The "only" factual truism is that you have a "object" on a table. The object is the simple fact. Calling it an ashtray, blue or beautiful are subjective interpretations of a simple fact. So the fact remains simply a fact.
On Sep 18, 11:38 pm, [email protected] wrote: > When is a fact not simply a fact? I have a beautiful blue object on a table > next to a chair where my patients sit in my office. Technically - factually - > it is an ashtray. Ocassionally a patient will ask is it ok for them to smoke. > I will say If they have to please do it before or after the session outside. > I explain that they certaintly might smoke or not - that is their choice. But > if they do in my presence I will be coughing the rest of the session as I am > allergic to the smoke? Then am I teasing them? No I love the way the object > looks combined with the irredescent blue color. > > My point is - that it is factually true that I have an ashtray in my room. > However to me it is an object of beauty. Additionally the same object can > function as an ashtray to a smoker, an object of art to an artist, a > potential weapon for a thief. > > A fact is not simply a fact in and of itself .ll facts are embedded in > multiple contexts. Chane the context and or the meaning of the embedded fact > in a particualr context and the so called pure fact changes radically. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Slip Disc <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:24 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > o I don't get the point you don't have. > he point is: IF data can have multiple interpretations, perceptions, > eading to multiple conclusions the data cannot be deemed "fact". > acts are immutable and have no malle > able quality. > here are many facts that no one can dispute and I'm sure you can name > few. If you dare you might want to dispute some facts concerning > ur solar system or the fact that if you chop your hand off a new one > ont grow back or that castration renders the male unable to > eproduce. Lee might waste time arguing some cryogenic sperm storage > rocess but the point is clear; "Fact" at it's core is exactly that, > Fact". > Some Dictionary blurb: > act > noun > . something that actually exists; reality; truth. > . something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now > fact. > . a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known > o be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. > I find it all so simple and wonder why the conundrum. Facts are not > nigmatic but simply truths. > The "Only" facts I've ever known to be false (pure bull) are the facts > hat come from witnesses during a trial or a myriad of other > abrications stemming from marital disputes. > f course those are just lies and not fact at all. > > n Sep 17, 5:08 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Perhaps you are technically correct. But you get my point No? So help me out > lease. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Slip Disc <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:09 am > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > herefore, 1+1=2 is not a "fact" to begin with except as viewed by > hose who accept, understand and acknowledge it's numerical bas > e. It > s only subject to interpretation by those living by an alternately > efined numerical system or those who would debate whether > athematical systems are simply human constructs. 1011 might be > iewed as one thousand eleven unless your a computer analyst, so the > xample presented in regards to the 'fact topic' appears to be > nvalid. > On Sep 17, 7:47 am, [email protected] wrote: > A fact is a fact but like all data this factual data has to be interpreted. > hen interpretation is added into the > > mix - the same or dofferent people may well view the same fact fropm > multiple > erspectives. Case in point: > > most people would probably agree that one plus one is two. However 1 + 1 > ight > alidly be viewed as 11. > > Then again one plus one might be viewed as three as in the Law of Threes - > or > ealian Logic or the mystery of the > > trinity. Thus the initIAL FACT is transformed into a variety of alterrnative > eanings depending on the scale of > > observation of the observer in question. