reply to post by Itisnowagain
To cut through the 'holier/bigger than you' sidetrack, I can once again define my own position:
I operate with 'relative realities', inside which some claims/methods/conclusions have a rather specific, but approximate 'truth'. I.e. the 'map'
science/logic describes the territory of cosmos far better than any other perspective.
Consequently I seldom (if ever) present general absolutes, only 'partial' absolutes fitting to 'local' relative realities.
In two of the related european languages I'm familiar with, the exactly same word (spelling and phonetically) means two completely different things.
The consensus of definition (in each of the two languages) makes the use of this word meaningful in each language, but not meaningful when
trangressing local definitions.
Such a consensus also exists in contexts more complex than just single words; complex contexts where the definitions also give meaning in
communication. And your unwillingness to relate or refer to such basic requests for definitions (and thus communication) surprises me.
For a starter you could take a look at the 'official' definitions of 'subjective' and 'objective', and the consequences of these concepts. Instead of
excessively commenting on my motives (which you're only guessing at), my character (do) and my competence (do); such a type of commenting being a
pointless activity, if it becomes the main content of posting.
You appear to take my rejection of "it's true, because it's true" (i.e. claiming 'truths' without validation) as an effort to 'corner you'. But I'm
willing to go as far, as I can epistemologically (i.e.: 'How do we know, what we know') to create a common communication basis.
Seemingly you either don't understand the implications of this offer, or you reject it from reasons unknown to me. In that case, state your
objections, and I'll try to work my way to common communication via different paths.
But I'll never accept "it's true, because it's true" fitting into the concept 'objectivity' necessary for communication, and my next post COULD very
well be an 'it's true, because it's true' build on the flying spaghetti monster having his home on the moon, which is made of cheese.
edit on 30-5-2011 by bogomil because: clarifying addition