Why truth?

How is that possible? You see something, call it the 'tangible universe' and express it as such. What is it you are expressing? Everyone has their own little private box and is allowed to peek inside, but no one has looked into anyone else's box. But we talk as if we have, as if we know what is common to all.

 

you've missed my point. our calling anything anything can never be 100% accurate. this in no way prevents ANYTHING from being there.

you see that's the problem people don't seem to want to see or understand. however we try to express something, our expressions are symbols to represent it. not ever the actual thing itself.

none of which is ever a useful reason to deliberately misrepresent however.

 

Sure, but why posit something there? Also, I had the same discussion in another thread but I deny that expressions are always symbols to represent something. Wittgenstein thoroughly disposed of that idea half a century ago. This misunderstanding is partially responsible for thinking there IS something there. It's become embedded in our understanding of speech, like a disease.

 

Do you deny the validity of logical operators and truth tables to represent something?

Do you deny the existence of the universe?

 

Meagain:

Knowing can only be ongoing. That there is no absolute truth is true because truth can only give way to more. The argument that the absence of absolute truth is not absolutely true, is not true enough to what it argues. ;D The hubble does see everything that it looks at, but it doesn't know it. : D We see everything we look at, but we're not everything, so we keep looking. -- We're everyone! lol

I can't see a limit to perception! I'm either severely limited that way, or plain fortunate, or...? Luckily we want more than just to see!

 

All words in their origin have experiential conjugation. Words in usage for communication, are abstractions.

 

Human perception is limited by the sensitivity of its five sensory organs –eyeballs (seeing), ears (hearing), tongue (taste), nose (smell) and skin (touch).

Do you believe the five human sense organs are limited or unlimited?

 

Well, since you provide no reasoning I can hardly discuss the issue with you, can I?

 

We have the sense to make sense of it. Human senses are unlimited in their sufficiency.

 

We had discussed it before. I was making a distinction between what you said and the premise that I was alluding to.

You are absolutely correct that we can say things divorced from any sentiments we may consciously be aware of. That is because words themselves are abstractions of those first emotive vibrations that created the word. In other words, symbols can be twisted.

 

What is your basis for saying that all words are abstractions in that sense? Actually, I don't even know what the heck you mean by 'emotional vibrations'. It would be good if you could participate in the discussion (ie reply and respond) rather than plonking your own propositions down in the thread without any reasoning when something vaguely in that area pops up.

 

I think this will be remedial to you as we already had this discussion where we had fleshed out things in more detail.

Our words have there in inception by virtue of the effort to express or communicate a feeling, an observation. These things I call experiential conjugation, and also what I mean by emotive vibration. A word is once removed from the source, that is it is a symbol that can be associated with meaning, but the symbol is not the meaning itself. That is what I mean by words are abstractions.

 

Again, you are simply stating something without describing how you arrived at that conclusion or how that conclusion is justified. You did that in the other thread too, so if this is a repetition I most likely ignored it the first time for that reason. If I were to do the same, it would be a useless discussion - one side simply says one thing, the other says another.

 

outthere2:

Our means of perception of course has limits, else they could not be ours, but not perception itself. If the universe is held as open, infinite, then evolution is open too. The scales are not falling from our eyes? Oh, but the sky is falling so gently on our heads! I feel refreshed enough to hold a little longer! lol

 

Walsh:

How, when only the understanding that expressions can represent something is responsible for thinking they do? Or by "partially responsible" do you mean to imply understanding necessitates a counterpart in the opposite, in misunderstanding? How? This conclusion of yours, however justified in itself as conclusion, - needs more plonk! ;D

 

Don't hold on to this view much longer. It is only materialism. The truth of the expression is to have learned it from the reference of a symbol which now fools you by the bad conscience you hold open to the evolution of breaking up... is so hard to DO.:2thumbsup:

 

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll try. When we say "what lies underneath this expression" or "what does it mean? What does it represent?" that comes with the assumption that the sentence isn't the "thing", but a symbol for something else. This might be justified in some expressions but not all, and this goes against what thedope and themnax were saying about expressions in general. The notion that nothing is represented is excluded from the concept of the expression.

 

Everything is an expression of everything else, not one thing alone, let alone nothing. Infinity over singularity. An expression at the very least represents itself as expressed. All presentation is, in itself, representation.

But maybe let's go back to the question before we dry out! - Why truth?

Danger! I think danger is the answer where we're too open for an echo! Of truth at any cost. Its danger to life!

 

But truth is evaluated in the light of the Word (words); thus the truth which became earlier as per expression was evolved only as I explain into the darkness, your bad conscience. You at now have expressed nothing. Expression for truth must Be in the light of ORIGINALITY against this frustration of the Dark background.:2thumbsup:

 

Truth or the pursuit of truth?

If falsity was of as much use to mankind as what we call 'truth', is there any doubt it would be as highly regarded as truth is now? I don't think so.