ian
:"f every truth claim depends on the time, place culture, etc, then any
judgment between truth claims as to their validity also depends on time,
place, culture, etc. This can go on endlessly, because any judgment about
the judgment depends on etc etc etc."
in offering certain concepts to people who matter i wil ask the question:
which of these is the Law:
1. always hold mommy's hand crossing the street.
2. look both ways before crossing the street.
3. yield to oncoming traffic?
i get back normally, a relativistic answer...they are all valid, or a
relativistic answer, it all depends...with no one being able to specify depends
on what....and the failures of that lack of specification i hear as energising
ur perceived animous in input here.
i then offer to people--none of them. the Law is don't get ur tail killed in
traffic.
the praxes and sound of the Law are totallly situational, and unrelated to the
Law.
this is the same pov i would apply to Truth.
:"from what absolute standpoint can
you reject some viewpoints and accept others? "
mine. descartes. if i am what is being messed with by the daemon, i am. how
another daemon messes with someone else is is their problem...there's a Cite in
lG. plough ur own furrow.
from conception onwards, something is happening. at some point that
something starts calling itself "i" and from a few seconds later begins
defining itself in terms of surround and success/failure.
on another view, i can define "right" by "fits"---darwin. and "fit" is again
based on behaviour, not conceptualisation.
"animal faith" tells more truth than ideation. one can read the Master on
the topic of the relative value placed on deaths in wars vs local gossip to
assess the failures of ideation and culture.
at the >>human<< level, i can seek to comprehend underlying realities, and
sort them from the lies told by culture. from such i can, depending upon some
>>action<< be in a situation to hear the Voice (para 1 Aqdas), and having
accepted it as the Voice, obey It regardless of "heavens and the earth". but
that obedience will always be relative to a situation requiring a response,
never to the Reality of the Voice.
since i have a cordial contempt for the weight of intellect, and a great
affection for those who choose to bear that weight out of love of His Beauty,
i offer to this construct:
:"f you deny that "everything goes" how, from what absolute standpoint can
you reject some viewpoints and accept others? After all, any viewpoint can
be established from some "specific individual's position.""
this post modern example of the process of verification within the inner self:
;'In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
was looked on as something shocking.
Now heaven knows, anything goes.
Good authors too who once knew better words,
now only use fourletter words writing prose,
anything goes.
The world has gone mad today,
and good´s bad today, and black´s white today,
and day´s night today,
When most guys today that women prize today
are just silly gigolos.
So though I´m not a great romancer,
I know that you´re bound to answer
when I propose, anything goes."
and as i try to get the circle back around, this same working philosopher,
cole porter, commented on what rand, for once in her life, saw correctly in the
fountainhead,
the original full lyrics on the folly of false authority, the meaning of
relativism against the root in "vallue" and the rise of elsworth tooey:
cite aviable here.
http://www.metrolyrics.com/anything-goes-lyrics-ella-fitzgerald.html
i also wish to thank you for this beautiful sentence:
:"Genuine contradictions preclude
complexity since they break things down into various fragments, whereas
complexity does not do so. Thus, IMO, reality is complex but not genuinely
contradictory.
"
:"or that words
can
never connect with reality in any way.
Nor is human communication perfect - but that admission is a long way from
accepting the deconstructionist dictum about endless self-subversion or
infinite referentiality that ultimately make communication impossible.
Here again we see the trouble with deconstruction: if we take it at its
word, we ultimately get nonsense, and if we try to 'tone it down' to make
sense we get platitudes, i.e. statements that recycle old-well-known
observations."
i assume u know the story of the grammarian, the servant, and the sea.
and firmly realising that i am ignorant beast of the fields, with no desire to
be more, has it occurred to anybody but me that time/space is a function of
>>>motion<< , which motion makes
:"f "each truth is relative to time place and knower" then each knower will
have his own truth - and perhaps reject the truths of other knowers who
have
their own truth relative to their time, place and personal being or
subjectivity.
Since we cannot judge among views because all our views are relative to
our
own time, place and ourselves, we have no neutral ground or Archimedean
standpoint from which to judge among views."
an easily resolved issue?
there is a way to judge any statement. get up and >>>act like<<< it's true.
animal faith.
:"purple name stomp Vishnu, Tylenol, post-it."
and the kids is madras get me hot as ur sundress,
when they do the Visnu stomp.
purple post-its on ur big **** (glossed for secondary female characteristics
noted on rib cages)
when u do the Vishnu stomp
tylenols my cramps and make me damp
when u do the Vishnu stomp.
ok, i can dance to it. i give it an 8 for merchantibility, and a 7 for corss
promotional possibility. so yes, ur named points on a grid let me follow the
numbers and draw a shape. "meaning"
now...will that dance let me succeed in bringing forth he who will remember
Thee in my stead? aDj says no. history says no. my gut says i am nauseated by
people thinking, as the infallible Guardian notes, that it does.
so..i have even have windage along with my triangulation as to whether i am
pointing at a set of "natural" behaviours, or a falsified Truth.
btw,
:"Relativism says
it
is impossible to know decisively which one of the two 'rights' is actually
right, correct or morally acceptable." hits my ears like straw. it seems to me
that by definition, there could not be a unified code of what relativism says
is true.
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
