he male before he was conceived. If not then how is that absolute?
Systemically it's true that he's male.
You know what, my proof is there. When you feel like refuting it Sye, and showing that,"that absolutes truth exists" is a proposition, then give an example of an absolute truth and show how it is not systemic, you let me know. You can post it on my blogg.
Andrew Louis said: "Systemically it's true that he's male."
Andrew, where is it true that HE is not male?
Cheers,
Sye
Andrew Louis said: "I'm not going to keep repeating it for you."
Thank goodness.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
you said:
"where is it true that HE is not male?"
I cover this vary explicitly in my proof. You're more then welcome to read it again.
Until you can define the standard of logic which you use to evaluate me, then everything you say is invalid. (your pink slip is suspect)
If your claim is that standard of logic you use is absolute, then surely you can see how it is not consistent with my proof, and therefor you should first refute my claims by:
proving , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Recall Sye,
youve never refuted my world view.
You've never answered to the questions:
prove , "that absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition, and afterward give an example of something that is absolute and how it is not systemic.
Yet by my proof (and in the string) I've answered ALL of your questions.
According to my world view the logic that your using to evaluate everyone is invalid unless you prove the above.
Once again YOU HAVE NOTHING.
Sye, (good)
You said: (not to me, but...)
"Do you have any problem with this argument?
[1.]All men are mortal
[2.]Socrates is a man
[3.]Therefore Socrates is mortal."
So, Sye, compare this to:
1. The existence of God is a nec precondition of the existence of logic
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore: God exists
So uhhh, do I have to point out the obvious? Perhaps I will anyway.
1.)That men are mortal can be shown to be true by itself.
2.)That Socrates is man can also be shown to be true by itself.
3.) Therefore we can conclude that 2 is 1.
So,
if you're suggesting that both arguements are the same. Then surely you have the missing proof for 1 that Stephen has been looking for and that shows it is true.
Also, you stated early on that "All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circularity". Following that, where is the necessary element of circularity in the Socrates arguement? If there isn't one, then surely the two arguements are not the same afterall.
Andrew Louis said: ”you stated early on that "All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circularity".”
Yip
”Following that, where is the necessary element of circularity in the Socrates arguement?”
Um, it is not an ultimate authority claim, but I’ll be glad to point it out to you anyway.
Premise one states “All men are mortal” and it begs the question that all men are in fact mortal. Of course you changed it by saying that it can be shown that men are mortal, but I’d love to see how it can be shown that all men are mortal.
Cheers,
Sye
INDEED SYE! PROOF!
And I would like to see you prove that, “that absolute truth exists” is a proposition, and show me an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
But you’re not going to do that because you can’t. Which is why, from my perspective, your argument is a failure from the start.
@ Andrew,
Don't take this the wrong way Andrew, but do you do drugs?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
When you can prove me wrong you have my blogg address, drop me the proof anytime.
He's all yours you guys.
Andrew, it was a simple question. A simple 'yes' or 'no' would suffice.
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. Just for your future consideration,'blog' is short for "web log," hence the one 'g.'
Sye,
sorry I wasn't clear the first time.
When you can prove my proof wrong, "SYSTEMIC TRUTH", by showing, "That absolute truth exists" is a valid proposition and give and example of an absolute truth and how it's not systemic....
(as I said before, all your questions are already answered via what I've already stated and within my proof itself)
So drop me a line at my bloggggg when you have it, But you’re not going to do that because you can’t. Which is why, from my perspective, your argument is a failure from the start.
So,
he's all your guys.
Sye,
I just caught this as I was trolling through.
Is it really your defense that systemic truth is invalid because I’m on drugs?
Perhaps you’d like to point out how Systemic Truth is invalid according to your world view. That would be the sane, non-drug induced thing to do. You seem to be really good at refuting everyone else here, but as of yet you have not refuted me, and in terms of intelligence I can assure you I’m the dummy here. So what does that make you Sye?
I’ll give it to you that you made an attempt, but you continually fail at:
Proving, “that systemic truth exists” is a valid proposition, and stating something that is an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
If your world view is correct, you should have no problem with this. I fail to understand why you cannot answer those fundamental questions. If you cannot, the system of logic you use on everyone else is invalid, and you have no claim to truth of your proof.
