Plus identification/explication can shift/change due to the passage of time, more accurate information,education, role of memory/emotions an so on. Works of art often rely on several layers of meaning/ interpretation: the basic visual fact/existence/presentation which expands with the understanding and knowledge of myth and symbolism, for example- am thinking of a specific painting (The Lady of Shalott- by William Holman Hunt)- but this would hold for literature and music, as well, As far as common attempts at communication- day to day stuff- one simply hopes to avoid a can of worms. :-) Or get murdered because the mice cages were dirty- Yale case.
On Sep 19, 4:17 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