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Johnson <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent:20Wed, Sep 16, 2009 3:06 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > understand that some people refuse to accept certain facts. I also > nderstand that some people accept as fact what is, in fact, no such > hing. I don't see how this makes facts subjective. Facts are facts. > ither som > ething is true or it isn't. Whether or not somebody > elieves it has nothing to do with it. I'm on Slips side of this > oin. > dj > > n Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > So please, sir, give me a few of these objective facts that Rand wants > us to bear in mind, and we'll see just how objective they really are. > <<Lee Sep 16, 9:57 am > > .........facts can be subjective as well as objective<<Lee Sep 16, > 10:17 am > > On Sep 16, 10:21A > 0am, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Umm settles what? > > > Ohh and you're welcome! > > > On 16 Sep, 16:17, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I claim only that facts can be subjective as well as objective, that > > > indeed both kinds exist. <Lee > > > > OK! Well I guess that settles it. Thanks mate! > > > > On Sep 16, 9:57 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Bwahahahah ohh Slip, you slay me mate honestly. > > > > > Listen very carefully sir, I'll say it again. > > > > > I claim only that facts can be subjective as well as objective, that > > > > indeed both=2 > 0kinds exist. > > > > > The point? Or why do I make this disctinction? > > > > > The point is Rand wants us to deal in objectivity, well when we are > > > > clear what is > objective and what is subjective then perhaps we can > > > > move forward. > > > > > So please, sir, give me a few of these objective facts that Rand wants > > > > us to bear in mind, and we'll see just how objective they really are. > > > > > On 16 Sep, 15:46, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Obviously, according to your expressions, if fact is disputable, > > > > > mutable through human interpretation and perception then there are > no > > > > > facts. > > > > > > So shall we begin to dispel some well known facts as myths? > > > > > > If I stick my hand in "boiling water" it is not a "fact" that my > hand > > > > > will get scalded but just a=2 > 0figment of my imagination, the imagination > > > > > that I perceive to "exist". > > > > > > The sun that I see in the sky may not really be there but only > exists > > > > > as a result of human perceptions of...... "what a sun is as well as > > > > > how it appears to arise, cross the heavens and then hide beneath the > > > > > earth, or, the concept of the earth rotating allowing the above > > > > > appearances to occur..." > > > > > > If we attribute everything to "human thought" then the whole of the > > > > > conversation is moot, the interview with Ayn Rand was just20a dream. > > > > > It is not a fact that anything exists, in "nano thought". > > > > >=2 > 0> Note: The above post may not exist for some. > > > > > > BUT WAIT!! THERE'S MORE!! > > > > > > From the Eternity thread an excerpt from the much revered > > > > > Justintruth.......................quotes added to "Fact" for your > > > > > convenience. > > > > > > Justintruth > > > > > View profile > > > > > Here is what I have been able to get from reading: Consider the > fact" > > > > > that 1+1=2. Given the normal meaning of "1" and "+ "add "2" this > fact > > > > > is true. But this "fact" never happened. It is an eternal truth. > > > > > Eternality is the place of meaning - where meaning is. The previous > > > > > sentence being more correct when one understands that "place" and > > > > > "where" are not to be interpreted spatially. Eternality is the > "fact" > > > > > of the being=2 > 0of meaning or a reference to meaning being. Consider the > > > > > "fact" that George Washington crossed the Delaware at Valley Forge. > > > > > Now unlike the math that did happen in time but the "fact" that it > > > > > happened is no longer temporal. The past is no longer happening. The > > > > > past is now eternal and nothing can therefore change > > > > > it. ..................... > > > > > > From Pat....Consciousness thread... > > > > > > As I said, the "fact" that we exist in a continuum implies that the > > > > > > sys > tem is teleological. Thus the need for our 'whys' to be answered. > > > > > I fear, though, that most of the answers will elude us while we're > > > > > incarnate. > > > > > > Yes, you too Orn........ > > > > > > Yes too to the "fact" that one must adapt > > > > > to an environment…knowing who they are with. > > > > > > But Wait! We also have unfortunate facts........ > > > > > > Fran.........The ends justify the means thread......... > > > > > > The > > > > > unfortunate "fact" is that, despite the question of legitimacy > > > > > regarding > > > > > Bush's first term > > > > > > Care to rephrase anyone? OK so are we just tossing about the word > > > > > "fact", should we remove it from our language being that it may not > > > > > even exist? > > > > > > Fact is, oops did I say fact?, if we cannot conclude that fact > exists > > > > > then we are in a quandary, it's tautological. > > > > > > Fact is fac > t is not fact is fact.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ > ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Minds Eye"" group. > o post to this group, send email to [email protected] > o unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