Then what Nietzsche said was true, “[Sye’s]God is dead”.
Andrew said: "Is it really your defense that systemic truth is invalid because I’m on drugs?"
Knew it! That explains alot actually.
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
So then it should be quite easy for you to tear through the idea of Systemic Truth and prove it wrong. But first realize that to do so you must prove that your system of truth/logic is valid.
Why is that so difficult for you Sye? If you can’t, just say so.
The validity of your claim hangs upon your ability to do that.
Sye,
your knowledge of eastern religion is pathetic. Eastern religion is not pantheistic. You want pantheism, read Spinoza.
You have no idea what your talking about.
And by the way:
prove, "that absolute truth exists" is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
Cheers,
Andy
Andrew said: "Eastern religion is not pantheistic."
What type of drugs do you actually take Andrew?
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
don't you find it at all odd that I've already given you a proof of my world view and you have yet to be able to refute it with 2 basic questions:
Prove, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
yes, that is odd indeed.
Andrew said: "Sye, don't you find it at all odd that I've already given you a proof of my world view and you have yet to be able to refute it"
What you fail to realise, Andrew, is that even if you could prove your worldview, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it is only true in the system to which you subscribe. Since BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, your worldview is NOT ABSOLUTELY TRUE, it might not be true!
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessaraly apply to me.
If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:
Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
It is not only true for MY system, because I've shown, it is the only system.
Prove otherwise Sye.
Andrew said: "It is not only true for MY system, because I've shown, it is the only system."
Um, Andrew, is it absolutely true that yours is the only system, or is it systemically true? And if yours is the only system, doesn't that MAKE any truth within that system absolutely true???
Cheers,
Sye
Sye,
what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessaraly apply to me.
If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:
Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
@ Steven Carr
”traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic: (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity. (Britannica online Encyclopedia)"
Sye,
nice jod on quoting the three fundamental laws of logic.
But, there seems to be one missing. Do you know the one? It's the one you use most often, and it's not in your list.
Sye says: (and I quote)
"All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circularity, but not each (read only one) is valid."
So uhhhh, hm, how come that isn't in your list of laws Sye, don't you find that a bit interesting?
Sye,
(Regarding being nice)
You’ll recall that as a result of you not being able to answer this:
Prove, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
You simply said:
“Your on drugs” (yes, that’s real nice, and quite Christian.)
Then, when you finally do attempt to answer my question you don’t even answer the question, you simply ask more questions, as follows:
“What you fail to realise, Andrew, is that even if you could prove your worldview, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it is only true in the system to which you subscribe. Since BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, your worldview is NOT ABSOLUTELY TRUE, it might not be true!”
From here Sye I respond appropriately with the following:
“what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessarily apply to it."
If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:
Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.”
Now Sye,
I’m not sure if you can see whats going on here, but I’m doing to you what you do to everyone else. Whether or not you agree with my worldview or not, the fact remains that I’ve proved it, it stands in direct opposition to what you believe, and if you cannot account for it (refute it) by answering those two basic questions; then your logic within an absolute world view is invalid and I’m going to go smoke my victory cigar.
Andrew said: "You simply said:
“Your on drugs”"
No Andrew, your memory is clouded, I, out of sincere curiosity asked if you took drugs.
Sye,
Lets recap.
Prove that, "absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
What's that matter Sye, can't do it? Just say so.
Sye,
I'll make this easier for you. You say:
"The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant."
State a "law of logic" and show how it is absolute and not systemic.
Keep in mind that once you start typing, you're doing so RELATIVE to a system of proof with you (your mind, your language, what you propose) and everything around you as the method of resolution. So, I'm not really sure how you're going to do this, but anyway, you may proceed.
Say something for me like, "can the sun be the sun and not the sun?" What I love about you saying things like this is that, THE SUN IS NOT TRUE (lets say it together, "the sun is true?", sounds odd doesn't it Sye). That the sun exists is not absolute, nor is it that it's yellow, or hot, or bigger then the earth. Although it is systemically true that all these propositions are true right now.
