Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Truth of Relativism Based On Mathematical Concepts

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

smithjustinb
Relativists, such as myself, claim that there is no absolute truth. That a man when viewed by an ant is large but when viewed by an elephant is small. Therefore, the man can be neither because one is contradictory to the other. But what if the man is all possibilities and each truth is true. This is what I'm beginning to understand.


I agree, we don't even hope that there is an access to the absolute truth which proves to be hard to access from our dimension and planetary solar system. We don't hope, because the dynamics of hope are an open gate for contradiction, we act.

So I do not know a way to grab a hold of that truth, that synchronization, that seemingly magical aspect of reality. But we can see there is a lot to do with thought process and emotion in our beings, thought process and release of natural neurological chemicals.

I forgot what I was going to write, but as we know science is changing. Time and creation to me now is like a backwards motion, it is being created and the universe is expanding but in a backwards way, because when we humans now have proof of this big bang it opened up the door to black holes and a super black hole can most definetly be a universe going inward, because why else would have our reality start from an explosion?




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Considering that the Universe is a living thing is not difficult to relate to, as within it are living things.


Any thoughts?
edit on 16-4-2014 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 





The statement was truly vacuous. I apologize. The “emotionality of our being”? I had no clue what you were talking about because it is entirely empty of meaningful content. You never said anything about emotions, feelings and value underlying our cognitive processes, which I may have had a chance to consider and understand. You said “the emotionality of our being”


Care to explain the difference? If cognitive processes - what we think of and how we think of it - is ultimately riding upon preconscious feelings (emotion), that would essentially mean that our experience of the world, of ourselves, of our own selves thinking, and reflecting upon that, all of this is dependent on the motivational source of emotion, and with it, the multifaceted mechanisms of the mind which frame reality for the act of thinking.

If "emotion" is bothersome to you, than think of it as "irrational", in that reality cannot be related to without involving systems of value formation. And since value can differ greatly over time - mostly due to peoples early life and later life experiences - people can arrive at different "truths" of reality.

I'm sort of close to the Buddhist and contemplative way of looking at things. Reality has a "truth" to it. Things can be understood and broken apart. Emotion is an ever present quality of cognition and self-object relations. So once you are invested in this reality, the fact of good and evil, wellbeing and suffering, enter your experience. And from this, from this common experience, from this, in your eyes "platitude" of human experience, are we able to derive our social and moral truths - which, as I have argued, has emerged the world over.

It does take a highly evolved emotional intelligence to really appreciate and connect with this fact. And, as I said, since people enter life and learn the world in different ways, not all people, unfortunately, are amenable to a position which feels open towards and empathic with other selves.

It's a disease of the mind to harbour ill feelings towards others; to not wish others well, and to not feel compelled to orient your existence so that your own personal search for meaning in your life doesn't negatively impact the search of others.

Since emotion underlies our perceptions, and guides how we employ logic in philosophical matters (which ultimately are reducible to how you feel about something), the only reason disparate viewpoints which seek to emphasize extraneous matters; that is, views which understate the importance and inherent value in seeking the common good, exist, is because the holders of these views, unbeknownst to them, have a negative, aversive feeling to the notion of 'the common good'; in their minds, something else, some other concept, takes deeper root in them.

I can say this because I've been on both sides of the equation. I've held to stringent orthodox views which literally prevented me from understanding basic, fundamental facts about the nature of the human experience. I kept shutting out these ideas because I was too stuck in the epistemological patterns of my thinking and insistence on a metaphysical view of things. But once you reduce what being human is; when you take away all the baggage of culture and religion, and simply look at the psychological reality that humans have to endure, you are able to think more keenly and more compassionately about our common experiences in this world. This is like the ultimate, objective "overhead" view of the reality of things. In this picture, the self seems more honest, more sincere, and less resistant to the force of love.

Since you value being true, you might as well know (if it hasn't become entirely apparent to you) that I think your views are ultimately predicated on whats called by developmental psychopathologists "Interpersonal Interpretation Mechanism" or the IIM. The IIM is the first stage in the ontogenesis of the human personality. Biologically, this stage in development shapes the neurobiology of the brain stem and lower limbic areas. The IIM is the immediate experience that the infant has with it's mother. At this point, nothing exists for the infant but the Self. Reality is not understood as "other" or "outside" since that awareness is learned from experiences. At this juncture, the Self develops in concordance with environmental stimuli. The mother is the face the infant mostly sees. When its a happy face, the infant instinctively feels and senses within itself happiness and pleasure. This proto experience is what motivates the development of Self understanding and self efficacy. The more the picture "out there" of the mothers face provides positive experiences, the more the Self inside becomes interested in exploring experiences of feeling. On the other hand, a depressed face, or an angry face, or a fearful face, really create the opposite effect. At the level of IIM, the message "out there" in the face is negative. Instead of encouraging exploration of feeling - and the formation of reflective function that it educes - the Self "dissociates", it see's whats "out there" to be the problem, and is careful not to be too conscious "in here": or, actually, in attachment theory, there are two possible responses a child takes at this point. If the parent is dismissive of emotion and so provides insufficient stimulus to the baby, the baby may pursue the same IIM (avoid ant). Or, if the baby is exposed to yelling, mean faces, and depression, the IIM born of this interaction will likely result in preoccupation with anxious thoughts, tendency to dissociate etc. These are both general categories. People exist along a continuum of "security" to "insecurity". People either develop the mentalizing function that enhances adaptability and flexibility in social relations, or people are disabled in some way in developing this ability. All sequlae in psychological development are highly determined by this proto development.

Nobody is perfect. We live in a world where people habitually and unconsciously engage in behavior that our bound to have negative consequences. This occurs in how they live, how they eat, and how they relate with other people.

Anyways, I'll stop sugar coating my argument with explanations. I can boil down my argument to a simply phrase: if your heart ain't right, your thinking aint right". I deeply believe truth is exactly how the mystics of all times have tended to describe things: we are one. It's just not something that comes easily for us, because the mind is so complicated.




Well the good of society is not the result of the golden rule either.


The golden "rule" is only a reflection after the fact. We can ennoble it as a "rule" only because it is a (positive) force in the human social experience.




Such a statement is also vacuous. I apologize, but saying thinking is based on events in the brain is entirely abstract and should have no place in science. No thinking has ever occurred without the entire body working in uniform.



So, answer me this. We've down countless studies of people with brain lesions following strokes and seizures, or via a vicious brain disease (encephalitis), and the same regions that are damaged produce the same psychological effects. How would you like to explain that? If the lesion is in the amygdala, people no longer feel inhibited or experience fear. They become extremely rash. If the lesion is in an area in the temporal lobe called brocas area, people lose the capacity to generate language. If it's further back in a place called wernickes area, they lose the ability to understand language, although they can still generate it. If it's in the right anterior cingulate cortex, people become mute. They no longer experience the "impetus" or "charge" to engage in social action. If it's in the right ventral medial cortex, they have difficulty organizing information.

These results are repeatable. Every time a certain part of the brain is immobilized, a predictable function is lost. This is essentially an indisputable fact.





 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join