Are you recanting your last post Don?
On Sep 21, 1:07 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Slip, in other words, one needs to cross the ocean of meanings to know
> what a fact is, to know if a fact ( that I know ) is indeed the fact. -Vam
>
> Or, "The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
>
> That about right? I'd say I'd agree with that.
>
> dj
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I 've said earlier that your post says a lot, Slip. It was my way of
> > saying that you are missing a lot ! And, that's a fact.
>
> > First, there is a fact but you are not aware of it. Like a sight no
> > one has seen, a photograph no one has clicked. Is the fact still a
> > fact, in your view ? If yes, how do you know it, as of then when you
> > are absolutely unaware of it. If no ... just say so. Or, you could
> > say that the fact you are not aware of is not, in fact, a fact.
>
> > Then, with the awareness of a fact, you begin to know what it is, what
> > it means to you in your perspective and experience, to others in their
> > perspective and experience, in history, and over time. What you have
> > labelled as ' subjective interpretation ' is in fact a part or point
> > along the process of knowing what the fact is ... worldly,
> > normatively and exceptionally, sensually, emotionally, mentally,
> > intellectually ... You are still in the process of knowing what the
> > fact is. Your understanding of what the fact is continues to change
> > interminably over time, with your understanding of what the fact
> > indeed is in your knowledge of it ... the form of it, its make up and
> > construction and properties, the nature of it, the relatedness it has
> > for you in general and in particular, the relatedness it has to others
> > and all being in general and in particular, all that it connects with,
> > all of its supports and all that it supports.
>
> > Despite much that we derive and make use of through approximation and
> > compromising along the process, the process of such knowing, of what a
> > fact is, may or may come to an end in one's lifetime. May, if one
> > allows this process over time. But untill it does, we are truly
> > speaking not entitled to raise our flag, as being a knower of the
> > fact, of projecting the ' hard ' and definitive contours of what is
> > still a supposed fact, still a something of which one may know a lot
> > but not enough as yet ! One can always approximate without being
> > incorrect, as we all do, but we all know of medicinal side effects
> > discovered decades after their administration.
>
> > No, till the completion of the knowing process, whereafter one's
> > knowledge of the fact no longer changes, not untill then may we speak
> > of ' the ' fact. Untill then, you could be speaking of part ( or some
> > features ) of the fact and projecting it as being the whole fact.
> > Untill then, you do not know enough to be speaking of ' the ' fact !
>
> > Slip, in other words, one needs to cross the ocean of meanings to know
> > what a fact is, to know if a fact ( that I know ) is indeed the fact.
>
> > On Sep 21, 4:06 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> hahaha! The analytical approach eh? lol
>
> >> I never stated that it was important that they stand apart but simply
> >> stated, accordingly with my understanding, that they were separate and
> >> distinct in response to some of the replies earlier in the thread.
> >> There were those who stated that facts change or do not exist because
> >> people have differing interpretations of the fact, seems they've
> >> bailed out.
> >> Some posts back Don had made statement agreeing with my assertions.
> >> "I understand that some people refuse to accept certain facts. I also
> >> understand that some people accept as fact what is, in fact, no such
> >> thing. I don't see how this makes facts subjective. Facts are facts.
> >> Either something is true or it isn't. Whether or not somebody
> >> believes it has nothing to do with it. I'm on Slips side of this
> >> coin. "<<DJ
>
> >> I don't really care either way if anyone agrees or disagrees, we can
> >> agree to disagree. Obviously you are compelled to dispute that facts
> >> are fixed. I might ask same; why is that so important to you? I
> >> didn't mean to cause any perturbation on your end, I just thought this
> >> was another of the many discussions we have here in Minds Eye.
>
> >> This thread begins with Ayn Rand's video interview Objectivism vs
> >> Altruism and it has not really veered too far off thread topic save
> >> for trying to establish the nature of facts. Otherwise the thread has
> >> reached an impasse and is in a sense a carousel, at which point I get
> >> off the ride.
>
> >> Ayn Rand States: "My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that Reality
> >> exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s
> >> feelings, wishes, hopes or fears."
>
> >>http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/introducing-objectivism.html
> >> (link provided by Molly)
>
> >> I agree with Ayn Rand that facts are facts, independent of man's
> >> feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. And so this is where the thread
> >> took on a new debate.
>
> >> After 44 posts you chimed in with fact and synchronicity and Jung's
> >> scarab example etc. I disagree with your post in relation to fact.
> >> Your 1+1 example was invalidated and you agreed to technical
> >> correctness.