Things, remember, do not hold the property truth. The only thing true about things, is what we say ABOUT them. In the same way, the laws of logic are not true. What we say about logic (meta-logic) however, may be either true of false.
So come on Sye, let's get to your proof now... Pretty please, with some sugar on top, and a cherry.
SYE: Andrew, is that absolutely true?
ANDREW: Oh that's right, you don't know how to answer questions
Andew Louis said: "Prove that, "absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic."
Andrew I said that I would only be addressing posts in this thread that address my 3 questions. Please post on another thread so I can ignore you there.
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. Is it absolutely true that truth is not absolute?
Sye said essentailly:
I cannot prove that absolute truth exists. As a result I'm going to ignor it and continue saying:
"Is it absolutely true that truth is not absolute?"
Sye also essentialy said:
"I cannot give an example of an absolute truth, and I cannot even prove it's a valid proposition."
Come on Sye, if you're so absolutely sure you're right, then answer the questions. I've already answered yours.
Guess I was on the wrong thread:
Sye,
I'll make this easier for you. You say:
"The laws of logic are universal, abstract, and invariant."
State a "law of logic" and show how it is absolute and not systemic.
Keep in mind that once you start typing, you're doing so RELATIVE to a system of proof with you (your mind, your language, what you propose) and everything around you as the method of resolution. So, I'm not really sure how you're going to do this, but anyway, you may proceed.
Say something for me like, "can the sun be the sun and not the sun?" What I love about you saying things like this is that, THE SUN IS NOT TRUE (lets say it together, "the sun is true?", sounds odd doesn't it Sye). That the sun exists is not absolute, nor is it that it's yellow, or hot, or bigger then the earth. Although it is systemically true that all these propositions are true right now.
Things, remember, do not hold the property truth. The only thing true about things, is what we say ABOUT them. In the same way, the laws of logic are not true. What we say about logic (meta-logic) however, may be either true of false.
So come on Sye, let's get to your proof now... Pretty please, with some sugar on top, and a cherry.
SYE: Andrew, is that absolutely true?
ANDREW: Oh that's right, you don't know how to answer questions
Sye,
I have given you the basis for my beliefs. Now:
"Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in relation to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".
Andrew said: "Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in relation to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".
The law of non-contradiction.
Sye,
you said:
"the law of contradiction"
Sorry, this won't do, but thankyou Sye for finally TRYING to answer my questions.
how does the "law of non-contradiction" not stand in relation to other things? How is it independent? How is it not systemic? Where in a priori space doth float the proposition without objects and subjects.
For things to contradict, there exists things in RELATION to contradict with, and thereofore it is NOT INDEPENDENT. Therefore it's systemic and relative to a system of proof and requires a method of resolution to come to a conclusion.
@ Andrew Louis,
The law of non-contradiction exists in the absolute, independent mind of God.
Sye,
ok Sye, I get where you're at now. So what your're saying is that you can't actually prove that anything like laws of logic so and so forth are actually absolute. And you can't actually prove that truth is not systemic. What you're saying is that since GOD is absolute (or so you assume), then so are the laws of logic, so on.
What this means is that, you start your argument out on an ASSUMPTION that there is absolute truth, and go on to assume that math and logic are absolute, and then go on to assume that morality is absolute, and then go on to assume that God is absolute.
So really, as Stephen initially suggested, you really have no proof at all for anything, other then to simply assert that God exists.
Which gets me to my original point. You use the assumed idea that laws are absolute to prove God, but since we now know that you freely admit you don't know this to be true (and can't prove it) you're really just working off the assumption (faith) of God.
Ahhhhh, yes. You definately lost now Sye, your argument is DONE.
Thankyou, drive through. ALL HAIL SYSTEMIC TRUTH
Andrew Louis said: "Sye,
ok Sye, I get where you're at now. So what your're saying is that you can't actually prove that anything like laws of logic so and so forth are actually absolute. And you can't actually prove that truth is not systemic. What you're saying is that since GOD is absolute (or so you assume), then so are the laws of logic, so on."
Nope. You asked a simple question, I gave you a simple answer. Nice straw-man though :-D
Heading out now, hope to get to more later.
