Can knowledge or truth be absolute?

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

You may use whichever word you want. Personally, I simply like to participate without any desire to get the better of anybody. I may jokingly mock that up, but I really want everyone to win.

.

So do I.
I think my approach to the word "debate" is coloured by the usage of the word "debate" when somebody wants a subject discussed in a democratic society for the purpose of getting people to become aware of the importance of that subject. The debate occurring could very well include opposing viewpoints but the purpose of putting the subject into public debate is the achievement of an awareness of the importance of the subject. It includes a wish that the subject is cared about.

But you are probably right that the word debate has a connotation of win - lose. Decent debates are best achieved if you can go for the ball and never go for the person. That can be quite an art.

 

[Vinaire]

So do I.
I think my approach to the word "debate" is coloured by the usage of the word "debate" when somebody wants a subject discussed in a democratic society for the purpose of getting people to become aware of the importance of that subject. The debate occurring could very well include opposing viewpoints but the purpose of putting the subject into public debate is the achievement of an awareness of the importance of the subject. It includes a wish that the subject is cared about.

But you are probably right that the word debate has a connotation of win - lose. Decent debates are best achieved if you can go for the ball and never go for the person. That can be quite an art.

That is quite so.

.

 

[grundy]

Then make a better poll.

And this isn't about Scientology. It's about the nature of knowledge and the nature of truth. Which in my mind are related.

 

[alex]

Those are interesting ideas. Where are they coming from?

Sorry Vin, but that question does not help me look.

I say they come from me. Me is behind a lot of stuff, but I funtion through it.

It seems when you ask that question, it is as if you are asking me to look somewhere other than at myself. I dont see those ideas coming from anything removed from basic self. I dont feel I am answering "as" anyone or thing...

I do have behaviors and thoughts that most definately are not pure self, but from "additive" aspects....but these are not them IMO.

Comments?

alex

 

[programmer_guy]

When a bridge is built from concrete with no rebar and then cracks and falls apart BUT another bridge is built WITH rebar and doesn't fail... would this be a relative truth or an absolute truth? (It can either withstand a 7 earthquake or it cannot.)

When, in serial digital communications, a flat ribbon cable with no EMI protection using in-between ground wires in the cable causes "cross-talk" between the clock line and the serial data out line and data corruption occurs ...BUT another cable is built with EMI protection measures and doesn't ever cause data corruption... would this be a relative truth or an absolute truth? (there will either be cross-talk data corruption or there will not be.)

 

[Leon]

There is no totally objective truth or reality. It is all subjective.

alex (no poll answer fits)

All "truth" and all "reality" is only so within a given context. Change the context and you change the truth/reality.

LRH's datum on absolutes being unobtainable misses out the tail end of the sentence.....they are unobtainable within the physical universe. Or, put another way, all absolutes are contextual, and there is ALWAYS a bigger context.

It is true that these are all subjective - but equally, within what context does this "subject" consider itself to be? To call something "objective" implies that you consider yourself to be subject to some context, and why would any self-respecting thetan ever do such a thing?

 

[Vinaire]

Sorry Vin, but that question does not help me look.

I say they come from me. Me is behind a lot of stuff, but I funtion through it.

It seems when you ask that question, it is as if you are asking me to look somewhere other than at myself. I dont see those ideas coming from anything removed from basic self. I dont feel I am answering "as" anyone or thing...

I do have behaviors and thoughts that most definately are not pure self, but from "additive" aspects....but these are not them IMO.

Comments?

alex

Well, then take credit for generating those ideas. Well done on this looking.

.

 

[Vinaire]

When a bridge is built from concrete with no rebar and then cracks and falls apart BUT another bridge is built WITH rebar and doesn't fail... would this be a relative truth or an absolute truth? (It can either withstand a 7 earthquake or it cannot.)

When, in serial digital communications, a flat ribbon cable with no EMI protection using in-between ground wires in the cable causes "cross-talk" between the clock line and the serial data out line and data corruption occurs ...BUT another cable is built with EMI protection measures and doesn't ever cause data corruption... would this be a relative truth or an absolute truth? (there will either be cross-talk data corruption or there will not be.)

It all depends on where one is looking from.

Please don't get into too much figure-figure on this.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

It all depends on where one is looking from.

Please don't get into too much figure-figure on this.

.

Ron didn't like people thinking about what He was saying, so, He came up with 'figure-figure' to denigrate and suppress analysis.

Another word for 'figure-figure' might be 'evaluation'; another 'no-no' in Scientology.

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

Ron didn't like people thinking about what He was saying, so, He came up with 'figure-figure' to denigrate and suppress analysis.

Another word for 'figure-figure' might be 'evaluation'; another 'no-no' in Scientology.

Zinj

"Evaluation" and 'figure-figure" mean two different things to me. "Figure-figure" comes in when vital part of data is missing and one is chewing up again and again on what one has and not getting anywhere. Under this circumstance the proper thing is to look for missing data instead of "figure-figure."

