Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Do visual symbols have value to modern society?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
"Fact" and "belief" are both very fuzzy symbols that can have refined meaning if you "meditate" (I hate using that word!) on what they must actually represent. Even "facts" are revised over time and only represent common agreement between certain individuals in places of influence, thus even "facts" aren't really "facts." When you better understand the "fuzziness" of words like these I think it sets the stage for a realization that everything is equally arbitrary and we are all just making everything up as we go along anyway, as is convenient for us.


Yes, the "fuzziness" of symbols is the intent of this thread


That is their usefulness. They're programmable. And ultimately there can be an individual interpretation for any. But I used "fact" and "belief" to condense the measurable and immeasurable components for simplicity. Otherwise I'd have to list the components separately. So for the sake of practicality I assume that I'm conveying "fact" and "belief" to you with the consensus that one is measurable and one is not. But, truly, to myself these things have a deeper meaning.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

[edit on 18-9-2008 by TravelerintheDark]




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
There certainly are rights and there certainly are wrongs.


You have severe issues with letting go of the fallacy of an objective reality. You can't accept that "objectivity" is an abstract concept while "subjectivity" is the only kind of reality any conscious being can possibly know, and must experience everything through that "lense."

I really don't care for your opinions and from now on assume you are just offering personal commentary for others on my posts. I don't know who ever convinced you that you are the righteous bearer of absolute truth, but you are too damned sure of yourself and have too big of a head to be very enlightened. Now get defensive and prove me right. I'm talking about things that are totally unrelated to science and math, you're right. Do all Zen Buddhist or Hindu concepts have mathematical equivalence? Are you going to make the logical fallacy of telling me that lacking such an equivalent invalidates any message my words may mean to convey whatsoever? What makes you so damned sure you should be able to relate to everything I say anyway? Can you explain at least that last question to me?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You have severe issues with letting go of the fallacy of an objective reality.


What fallacy? There is none so far that has been shown for me to let go of. Can you show me of MY fallacy, please? Otherwise all I see is you showing a factor of being intimidated. And there's really no reason for that.

If you can't show where I have presented fallacy then you're talking about absolutely nothing.


You can't accept that "objectivity" is an abstract concept while "subjectivity" is the only kind of reality any conscious being can possibly know, and must experience everything through that "lense."


We're all individuals so we all have our "own" minds or lens of perception that is unique to all of us. However, the Earth is not flat whether you believe it or not. That's pure subjectivity and delusional. The objective trumps the subjective because the objective deals with the physical, the tangible, the factual and the knowable for all, not just one individual.


I really don't care for your opinions and from now on assume you are just offering personal commentary for others on my posts.


I don't have opinions.


I don't know who ever convinced you that you are the righteous bearer of absolute truth, but you are too damned sure of yourself and have too big of a head to be very enlightened.


No one can ever be too damned sure of their self. As I said, you just feel intimidated because you're not sure of yourself. That's your issue, not mine.


Now get defensive and prove me right. I'm talking about things that are totally unrelated to science and math, you're right.


Everything is related to science and math. However, some things are universally inconsistent with the science and math of the universe contrast to the subjective science and math they are said to be based on, that which is usually determined to be invisible and having no structure, untouchable and unknowable, which then leads me to question how anyone can know a thing is unknowable, and known to be unknowable only for their self, and then use it as their basis for evidence of an incident. Ergo they are flawed.


Do all Zen Buddhist or Hindu concepts have mathematical equivalence? Are you going to make the logical fallacy of telling me that lacking such an equivalent invalidates any message my words may mean to convey whatsoever?


Why are you asking me all of this if you don't care for my "opinion". I think you have a deeper motive inside and actually do want to hear what I have to say. Otherwise you're contradicting yourself.


What makes you so damned sure you should be able to relate to everything I say anyway? Can you explain at least that last question to me?


That depends on if you want me to relate or not. Since this thread is about visual symbols and their value to modern society; if you use those symbols efficiently enough to portray and convey exactly what you want me to understand about you, then I'm sure that I will because I desire to understand you, and if your desire is as strong as mine then we will. Do you disagree?

[edit on 19-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Everything is related to science and math.


What you mean to say is, "Everything I have known and experienced, seems to relate to math and science." That's what you mean to say whether you know it or not. Are you familiar with Zen Buddhist concepts and states of mind? I don't care what your "opinion" is, just what your experience has been, if any.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What you mean to say is, "Everything I have known and experienced, seems to relate to math and science."


No, what I said is, and what I meant to say is, everything is related to math and science.


That's what you mean to say whether you know it or not.


