Your supposition is wrong, vam. Best of luck, Gabby
On May 18, 9:36 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > I know. And I have access to libraries. It means nothing, in the > course of a discussion. > > Here, you do not offer books or blogs in the middle of a conversation. > You only put across yourself, what you know and have to say, in terms > and using words I can understand. And I suppose I speak for everyone > here. > > On May 18, 8:46 am, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > vamadevanand, > > Your nickname suggests that you are conversant with certain terms > > from Hindu philosophy. So, my direction will be quite clear to you : > > Absolute Truth means परम तत्त्व. Instead of using the term God, I will > > use the term Almighty so that it will sound like an entity which is > > not tied down to any particular religion. The relation between > > Almighty & प्रकृती is described as : > > मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः सूयते स चराचरम् > > हेतुनानेन कौन्तेय जगद्विपरिवर्तते > > (I have uploaded some related stuff on my blogspace > > athttp://samirsp.blogspot.com Your comments, suggestions, criticism are > > welcome.) > > > On May 17, 7:17 pm, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Perhaps, since FF seems intent on garnering subscribers to Absolute > > > Truth and God, which can explain all events in the system, our first > > > questions to him might be : > > > > What is the Absolute Truth ? What or Who is God ? A para or two, in > > > terms we could appreciate, without going out of " line with logic, > > > reason or common sense." > > > > On May 17, 4:01 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Okay now we seem to have here a thesist with Fidds syndrome(applogise > > > > to you Fidds, but you know what I mean), whihc in itself is rather > > > > strange and marveolouse. > > > > > I hope the general slagging off has now finiished, so let me be the > > > > first to say, FF welcome to ME. > > > > > Now what's the point of this thread, what is it that you wish to > > > > discuss? Coz honeslty I'm with Slippy here, this just looks like a > > > > disjointed stream of data to me, can you help us to clarify it? > > > > > On 17 May, 11:39, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On May 16, 7:26 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:> The ball of > > > > > elaboration is in your court, this is your thread. You > > > > > > are making broad statements without saying much. > > > > > > > You see agnostics as having a "problem" because you have anchored > > > > > > yourself within your personal set of beliefs that you consider > > > > > > truths. > > > > > > I have already mentioned that there is nothing personal about TRUTH & > > > > > that is what the term "Absolute Truth" means. It is absolute in every > > > > > respect. It neither depends upon my personal beliefs nor upon the > > > > > collective opinion of masses. For example, a herd of zombies can go on > > > > > shouting that Evolution Theory is a scientific theory. But only your > > > > > strong urge to unearth the Truth will tell you that there is no > > > > > evidence whatsoever to prove the absurd claims made in that silly > > > > > theory. This also means that you can't project something unreasonable > > > > > as Absolute Truth. Anything that is not in line with logic, reason or > > > > > common sense will NOT be recognized as Absolute Truth. Having a strong > > > > > scientific temper is minimum requirement to understand Absolute Truth. > > > > > So, agnostic should NOT be under the impression that they are the > > > > > whole & sole defenders of scientific temper. What you know in the > > > > > field of tangible science is already known to today's gnostics. In > > > > > addition, gnostics know something which appears to be of abstract > > > > > nature to many agnostics. > > > > > > > While issues can be linked to each other they can also be explored > > > > > > individually. > > > > > > > I don't see the thread going anywhere other than reaching levels of > > > > > > redundancy without resolution. > > > > > > When agnostics reject the existence of "Absolute Truth", they do > > > > > so without knowing anything about that term. How can you reject > > > > > something about which you know nothing ? It is this "Absolute Truth" > > > > > which can throw light upon the seemingly inexplicable force behind > > > > > uncertainties around us. But your urge to deny the existence of God > > > > > simply prompts you to reject the very existence of any such > > > > > inexplicable force. Your approach Is very much in line with the > > > > > mindset of determinists. In that case you cannot reject Hegel's > > > > > statement that History develops as per the logical plan. So, should I > > > > > assume that you accept Hegel's views regarding development of > > > > > history ? > > > > > > > I'm with Albert Einstein below. > > > > > > > Borrowed FROM: > > > > > > Molly Brogan Thread May 26, 2008 > > > > > > > According to Plato: When the mind's eye rests on objects > > > > > > illuminated > > > > > > by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and > > > > > > functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of > > > > > > change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused > > > > > > and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato, > > > > > > Republic) > > > > > > It is obvious that any philosophy must be capable of explaining > > > > > ALL the events that take place in the system in which we exist. > > > > > > > To Spinoza, ultimate truth is the ultimate reality of a rationally > > > > > > ordered system that is God. > > > > > > > To Hegel, truth is a rationally integrated > > > > > > system in which everything is contained. > > > > > > > To Einstein, “the truth of > > > > > > the Universe is human truth.” > > > > > > > Read More @ > > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/8531f4e... > > > > > > > On May 16, 6:37 am, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 16, 11:02 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:> Thank > > > > > > > You! > > > > > > > > > I understand it all very well and did not discredit anything. > > > > > > > > > I simply recognized a multi-faceted post which needs > > > > > > > > clarification on > > > > > > > > some specifics. > > > > > > > > Only a multi-faceted post can clearly highlight the wholistic > > > > > > > approach.> Truth IS that Truth is highly subjective even in the > > > > > > > sense of > > > > > > > > absolutism, somewhat like absolute "fact". > > > > > > > > Calling Truth as subjective matter is part of empiricism. Our > > > > > > > perception about Reality can be quite different from Absolute > > > > > > > Truth. > > > > > > > That doesn't mean Absolute Truth does not exist.> The Wow really > > > > > > > belongs as a pertinence to your own opening thread > > > > > > > > which covers several issues. > > > > > > > > All the isues covered in that post are linked to each other. You > > > > > > > cannot separate one from the other.> We've covered the truth > > > > > > > issue here many times before so you might > > > > > > > > consider searching the Minds Eye archives. > > > > > > > > The problem with agnostics is that they cannot see anything beyond > > > > > > > public opinion or collective opinion. Truth can be (& most of the > > > > > > > times it is) different from collective opinion. > > > > > > > > > Have a good e-space night! > > > > > > > > Now again the e-space illusion has come into picture. We are from > > > > > > > different time zones. What is night for you is a day for me in > > > > > > > India... > > > > > > > > > On May 15, 8:53 pm, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Wow ! Discrediting anything that you do not understand is a > > > > > > > > > typical > > > > > > > > > agnostic position. Your comment, Slip Disc, is quite in line > > > > > > > > > with that > > > > > > > > > position. > > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 4:58 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:> You > > > > > > > > > are presenting layers upon layers upon layers of thread topic > > > > > > > > > > here; kinda like sporadic inputs generated by a frenetic > > > > > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > > > > process. > > > > > > > > > > > Break it down and address a single aspect of the rant so we > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > respond specifically to a individual point. > > > > > > > > > > > I would have to suggest that you start with your personal > > > > > > > > > > understanding of what "Truth" is. > > > > > > > > > > There is nothing personal about "TRUTH". That's what the term > > > > > > > > > "Absolute Truth" means. It is ABSOLUTE in every > > > > > > > > > respect....>You obviously are already biased in the sense of > > > > > > > > > what truth is and further anchor your understanding in > > > > > > > > > > theistic principles which don't hold much water other than > > > > > > > > > > that of a > > > > > > > > > > fanaticism towards another fantasy belief system out of the > > > > > > > > > > hundreds > > > > > > > > > > of deity fantasies out there. > > > > > > > > > > What is the basis for your assumption that my understanding > > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > > TRUTH is anchored in theistic principles ? Are you sure that > > > > > > > > > you are > > > > > > > > > not mixing-up theistic principles with the procedures of some > > > > > > > > > organised religions like western theistic religions (such as > > > > > > > > > Cristianity, Judaism or Islam) ? > > > > > > > > > > > Why don't you try getting with reality? > > > > > > > > > > > On May 15, 12:06 pm, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > This is with reference to Hollywood film "Adventures > > > > > > > > > > > of Priscila, > > > > > > > > > > > Queen of Desert". > > > > > > > > > > > While explaining the system around us, Hegel used > > > > > > > > > > > the terms "Real > > > > > > > > > > > Reality" & "Apparent Reality". By analyzing Hegel's > > > > > > > > > > > opinion that > > > > > > > > > > > history develops as per the logical plan, we can say, > > > > > > > > > > > "Hegel had > > > > > > > > > > > mistaken apparent reality for real reality". What he > > > > > > > > > > > called as real > > > > > > > > > > > reality > > ... > > read more »
