Umm okay well let me try it this way instead then. I agree that that 'facts are facts and our subjective understanding of them does not change them'
What now? You and I have agreed on that point, you have won me over, I'll admit that my talk of subjective facts was wrong, now where do we go now that we both understand this? On 21 Sep, 14:21, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 21, 7:19 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Okay Slip, so we accept that, now what is the porpose of your stance? > > > Is it really merely to say 'facts are facts and our subjective > > understanding of them does not change them'? > > (seems simple enough) > > > > > It seem to me that in expressing such a thing you side with Rand, I > > for one would love to move this thread forward and get to the meat of > > the matter. You have said two things here: > > > The first I can only say is blatant lie by you and that is your > > comment about getting of the ride, umm you still take your seat I > > notice. > > (I said and repeat, IF the thread reaches an impasse then in a sense > it is a carousel at which point I get off the ride. Obviously some > have returned to break the stagnation, I don't see why this is not > clear, so you are rash in your attack and unjust in your assessment.) > > > > > The second is that you have just said you have no interset in > > discusing Rands Objectivism vs Altruism, > > (Is that what I said? I thought it was something like "examining > facts". You might try reading my post, not reading into it.) > (If you want to bring up something that you want to discuss concerning > Rand then bring it up and we can discuss it.) > > Blah blah...........Let me say this Lee, IF you and anyone else wanted > to discuss Rand's Objectivism vs Altruism there would be an ongoing > discussion instead of this focus on Slip. You kick it off with the > others and I'll come back later with my thoughts. > > I answered your question already and I covered that issue with gw, so > why don't you take some more time to read back so I don't have to keep > repeating myself, not that it may make much of a difference if you > don't understand what I already wrote! There is a breakdown in > translation and communication is hampered. > > I don't agree that fact's are meaningless without interpretation, it > is the interpretation itself that renders something non factual based > simply on the varying degrees of interpretation. > H2O is a fact and cannot be interpreted as R2D2, is that not > understandable? <(question mark) > Does someone have a different interpretation of H2O? > Do I really need to experience some mystical guru enlightenment to see > H2O as a fact? > > Too much nanoscopic pedanticism! > > so once again I'll have to > > > > > question your motives for both your stance re: facts, and for posting > > in this thread in the first place? > > > Ohh and by-the-by, you notice that little qestion mark, that means I > > was asking a question. I asked fif we could agree that that facts > > are meaningless without interpretation, I think secretly you agree > > with me, otherwise as I ask what's the point in your stance? > > > You might as well have said 'a dog is a dog', it adds nowt to the > > discussion, and is rather meaningless unless you said it it with a > > certian point in mind? > > > On 21 Sep, 12:55, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sep 21, 3:32 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Ahhh I feel we are indeed getting somewhere. > > > > > So we can agree that facts devoid of interpretation are meaningles? > > > > Think again, I never said that, it is the contention of GW. > > > > > So I'll ask again then what facts is Rand asking us to be concerend > > > > with and what is her proscribed way of interpreting them and working > > > > with them? > > > > I'm not interested in examining facts. If you want to examine them > > > then peruse through Rand's books and find her facts yourself. > > > > My only standing is that "facts do exist" and "facts are immutable and > > > not subject to change" > > > > I gave enough examples of facts that do not change by interpretation, > > > perspective or awareness of their composition. > > > > > On 20 Sep, 21:49, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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 objects so be > > > > > > > it.<gw > > > > > > > (Impressed? I simply acknowledge that facts do exist, some may have > > > > > > meaning and be pertinent to other issues and some may just be a fact > > > > > > without meaning. Point still remains intact, individual perceptions > > > > > > of fact do not alter the fact which you have yet failed to > > > > > > demonstrate > > > > > > otherwise.)- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