>
> >> Lee claims that fact can be subjective, I disagree. If fact is
> >> subjective then it is not fact but interpretation.
>
> >> Chris states "I tend to agree with your hard pressed points (SD)
> >> regarding objective facts, but I'm sympathetic to those who struggle
> >> with that."
>
> >> Finally as I say, we have reached an impasse and can no longer cover
> >> Ayn Rand's philosophy without a consensus on the nature of facts.
> >> That is all I can say.
>
> >> On Sep 20, 5:02 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> > Please enlighten me as to the reason why you think it is so important
> >> > that facts stand apart from their interpretation?
>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Slip Disc <[email protected]>
> >> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]>
> >> > Sent: Sun, Sep 20, 2009 4:49 pm
> >> > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism
>
> >> > Your getting closer but first let me say I'm not passionate about my
> >> > point of view, just assertive. Your recurrent use of the phrase "so
> >> > what" I take to mean that it is of no consequence. I don't see the
> >> > relevance of vacuum in this but now that you mention it, is vacuum a
> >> > fact?
>
> >> > I'm sure "some" people in the Netherlands walk around feeling like
> >> > they are living above sea level but the fact is they are living below
> >> > sea level. That is a fact, immutable, fixed. What is there to
> >> > dispute?
>
> >> > You say, "That unrecognized facts still have an existence apart from
> >> > whether or not a human being recognizes their factualness 'I
> >> > agree' ......(just remove "but so what?")
>
> >> > There it is. You agree. Recognized "and" Unrecognized facts
> >> > exist. Other than that I don't know what you are trying to dispute.
>
> >> > I rest my case.
>
> >> > On Sep 20, 1:33?pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> > > Let me come at it in another way. So let's say I agree with you that a
> >> > > fact is
> >> > a fact. So what? Unless you select one fact out of the billions of
> >> > possible
> >> > selectable facts it simply exists in a vacuum. No?
>
> >> > > It is a fact that you feel passionately about your point of view. That
> >> > > is
> >> > fine. But unless someone responds either pro or con or simply
> >> > acknowledges the
> >> > fact of your fact then for all practical purposes it exists in a vacuum.
> >> > Or am I
> >> > missing something. That unrecognized facts still have an existence apart
> >> > from
> >> > whether or not a human being recognizes their factualness I agree but so
> >> > what?
>
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Slip Disc <[email protected]>
> >> > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]>
> >> > > Sent: Sun, Sep 20, 2009 1:24 pm
> >> > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism
>
> >> > > On Sep 20, 10:32?am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> > > > Of course Van Goghs painting is Van Goghs painting. That is a fact.
> >> > > > And?<gw
>
> >> > > (Yes, of course it is, interpretation and meaning do not change it.)
>
> >> > > > It is a fact that you and I are most likely going to die one day.
> >> > > > Those are
> >> > > facts. <gw
>
> >> > > (Yes, physically as per belief. ?You say "most likely" but
> >> > that adds
> >> > > ambiguity to the fact. ?Most likely is not a fact attribute, it's like
> >> > > kind of pregnant.
>
> >> > > > But without imputing meaning to those facts - the facts themselves
> >> > > > are
> >> > simply
> >> > > facts. <gw
>
> >> > > (Yes, exactly, facts, that's what I've said repeatedly. ?To impute
> >> > > meaning to a simple fact does not alter the fact because meaning can
> >> > > be assigned on an individual basis. ?As with VG's painting, for one
> >> > > the "meaning" might be Contribution to the Art World, but to another
> >> > > the meaning might be an Example of a gross abomination, anathema)
> >> > > (You assigned meaning to the "Object" on your office table as being
> >> > > beautiful, blue, ashtray, however to a minimalist the object would be
> >> > > rendered meaningless and viewed as clutter. ?Fact remains; you have a
> >> > > "Object" on your office table.)
>
> >> > > > In a way who cares? ?<gw
>
> >> > > (It's not a matter of caring, you should know caring is an emotion,
> >> > > are we attaching emotion to facts now? Beautiful blue ashtray?)
>
> >> > > > Unless a person attributes meaning to any facts - the facts
> >> > > > themselves are
> >> > by
> >> > > definition meaningless and simly exist. <gw
>
> >> > > (It is not essential for a fact to have meaning, it can still be a
> >> > > fact. ?It is meaningless to me that there are 63 moons around planet
> >> > > Jupiter but it is still a fact)
>
> >> > > > If you are impressed with the mere fact of existing
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