Cheers,
Sye
Furthermore Sye,
if everything is absolute in the mind of God. Then EVERYTHING is absolute. Which is hopelessly meaningless and essentailly says nothing is absolute.
And.... We're right back to systemic truth.
POW! It's magic.
Andrew said: "Furthermore Sye,
if everything is absolute in the mind of God. Then EVERYTHING is absolute."
Lovely more straw-men. I really am heading out, but it looks like you don't need anyone to argue with anyways :-D
Cheers,
Sye
Evidently you don't know what straw man means Sye.
At any rate, what form of logic are you using to evaluate my claim and how does that logic necessarily apply to it.
If your logic is absolute, the give me an example of an absolute truth and how it's not systemic.
oh right, you can't. We jsut covered that.
Sye,
Let me take a moment to reminisce in your crappie flop.
Here is how you lay down the argument on your website:
1.)Absolute truth exists
2.)Laws of Logic
3.)Laws of Math
4.)Laws of Science
5.)Absolute Moral Laws Exist
6.)All these laws are absolute and immaterial
7.)They are universal
8.)They are unchanging
9.)Only a universe Governed by god can 2 – 4 exist. God is universal and unchanging.
So Sye,
It’s clear that you proceed on the assumption that absolute truth exists, and that 2-5 are examples of that. So I’ve been attacking your idea of absolute truth with systemic truth, and you’ve never been able to refute or give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
So I refrased the question in the following way:
"Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in RELATION to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".
And finally you responded with this:
“The law of non-contradiction.”
To which I pointed out that:
For things to contradict, there exists things IN RELATION to contradict with, and therefore it is NOT INDEPENDENT. Therefore it's systemic and relative to a system of proof and requires a method of resolution to come to a conclusion.
You ready for this Sye, You responded by saying:
“The law of non-contradiction exists in the absolute, independent mind of God.”
Do you see it? Yeah, you do don’t you Sye:
So in other words, the [laws of logic] are not absolute in the world (they’re systemic), but, it’s absolute in the mind of God. This is shown by the fact that you could not refute what I said and simply retreated to God. Above Sye, you said that the laws of logic were absolute just by themselves. That we can see and prove that, and that falls into the argument for God.
But now, you can’t do that. I’ve shown that you cannot prove that absolute laws of logic exist and as a result you fold up into merely one point. GOD EXISTS, with no proof at all that he does and no claim or proof to absolute laws in the world.
So Sye’s argument now looks like this:
1.) God exists.
OH SNAP
Sye,
first off the SUN is not TRUE. Secondly, without a method of resolution your proposition is merely a relative statement about the past and not an absolute (not relative) one.
The "law of non-contradiction" is a language game that applies to your experience, not the world. In other words, before there was mind there were no objects to contradict eachother or themselves. There was nothing being proposed. Therefore the law is systemic, not absolute.
All the law of non-contradiction says is that you cannot have contradicting propositions (A cannot be -A). And again, where are the propositions without mind? What you say about the world is relative to you, what you say (your language), and what your saying it about, and contingent upon the means of coming to a given conclusion.
Answer me this Sye, what color was your hair before you were born?
Sye,
you're doing your bit on ignoring where you can't use the script.
So, I said:
Here is how you lay down the argument on your website:
1.)Absolute truth exists
2.)Laws of Logic
3.)Laws of Math
4.)Laws of Science
5.)Absolute Moral Laws Exist
6.)All these laws are absolute and immaterial
7.)They are universal
8.)They are unchanging
9.)Only a universe Governed by god can 2 – 4 exist. God is universal and unchanging.
So Sye,
It’s clear that you proceed on the assumption that absolute truth exists, and that 2-5 are examples of that. So I’ve been attacking your idea of absolute truth with systemic truth, and you’ve never been able to refute or give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
So I refrased the question in the following way:
"Name one THING, LAW, whathaveyou, that exists "INDEPENDENTLY" and NOT in RELATION to other THINGS, is "NOT RELATIVE" and is true for "EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE".
And finally you responded with this:
“The law of non-contradiction.”
To which I pointed out that:
For things to contradict, there exists things IN RELATION to contradict with, and therefore it is NOT INDEPENDENT. Therefore it's systemic and relative to a system of proof and requires a method of resolution to come to a conclusion.
