The definition does not change, if it does then it was not a fact to begin with. A painting is still a painting regardless of the time span and the varying perspectives. Subjectivity and Time turned Van Gogh's painting into a 53 million dollar value but it was near worthless after he finished the piece. Fact is, the painting itself is still the same, unchanged, paint on canvass object that it was when he painted it and that is the definition of it. There could be one hundred ways of looking at a blackbird but the fact that it is a bird (class Aves) does not change.
On Sep 20, 12:14 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > "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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
