confusing the absolute and the relative

[Karl]

You reference to bovine excrement seems somewhat our of context.  How did we get from discussing the relative and the absolute to bovine excrement?

 

I'm left wondering if you are speaking in metaphors?

 

You know what it is though. You aren't confused by it. It is just a noun without context, but you already know how it might apply but are only devoid of some additional information. I cannot, of course transfer my concept directly into your mind, but that isn't required.

 

If I said 'coffee table' you would also know to the object I am referring. Of course, conceptually you have no idea of exactly what kind, shape, colour or size of table to which I might refer. This you feel is relative, but it isn't. You don't hold any concept in any other kind of way. You get a picture of some sort of a small table made out of wood. That's all that is required.

 

If, instead, I pointed at the coffe table and said 'that one'. Well, we both see it. There isn't any equivocation. We now have a concrete.

 

We might be from very different places and have a completely different language. We cannot begin to discuss concepts until we have the language sorted out and the definitions applied. This doesn't make it relative. It's just a rapid way of transferring ideas in a way which does not require concrete perceptions.

[Nikolai1]

You know what it is though. You aren't confused by it. It is just a noun without context, but you already know how it might apply but are only devoid of some additional information. I cannot, of course transfer my concept directly into your mind, but that isn't required. If I said 'coffee table' you would also know to the object I am referring. Of course, conceptually you have no idea of exactly what kind, shape, colour or size of table to which I might refer. This you feel is relative, but it isn't. You don't hold any concept in any other kind of way. You get a picture of some sort of a small table made out of wood. That's all that is required. If, instead, I pointed at the coffe table and said 'that one'. Well, we both see it. There isn't any equivocation. We now have a concrete. We might be from very different places and have a completely different language. We cannot begin to discuss concepts until we have the language sorted out and the definitions applied. This doesn't make it relative. It's just a rapid way of transferring ideas in a way which does not require concrete perceptions.

Indeed, but the information communicated is not constrained by the words coffee table.

 

For example, i say to my boss coffee table.  He understands that I want to step out the office and discuss something more personal, more confidential.  It is our 'code'.

 

The person working for the company nexy door would miss all this richness.  I say coffee table, he thinks I'm suggesting coffee!  How vulgar!

 

Now when it comes to the absolute realm of spirituality.  It turns out that this notion cannot be shared or communicated at all. There are no gradations of subjectivity. There is no possibillity that we both agree at all

 

Why is this?

 

Because the attempted communication is itself more of the absolute.  The signifier and the signified are both exactly and precisely the same thing.  In fact not only this, but the speaker and the listener are both the absolute so there is not and cannot be any notion of communication because there are no separate locutors.

[Michael Sternbach]

You can definitely transcend everything when you are dead. Alive, not so much.

Why would you wish to transcend the good ?

 

Because of the limitations and dilemmas that come with a rigid view of good and bad. These are only valid relatively speaking.

[Michael Sternbach]

We might be from very different places and have a completely different language. We cannot begin to discuss concepts until we have the language sorted out and the definitions applied.

 

That's exactly because:

 

The word has no final meaning.  It can mean different thing to different people, and to the same person in different contexts.

 

[Karl]

Because of the limitations and dilemmas that come with a rigid view of good and bad. These are only valid relatively speaking.

 

You really don't know what good and bad is ? In my experience people who say it's relative are often as not dodging responsibility and justice. It isn't a list of things as intrincisists believe and neither is it morally flexible as the subjectivists believe. You know when you did good and when you did bad. No one needs to teach you those things, you feel it immediately and then begin to justify the action. Bad people feel bad, you can call them psychopaths, criminals, victims of family abuse, but they still feel bad about their actions.

[Karl]

That's exactly because:

 

 

 

 

The word is a word, it's concrete.

Try and see there is not a contradiction here. Concepts aren't reality, they are like equations devoid of quantity.

A word is a word, it can be defined in the same way as we have an idea for a garden shed and then we take the concept and begin to produce the perceptual. We define size, wood type, building method.

Existent things are relative to one another, but concepts are not. They are not concretes. Existent things can be related, such as the width of this thing vs that thing, but conceptually these measurements disappear.

 

This is a very difficult thing to grasp. It was perhaps the hardest for me because I thought like you do now.

[Karl]

Indeed, but the information communicated is not constrained by the words coffee table.

 

For example, i say to my boss coffee table.  He understands that I want to step out the office and discuss something more personal, more confidential.  It is our 'code'.

 

The person working for the company nexy door would miss all this richness.  I say coffee table, he thinks I'm suggesting coffee!  How vulgar!

 

Now when it comes to the absolute realm of spirituality.  It turns out that this notion cannot be shared or communicated at all. There are no gradations of subjectivity. There is no possibillity that we both agree at all

 

Why is this?

 

Because the attempted communication is itself more of the absolute.  The signifier and the signified are both exactly and precisely the same thing.  In fact not only this, but the speaker and the listener are both the absolute so there is not and cannot be any notion of communication because there are no separate locutors.

 

Bloody hell, how do I get this over ? I'm really racking my brain to try to do so. It's not really so much what you are looking at, but where you are looking.