You responded by saying:
“The law of non-contradiction exists in the absolute, independent mind of God.”
Do you see it?
So in other words, the [laws of logic] are not absolute in the world (they’re systemic), but, it’s absolute in the mind of God. This is shown by the fact that you could not refute what I said and simply retreated to God. Above Sye, you said that the laws of logic were absolute just by themselves. Which is to say we can see and prove it, and that falls into the argument for God.
But now, you can’t do that. I’ve shown that you cannot prove absolute laws of logic exist and as a result you fold up into merely one point. GOD EXISTS, with no proof at all that he does and no claim or proof to absolute laws in the world.
So Sye’s argument now looks like this:
1.) God exists.
Sye,
you said:
"Well, if they aren’t universal, they don’t necessarily apply to my argument, if they aren’t abstract, please show me where they are, and if they aren’t invariant, please show me one that has changed, or tell me on what basis you proceed with the assumption that they will not change."
As you can see from my post above (#4 down) YOU HAVE YET TO PROVE THAT THE LAWS OF LOGIC ARE ABSOLUTE. So your argument doesn't even get off the ground.
Sye,
I'll comment on one thing here, you said:
"So, if someone says that 2 + 2 = penguin, you can’t say that their course of thinking needs correction??? How do you know that your experiences, and the reasoning with which you interpret them are themselves valid?"
2+2=4 is meaningless until applied to "SOMETHING". There is nothing valid or invalid about this, and also nothing absolute about it, it's jsut scribles. However when we understand these signs to represent quantities relative to the world (notice I said RELATIVE), we see that penguin is absurde, because we know penguine not to correspond to quantity. But perhaps there is a language where "penguine" is "4". However we wouldn't know such things unless you ask what a person means by that.
Whatever language and sybolism someone uses to communicate the idea of quantity is arbitrary. I could just as easily say, C&t#L. Now clearly you can see this statement is nonesense. But if I said to you that the symbol "C" represented a quantity 2 of something, "t" likewise 3, L was 5, and that the & sign represented the idea that we were summing these two quantities, and # equals the final answer 5. We now know that penguine, doesn't fit here, because of course a penguine is not an idea of quantity, it's word that correspnds to an object / mamal, that lives in the south pole.
Furthermore our idea of quantity is directly taken (systemicaly) from the world. From here the language and symbolism we use and assent to (relative to our community), is judged right or wrong based on how we use it relative to our current situation.
To put it another way:
What we sense with our senses is not what's in the wrong; what ends up being in the wrong is the way we communicate what we're sensing relative to the language we speak, and the meanings of the words we're using in context. In other words it's not nature that's right or wrong (nature holds no property of truth), it's the way we're communicating it relative to our communal language that's wrong.
Which gets me back to SYSTEMIC TRUTH where it is only propositions which are true or false. And we (mind) are the method of resolution to get to that.
Sye,
a vary brief point (phrased differently from earlier):
You often accuse us of "begging the question". Since you believe in the absolute nature of logic, then you'd certainly agree that "begging the question" refers to a circular argument, and therefore is not a proof. I say "NOT A PROOF", because you of course accuse us of not having proof as we're, again, begging the question.
However, you state vary succinctly that:
"All ultimate authority claims have a necessary element of circular logic, but not each (read only one) is valid."
So you're admitting that your argument begs the question and is therefore not a proof. Not only are you admitting it, but you’re saying it's NECESSARY. So really you’re saying that it's NECESSARILY the case that you don't have a proof because you’re violating one of your absolute and thus violating the nature of God.
(oh boy, violating God)
The only way for you to salvage this is to break one of your absolute laws of logic. From what I've said above it's clear that you’d have to violate the LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION (which you believe to be absolute as well). I say this because of course, in order to follow the laws of logic and conclude to a valid proof, you cannot be circular without begging the question. But, if your argument is necessarily circular as you say, then as you use it it must not be circular at the same time in order to be valid, therefore violating the non-contradiction law.
(and violating God’s nature yet again, sheesh)
So you only have a proof if you can violate God’s nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)