I'm beginning to post my responses to others (other people's messages) on my web logs. I seem to be nothing unless I'm reacting to something.
Addendum:
I seem to be everything unless I'm reacting to something.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
More from Craigslist (MfCl, for future reference, if I keep it up)
All superlative statements are false. < Meh-dward >
2009-02-17 16:47:08
And that's the nature of existence - nothing, every thing, and everything is each and are all a paradox.
The concept of moral relativism is an example of awareness of multiple aspects of one whole (existence) and the relation of these things to each other as it is perceived to be, and the attempt to reconcile the finite aspect of existence, perceived by a finite mind, with the infinite truth that it is, that it exists within, and that exists within it.
Perception is relative; in order to know the absolute truth of something, one must be that thing. Even then, I wonder.
I greatly appreciated the sincere posts; thanks for those. I've only recently begun browsing the philosophy forum, and most of what I've seen so far isn't the sort of stuff that I would come back for.
To '#######': In response to "The problem with this? My concept of truth, if it's right, should transcend theories. So, I should be able to compare moral theories to figure out which one is right and which one is wrong."
I think that right and wrong are directions, not a state of being. The "truth" is merely the set of coordinates of the Truth. The direction that it lies in is relative to where one views it from. Your "concept of truth" does "transcend theories;" in that it is absolutely true to you. It will be perceived differently, to varying degrees, by any other.
Regarding everything above: "Or something like that."
2009-02-17 16:47:08
And that's the nature of existence - nothing, every thing, and everything is each and are all a paradox.
The concept of moral relativism is an example of awareness of multiple aspects of one whole (existence) and the relation of these things to each other as it is perceived to be, and the attempt to reconcile the finite aspect of existence, perceived by a finite mind, with the infinite truth that it is, that it exists within, and that exists within it.
Perception is relative; in order to know the absolute truth of something, one must be that thing. Even then, I wonder.
I greatly appreciated the sincere posts; thanks for those. I've only recently begun browsing the philosophy forum, and most of what I've seen so far isn't the sort of stuff that I would come back for.
To '#######': In response to "The problem with this? My concept of truth, if it's right, should transcend theories. So, I should be able to compare moral theories to figure out which one is right and which one is wrong."
I think that right and wrong are directions, not a state of being. The "truth" is merely the set of coordinates of the Truth. The direction that it lies in is relative to where one views it from. Your "concept of truth" does "transcend theories;" in that it is absolutely true to you. It will be perceived differently, to varying degrees, by any other.
Regarding everything above: "Or something like that."
From Craigslist
Still no point. < Meh-dward >
2009-02-17 15:27:17
My opinions, like the entity claiming them, are fallible.
I agree that we exist in more than the third and fourth dimensions, but I'll limit my discourse to the third and fourth (taking for granted, of course, the "sub"-dimensions). I agree that nothing ends, that "There are no endings and no beginnings. There is just change." Those statements I quoted sum up the entirety of existence and its nature.
I believe that awareness is the frontier between adjacent dimensions, with human awareness existing between the third and fourth. If my being were strictly third-dimensional, I would lack my perception of the passage of time; if I existed entirely within the fourth, my "body" would not be here in the third.
Memory, I think, is merely our catalogue of change. I believe that we record it in our third dimensional brains, and that those vessels are subject to change, including destruction (undergoing such a degree of change that they are no longer recognizable/functional), within the fourth dimension. I expect that there is some fourth-dimensional counterpart, but that it is something that we are naturally less able to willfully access.
It's been a significant amount of time since I finished typing the preceding paragraph; I was interrupted while typing and am unable to fully re-capture the thread of thought that I was working on; I hope I wrote enough to get some sort of point across. I'd be happy to further discuss.
Best Regards.
2009-02-17 15:27:17
My opinions, like the entity claiming them, are fallible.
I agree that we exist in more than the third and fourth dimensions, but I'll limit my discourse to the third and fourth (taking for granted, of course, the "sub"-dimensions). I agree that nothing ends, that "There are no endings and no beginnings. There is just change." Those statements I quoted sum up the entirety of existence and its nature.
I believe that awareness is the frontier between adjacent dimensions, with human awareness existing between the third and fourth. If my being were strictly third-dimensional, I would lack my perception of the passage of time; if I existed entirely within the fourth, my "body" would not be here in the third.
Memory, I think, is merely our catalogue of change. I believe that we record it in our third dimensional brains, and that those vessels are subject to change, including destruction (undergoing such a degree of change that they are no longer recognizable/functional), within the fourth dimension. I expect that there is some fourth-dimensional counterpart, but that it is something that we are naturally less able to willfully access.
It's been a significant amount of time since I finished typing the preceding paragraph; I was interrupted while typing and am unable to fully re-capture the thread of thought that I was working on; I hope I wrote enough to get some sort of point across. I'd be happy to further discuss.
Best Regards.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)