How does one know that there is any ocean? Is it a fact that there are oceans?
I see facts being used to discount facts. Is H2O a fact, or do I need to go through some mental process of perspective, understanding, experience and cross some ocean before I can drink it? On Sep 21, 5:53 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Or, to bring the flowery images even further down to the factual > level, knowing that there is more than one ocean to cross allows me to > deduce the factual horizon of the knowledge presenter. > > Yes, that's how I could agree with myself. *laughing* > > On 21 Sep., 08:07, 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 onn, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Vam <[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > I 've said earlierthhat 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 ot enttitled 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 longr changes,, not untill then may we speak > > > of ' the ' fact. Until then,, you could be speaking of part ( or some > > > feeatures ) 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 sted ththat it was important that they andnd 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 topisave > > >> f > > 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, ependent of 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 vi just assersertive. 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 fact >> > > > >> > exist > > ist. 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" <minds-eyeglegroups.cps.com> > > >> > > 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 ct. > > >> > > > And?<gw?<gw > > > >> > > (Yes, of course it is, interpretation and meaning do not change it.) > > > >> > > > It factfact that you andre moe 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