 

A word is like a colour, or a shape. It is perceptual. Once you hear or see it, then it is transferred through to become a concept.

 

The word you see or hear is exactly what you see or hear. It's a concrete and thus it is perceived directly without error (les leave aside the manner in which different qualities of sensing apparatus function for the moment).

 

That you have imbued 'coffee table' with a different conceptual meaning doesn't invalidate the word coffee table. There is no actual 'coffee table ' in the word coffee table, but the word is what it is. There is nothing subjective or relative going on here. If If I said coffee table two successive times, then you didn't suddenly think I said cheese triangle. You might conceptualise a cheese triangle if you were that kind of an interesting thinker, but the word remains what it is.

 

External perceptual concrete to internal perceptual directly experienced. Then internal conceptual abstraction.

 

Does that get us any closer ?

 

 

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

You really don't know what good and bad is ? In my experience people who say it's relative are often as not dodging responsibility and justice. It isn't a list of things as intrincisists believe and neither is it morally flexible as the subjectivists believe. You know when you did good and when you did bad. No one needs to teach you those things, you feel it immediately and then begin to justify the action. Bad people feel bad, you can call them psychopaths, criminals, victims of family abuse, but they still feel bad about their actions.

I know where I'm from

and it's cold and dark

for all the sinners

are just saints without the sparks

I'm having trouble

telling them apart

[Michael Sternbach]

The word is a word, it's concrete.

Try and see there is not a contradiction here. Concepts aren't reality, they are like equations devoid of quantity.

A word is a word, it can be defined in the same way as we have an idea for a garden shed and then we take the concept and begin to produce the perceptual. We define size, wood type, building method.

Existent things are relative to one another, but concepts are not. They are not concretes. Existent things can be related, such as the width of this thing vs that thing, but conceptually these measurements disappear.

 

This is a very difficult thing to grasp. It was perhaps the hardest for me because I thought like you do now.

 

Generally true for concrete things, such as coffee tables. Generally not true for subtle or abstract things, such as philosophical concepts.

[Karl]

I know where I'm from

and it's cold and dark

for all the sinners

are just saints without the sparks

I'm having trouble

telling them apart

 

Because you have a religious indoctrination ? That good and bad are intrinsic absolutes ? I don't recognise 'sinners' or 'saints' they are words devoid of definition except for religious people.

 

You can tell good from bad people Michael ? If you talk to them, you can find out if they are the sort to help you or rob you ? You know friend from foe.

 

I don't think in black and white, but in people's values. You don't want people to have fluid values or they help you one moment and kill you the next. With a shrug they explain to your bleeding corpse 'well it's all relative'.

[thelerner]

The great majority of time, I don't live or decide things in an 'absolute' world.  Normal life is 99% relative.   There are exceptions and grey can get pretty dark and forbidden  but in general there are a million shades of grey. 

Edited April 14, 2016 by thelerner

[Michael Sternbach]

Because you have a religious indoctrination ? That good and bad are intrinsic absolutes ? I don't recognise 'sinners' or 'saints' they are words devoid of definition except for religious people.

 

You can tell good from bad people Michael ? If you talk to them, you can find out if they are the sort to help you or rob you ? You know friend from foe.

 

I don't think in black and white, but in people's values. You don't want people to have fluid values or they help you one moment and kill you the next. With a shrug they explain to your bleeding corpse 'well it's all relative'.

I'm a man on the moon

I hope I don't come back too soon

Am I the only one to see the light?

No use in getting down on your

knees tonight

 

So I don't feel love

Because I got no faith

I've seen those twisted lies thrown

back into my face

I've heard the crazy doctrines of the human race

I must be alone

 

How could it be

Your gift to me

A salvo of heavy artillery

It's nothing but your war

You can call it what you like

[Karl]

Generally true for concrete things, such as coffee tables. Generally not true for subtle or abstract things, such as philosophical concepts.

 

Yes, if you remove the qualifier of 'generally' that is correct.

 

Now, one step further. The abstract things are directly related to concrete things. If they are not, then the philosophical abstraction is a floating concept tied to nothing at all and therefore cannot be succesfully integrated which makes it invalid. Throw away and begin again.

 

Going back to the garden shed. If the abstract conceptual design is not tied to real world concretes it can't be built. Luckily we have logic to help us eliminate most of the error. The danger is carrying an abstract that does not relate to existent concretes and takes on a life of its own. Living the dream isn't dreaming the living. One is practical real world, the other is tortuous mental gymnastics designed to keep the abstract from touching reality.

 

[Karl]

The great majority of time, I don't live or decide things in an 'absolute' world.  Normal life is 99% relative.   There are exceptions and grey can get pretty dark and forbidden  but in general there are a million shades of grey. 

 

Sounds bloody miserable. Like the escalators in hog warts, but mostly never getting to any destination.

[Karl]

I'm a man on the moon

I hope I don't come back too soon

Am I the only one to see the light?

