"Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird"- Wallace Stevens// How does
a fact remain the same if the definition has changed?// Not sure I
agree with your last thought. We have access to more information and
opinions, certainly, but in real life, face-to-face, there are just as
many tiptoes and bitten tongues for the most part in most circles/
relationships despite the general loosening of public tongues. Maybe
the worms are freeze dried?

On Sep 19, 8:45 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, the passage of time changes the scope of the whole as to how the
> fact is interpreted.  The subjectivity relies heavily upon
> contemporary view and understanding.  However, the fact remains the
> same, only the interpretation of it changes.
> I think through technology we have gained in the translation area of
> communication and there are few cans of worms opening up these days.
>
> On Sep 19, 5:32 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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
> > > >   > > >
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to