Evaluation proceeds naturally and very fast when one has all the relevant data.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

"Evaluation" and 'figure-figure" mean two different things to me. "Figure-figure" comes in when vital part of data is missing and one is chewing up again and again on what one has and not getting anywhere. Under this circumstance the proper thing is to look for missing data instead of "figure-figure."

Evaluation proceeds naturally and very fast when one has all the relevant data.

.

When you get right down to it, 'full' data is never, or almost never, available to us humans. In recognition of this, we learn to make best judgments based on *available* data.

It's this lack of 'full data' that's the essense of the 'scientific method' and why theories are never 'finished' or absolute. They're always up for revision or even rejection based on 'new data'.

There is however a huge difference between hand-wringing paralysis and rational awareness of fallibility.

Except for Hubbard, who was so terrified of uncertainty that he raised certainty to a religious axiom and named Himself 'Source', while at the same time 'invalidating' any contrary opinion, view or conclusion.

Anyone *else's* absolute was an affront for Ron, so, He 'concluded' that 'there are no absolutes', while at the same time defecating axioms like anal-beads and demanding 'certainty' of his followers, at least as far as 'agreement' with His certainties.

What PG was 'thought experimenting' was hardly 'figure-figure' as you define it, but, a rational demonstration of a logical (if relative) 'absolute' in a real world scenario.

Yes; a rebar reinforced concrete bridge *is* stronger than a non-reinforced concrete bridge *if that's all the data that's available*. *New* data might impinge on that absolute, say, that the rebar was substandard or subject to an iron-eating bacteria or made of black-painted green cheese; all of which would potentially make them worse than nothing.

But, given the presented data, it *is* an absolute that a rebar-reinforced concrete bridge is stronger than a non-reinforced one.

So, from my viewpoint, your accusation of 'figure-figure' is merely a sub-standard attempt at 'thought stopping' to protect your cherished opinion that 'there are no absolutes', which you've carried to an untenable extreme.

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

When you get right down to it, 'full' data is never, or almost never, available to us humans. In recognition of this, we learn to make best judgments based on *available* data.

It's this lack of 'full data' that's the essense of the 'scientific method' and why theories are never 'finished' or absolute. They're always up for revision or even rejection based on 'new data'.

There is however a huge difference between hand-wringing paralysis and rational awareness of fallibility.

Except for Hubbard, who was so terrified of uncertainty that he raised certainty to a religious axiom and named Himself 'Source', while at the same time 'invalidating' any contrary opinion, view or conclusion.

Anyone *else's* absolute was an affront for Ron, so, He 'concluded' that 'there are no absolutes', while at the same time defecating axioms like anal-beads and demanding 'certainty' of his followers, at least as far as 'agreement' with His certainties.

What PG was 'thought experimenting' was hardly 'figure-figure' as you define it, but, a rational demonstration of a logical (if relative) 'absolute' in a real world scenario.

Yes; a rebar reinforced concrete bridge *is* stronger than a non-reinforced concrete bridge *if that's all the data that's available*. *New* data might impinge on that absolute, say, that the rebar was substandard or subject to an iron-eating bacteria or made of black-painted green cheese; all of which would potentially make them worse than nothing.

But, given the presented data, it *is* an absolute that a rebar-reinforced concrete bridge is stronger than a non-reinforced one.

So, from my viewpoint, your accusation of 'figure-figure' is merely a sub-standard attempt at 'thought stopping' to protect your cherished opinion that 'there are no absolutes', which you've carried to an untenable extreme.

Zinj

To me worrying about whether something is relative truth or absolute truth is not relevant at all to anything. Call it whatever you like and just get on with the business at hand.

There was no accusation meant toward PG. I was simply stating a viewpoint.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

To me worrying about whether something is relative truth or absolute truth is not relevant at all to anything. Call it whatever you like and just get on with the business at hand.

There was no accusation meant toward PG. I was simply stating a viewpoint.

.

Well, that sounds relatively exculpatory Vinnie, but, it means you're absolutely in the wrong thread

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

Well, that sounds relatively exculpatory Vinnie, but, it means you're absolutely in the wrong thread

Zinj

LOL! I had to look up the word "exculpatory."

.

 

[uncle sam]

When has GRAVITY, not worked not worked for you?

 

[Vinaire]

"Relative," "absolute," and "truth" are all considerations. They are different for different people.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

"Relative," "absolute," and "truth" are all considerations. They are different for different people.

.

'What is truth?' asked Pilate, and washed his hands.

It's a ser-fac.

Zinj

 

[Pierrot]

'What is truth?' asked Pilate, and washed his hands.

It's a ser-fac.

Zinj

That's a good one. "AXIOM 35. THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS A STATIC." - then if charged can be run in brackets. Fun...