Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
How do you condense the eternal?
Through placing its concept onto a symbol. I am talking about concepts here, not literally condensing the eternal, as it can not be.
How do you justify belief in your own words then?
It's not a belief. I therefore have nothing to justify and you are making assumptions. My words are knowledge, not belief.
I did. My second post illustrates my own personal belief in symbols.
So is that not enough to know, rather than to only believe?
True, when we share a common understanding of those symbols.
Yes, I'll understand because of the common understanding we share of the english language. I respect that the symbols you use are illustrating
your personal freedom; yourself, after a fashion. But if you were to hold up a religious symbol I might take the same meaning from it, only I'd find
it a whole lot funnier.
I don't have freedom, but that's for another topic.
Ah, religion. Touchy, touchy. Mes don't likes to goes there too much anymore
How about my previous statement as an example?
But you see, the symbol still has a concept attached to it. You're not disrespecting the symbol because it is an inanimate object, you can't
possibly hurt it, however you are disrespecting it since it is a crucial part of an environment. If it has meaning to its beholder and you disrespect
its meaning, then you are more so disrespecting the beholder, not so much the symbol. It's the same as me holding up a sign saying "don't make fun
of my symbol, it is my belief., and un-accordingly you do so anyway.
This is a good example of how symbols breakdown through interpretation. The word 'crucial' implies importance and importance implies value.
And value is subjective so how do we interpret that?
Objectively. You see, all subjective faiths must be tested through objective analysis and then be subject to facts and knowledge gathered
Subjectivity is nothing more and nothing less than a conviction in ignorance if it has no absolute objective facts to either logically explain it or
physically prove it.
But all symbols breakdown through interpretation, even the ones we rely on the most as essential to communication. Perhaps the real question
is how much breakdown must occur before a symbol becomes irrelevant to society? Is there an obligation for society as a whole to recognize our
personal symbolism? Political correctness is an example.
If a breakdown in language occurs it will only create more off-shoots of language. Slang, old English, etc.
If a complete breakdown of language occurs there are two ways to reconstruct it. Either subjectively or objectively. If it begins subjectively,
objectivity will soon find its way into the language. If it begins objectively, subjectivity will soon find its way into the language. In both cases
the logic, facts and knowledge that can be proven in and through objective reality supersede subjective conviction and faith.
There is an obligation to recognize what our common interest is. If its survival then we'd best learn to understand one another, and if it is
survival then this obligation must become a determination.