No use in getting down on your

knees tonight

So I don't feel love

Because I got no faith

I've seen those twisted lies thrown

back into my face

I've heard the crazy doctrines of the human race

I must be alone

How could it be

Your gift to me

A salvo of heavy artillery

It's nothing but your war

You can call it what you like

 

I've never been good at deciphering lyrics. It sounds like disillusionment. The moons always good for a bit of melancholy and solitude.

[Michael Sternbach]

Yes, if you remove the qualifier of 'generally' that is correct.

 

Now, one step further. The abstract things are directly related to concrete things. If they are not, then the philosophical abstraction is a floating concept tied to nothing at all and therefore cannot be succesfully integrated which makes it invalid. Throw away and begin again.

 

Going back to the garden shed. If the abstract conceptual design is not tied to real world concretes it can't be built. Luckily we have logic to help us eliminate most of the error. The danger is carrying an abstract that does not relate to existent concretes and takes on a life of its own. Living the dream isn't dreaming the living. One is practical real world, the other is tortuous mental gymnastics designed to keep the abstract from touching reality.

 

The communication between two people becomes difficult when they don't have the same internal frame of reference. For instance, in a recent discussion with me on another thread, you kept insisting that stars cannot possibly process data because they don't have perception. But for you, "perception" is limited to seeing, hearing etc, while in my understanding, it includes a whole lot more, which you call delusional, while for me it's an experienced reality to the degree that I sometimes forget that it isn't so for everybody.

[Michael Sternbach]

I've never been good at deciphering lyrics. It sounds like disillusionment. The moons always good for a bit of melancholy and solitude.

 

You didn't get what I was trying to tell you then.

 

Well, sorry, I can't help it.

 

See the more I think about it

I'm born against the grain

I won't be born again

 

I'm a square pig in a,

In a round hole

Maybe there's no place left for my

wounded soul

Maybe the king of king's finally lost

control of it

[Karl]

The communication between two people becomes difficult when they don't have the same internal frame of reference. For instance, in a recent discussion with me on another thread, you kept insisting that stars cannot possibly process data because they don't have perception. But for you, "perception" is limited to seeing, hearing etc, while in my understanding, it includes a whole lot more, which you call delusional, while for me it's an experienced reality to the degree that I sometimes forget that it isn't so for everybody.

 

Right, but you don't have any concretes of those things on which you base the concepts. If it is true for you it must also be true for everyone else. A is A as I never tire of saying.

 

If it is not true for everyone else then no one can share it anyway. It's a floating abstract, no matter how real it seems to you, it isn't real to anyone else.

 

I totally accept that this is what you think, but I completely reject it because it is both logically flawed conceptually and devoid of concrete evidence in reality. I require both perceptual evidence and conceptual logical integration to verify what you are suggesting. As it stands I don't require the evidence because I have already dismissed it logically. If you showed me some kind of evidence I would be looking for the smoke and mirrors.

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Right, but you don't have any concretes of those things on which you base the concepts. If it is true for you it must also be true for everyone else. A is A as I never tire of saying. If it is not true for everyone else then no one can share it anyway. It's a floating abstract, no matter how real it seems to you, it isn't real to anyone else. I totally accept that this is what you think, but I completely reject it because it is both logically flawed conceptually and devoid of concrete evidence in reality. I require both perceptual evidence and conceptual logical integration to verify what you are suggesting. As it stands I don't require the evidence because I have already dismissed it logically. If you showed me some kind of evidence I would be looking for the smoke and mirrors.

 

This is a non-sequitur. It's very common that some people or other beings perceive things that others don't. That doesn't make them any less real.

[Karl]

You didn't get what I was trying to tell you then.

 

Well, sorry, I can't help it.

 

See the more I think about it

I'm born against the grain

I won't be born again

 

I'm a square pig in a,

In a round hole

Maybe there's no place left for my

wounded soul

Maybe the king of king's finally lost

control of it

 

Better just telling me straight. Less chance of poetic confusion.

[Karl]

This is a non-sequitur. It's very common that some people or other beings perceive things that others don't. That doesn't make them any less real.

 

Not to them, no, but to everyone else.

Sometimes people can be convinced that they see the same thing.

[Old River]

Does "A = A" in poetry?

[Karl]

Does "A = A" in poetry?

 

Depends in what sense. A poem is a conceptual creation birthed into perceptual written form. That it is a poem is true, that it means such and such to a person is true. It does not mean that the concept it espouses is true. I can say I've seen a square circle, but no such thing is true, but I might have a floating abstract concept that it is possible.

 

A painting such as Van Goghs Sun flower is a perceptual representation of his conceptual abstractions. He embeds metaphors into the painting to convey the inner person. It is a birth in that sense. However, A remains A. The painting is 'of some Sunflowers' it isn't the sun flowers themselves and it isn't an actual concept which I can pop into my own head.

[Michael Sternbach]

Not to them, no, but to everyone else. Sometimes people can be convinced that they see the same thing.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Better just telling me straight. Less chance of poetic confusion.

 

Now look and see

Those stars for you and me

Waiting like silent killers in the night

Atomic legions that can never fight

I've never felt I ever prayed

Don't have to join in with the other slaves

I'm not the only one who feels betrayed