Let me guess: another psychic or are you a fortune teller?


Are you familiar with Zen Buddhist concepts and states of mind? I don't care what your "opinion" is, just what your experience has been, if any.


It doesn't matter, according to your philosophy everything is only opinion, and you've already asked me not to express mine. Would you like to change that desire now?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


So you don't have any experience with Zen Buddhism but you want to argue with me that science and math can describe anything there is in the universe?



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   

You have severe issues with letting go of the fallacy of an objective reality.

You can't accept that "objectivity" is an abstract concept while "subjectivity" is the only kind of reality any conscious being can possibly know, and must experience everything through that "lens."


You've also failed to justify these statements and provide any reason or logic behind them. I'll be waiting, that is unless you no longer stand by them.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
You've also failed to justify these statements and provide any reason or logic behind them. I'll be waiting, that is unless you no longer stand by them.


They justify themselves. Name me one scientist, observer, instrument, etc., anything, that can tell you definitely what something objectively "is" and not just what their subjective view of it seems to be. It's absurd for me to ask this, because you can't do it, because what I just posted was correct to begin with: objectivity is an abstract concept for convenience, and this "objective world" does not exist anywhere apart from an observer.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
They justify themselves. Name me one scientist, observer, instrument, etc., anything, that can tell you definitely what something objectively "is" and not just what their subjective view of it seems to be. It's absurd for me to ask this, because you can't do it, because what I just posted was correct to begin with.


You're the one making the claims and I'm the one answering the questions. Funny how this always works. I shall be your teacher then.

First off let me provide you with some definitions so you don't get confused.

Objective:
- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
- being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject.
- of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Subjective
- existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought
- placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
- relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
- Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world
- Existing only in the mind; illusory.

I provided a few definitions. The ones that I emphasized with coding are the one's that I am focusing on.

Objective as the things that REALLY exist. Such as the Earth being spherical and Subjective as the things that only exist in the mind: Such as the Earth being flat. Convictions in ignorance rather than objective reality.

When the OBJECT is spherical, it is NOT flat. Thus the OBJECTIVE, that which is existing independent of subjective opinion is TRUE. A subjective conviction and that which merits no objective observance or consistency with physical reality will ALWAYS crumble under the weight of objective scrutiny and comparison.

Regardless of how many people subjectively (belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought) believe that the Earth is flat, the Earth will still be spherical. That's the difference between subjective and objective.

The subject can think what it wants about an object (Earth flat), but ultimately the object (Earth round) will always only allow the subject to gather from it what it truly is.

[edit on 19-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


You know what? You're right. Next time I post anything else that makes you feel so uncomfortable, just go ahead and assume you are correct -- because you are. I have nothing to share with someone who knows so much already.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I do not assume. It is knowledge, knowledge can not be assumed, only opinion can. You think you have little to share with me, but you don't realize how much that you really do have to share and how much that you already have shared with me. And just because you think that you have nothing to share with me doesn't mean that I don't have anything to share with you.

I am not unappreciative. I truly do cherish every conversation no matter who it is with.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TravelerintheDark
 


Can you please define the symbols you are referring to...

In some cases, a geometric shape is a symbol to some, but is not a symbol to others.

To some they may be understood to be something entirely different, according to that persons knowledge and the situation the geometric form is presented in.

What I am trying to suggest here, is that many geometric shapes, that are regarded as symbols today, are in fact are Not symbols at all.

They are to do with the ancient understanding, of a processing system using geometry, in what may be called today a geometric processing system or optical computer interface system.

Often Geometry recorded in so called religious material, that is regarded as a symbol in ignorance and superstition, is part of the processing system that was used by some of the rulers of the ancient world, that interfaced with the True Mind.

You can see this geometry in Government buildings, palaces, temples, churches, and in many public places

To some it is known as "sacred geometry".....

While to others, it is known as part of the ancient knowledge of a processing system, that produces our apparent environment.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


I wasn't referring to any particular symbol(s). My point was that anything can be given symbolic meaning by anyone, so how can they be expected to have the same value, or be respected for their symbolic meaning, by everyone. What you call ignorance and superstition others consider wisdom and knowledge. In my opinion, neither is entirely wrong. It's a question of perspective.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Kudos for the post.. Please comment on my link and "Keep your Eye on the Grand Old Flag".

Greets to my friend MatrixTraveller for our paths cross again..


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


[edit on 24-9-2008 by mapsurfer_]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TravelerintheDark
 


I must agree with you on this...



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by mapsurfer_
 


Hi,
how is the little project coming along?






top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join