'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Truth and value

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2961
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Truth and value   Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:59 am

Truth is the highest value, because it is the condition for positing all values.

No value can be posited without truth; but values can be posited either strongly or weakly, consistently or inconsistently, with fuller knowledge or lesser knowledge. These distinctions arise based on the extent to which truth itself, value itself, is able to be valued, rather in thought or not. The voracity and effectiveness of valuation notwithstanding.

To value is to raise a thing to a standard above itself, within the scope of oneself.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:21 pm

I think my view on truth is that only objective truth exists. Subjectivity is either false or it is grasping/knowing objectivity, where then the subjectiveness of the subjectivity becomes objectivity. The only way to know truth is through objectivity. Subjectivity literally may mean falseness or meaninglessness, it objectively exists as energy in the brain, but the informational content though it may help a person objectively, may have entirely no objective existence in reality. It can still have a value, this is how religions can have a value even if they are not objectively true, or reading harry potter can bring someone joy or have an impact on their true life. This is just my current opinion and thoughts, havent thought it through much.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3695
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:36 pm

The Harry Potter example is a good example of why subjectivity underlies objectivity.
A subject consists of a certain amount of energy, but what happens with this energy, what is the objective effect of this energy, depends entirely on the subjectivity of its identity.

It does not matter whether a story is true or not, what is objectively of importance is the way in which it influences the subject. The only objective truth in a Harry Potter story is in each individual case of reading it. History is always a subjective account, any attempt to objectivize is bringing the objective truth under the umbrella of a value system - a language, a logic, a context in which it can be compared to other things.

Rain may objectively the same molecular structure if it falls in the desert and if it falls in the swamp, but its objective effect is different - thus it is objectively different rain. It is objective fact that subjectivity (perspective, context, value-standard) determines the possible content of objectivity, which is what you were perhaps hinting at.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:23 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
The Harry Potter example is a good example of why subjectivity underlies objectivity.
A subject consists of a certain amount of energy, but what happens with this energy, what is the objective effect of this energy, depends entirely on the subjectivity of its identity.

It does not matter whether a story is true or not, what is objectively of importance is the way in which it influences the subject. The only objective truth in a Harry Potter story is in each individual case of reading it. History is always a subjective account, any attempt to objectivize is bringing the objective truth under the umbrella of a value system - a language, a logic, a context in which it can be compared to other things.


Well in regards to objective truth it matters if a story is true or not, in regards to truth it matters if things are true, this is what I was trying to express, when I said truth is objectivity. If I say the sun is a jelly bean, this is not true, no matter how true it may be to me subjectively. If subjectively something is true, then it is true in an objective way, thus it is objectivity.

Harry Potter isnt true as in an accurate depiction of a known history of earth. But because it is an extension of human existence, characters and conflict, a human can garner value from the fictitious story. The human reading it is objective, the activity the human faced in their life is objective, an interesting thing to think about are how emotions and feelings may be objective or not, the person dealt with how they chose to or didnt choose to interact and react to the events of their life (though those were subjective struggles that occurred in objective reality..yea see this is tough, because I dont know what the deal with thoughts are, they objectively exist but they are creations of a will/being, I guess im wondering about the objective truth or validity of thoughts, which are primarily if not totally words, images, and streams of images or video), and so one person may interpret something one way and another another way, and this is the whole idea behind subjectivity, interpretation. But my point I keep coming back to is, interpretation can either be accurate, in which case it aligns itself with some objective truth, or it can be non accurate, in which it is just subjective folly. If you think subjective interpretation can be correct, yet not align with any objectivity, at what point of my interpretation of the mona lisa do you say, errr I dont think its possible to interpret it that way? "Ohh I know exactly what this painting means, the painter was trying to tell us; blue bungee cord hamburger balloon shoes California pizza kitchen yes ha lol 243, its so obvious...this really means a lot to me"

like I can literally live my whole life in my mind just saying random strings of non logical meaningless syntax and you can say its not true. Or I can be a part of some business, and I say a statement, and that statement puts into action lots of movement and production, so I guess this has to do with the truth of language, is it subjective or objective.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Rain may objectively the same molecular structure if it falls in the desert and if it falls in the swamp, but its objective effect is different - thus it is objectively different rain. It is objective fact that subjectivity (perspective, context, value-standard) determines the possible content of objectivity, which is what you were perhaps hinting at.

Oh yes, but it still objectively exists, the point of objectivity is the inability to argue its existence, it is tautologically true in its existence. It is truth. You, whatever you are objectively exist, this is true, you are truth, your body, the existence of your thoughts, my point is, subjectivity isnt necessarily true. And then I am trying to ask, in what ways are subjectivity true, without being objective?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Wizard



Posts : 8
Join date : 2014-01-20

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:34 pm

Imafungi wrote:
Oh yes, but it still objectively exists, the point of objectivity is the inability to argue its existence, it is tautologically true in its existence.  It is truth.  You, whatever you are objectively exist, this is true, you are truth, your body, the existence of your thoughts, my point is, subjectivity isnt necessarily true.  And then I am trying to ask, in what ways are subjectivity true, without being objective?
Well said.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3695
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:10 pm

Imafungi wrote:

Well in regards to objective truth it matters if a story is true or not, in regards to truth it matters if things are true, this is what I was trying to express, when I said truth is objectivity.  If I say the sun is a jelly bean, this is not true, no matter how true it may be to me subjectively.  If subjectively something is true, then it is true in an objective way, thus it is objectivity.  

This sounds as if you think that language, your own in particular, is god-given.  For all I know "Jelly bean" means "Sun" in some language, in a manner of speaking.

The word "Sun" has absolutely no objective relationship to that which it indicates to us.  Anything you say is an expression of a perspective. The Sun is not to the Sun what it is to you. The sun will not "agree" that it is "the sun". All of what you say is subjective, perspectival.

Quote :
Harry Potter isnt true as in an accurate depiction of a known history of earth.  But because it is an extension of human existence, characters and conflict, a human can garner value from the fictitious story.  The human reading it is objective, the activity the human faced in their life is objective, an interesting thing to think about are how emotions and feelings may be objective or not, the person dealt with how they chose to or didnt choose to interact and react to the events of their life (though those were subjective struggles that occurred in objective reality..yea see this is tough, because I dont know what the deal with thoughts are, they objectively exist but they are creations of a will/being, I guess im wondering about the objective truth or validity of thoughts, which are primarily if not totally words, images, and streams of images or video), and so one person may interpret something one way and another another way, and this is the whole idea behind subjectivity, interpretation.  But my point I keep coming back to is, interpretation can either be accurate, in which case it aligns itself with some objective truth, or it can be non accurate, in which it is just subjective folly.

Accurate with respect to what? I think you mean that an accurate interpretation is what allows manipulation, power. An accurate interpretation of a car allows you to drive it. You might also try to eat it, which would result from an inaccurate interpretation.

All of this still is in terms of your subjectivity.
Your being, you doing those things, is required for any of this discourse to exist at all.

There needs to be perspective in order for there to be objective truths, accuracies, at all.

Quote :
  If you think subjective interpretation can be correct, yet not align with any objectivity, at what point of my interpretation of the mona lisa do you say, errr I dont think its possible to interpret it that way? "Ohh I know exactly what this painting means, the painter was trying to tell us; blue bungee cord hamburger balloon shoes California pizza kitchen yes ha lol 243, its so obvious...this really means a lot to me"

like I can literally live my whole life in my mind just saying random strings of non logical meaningless syntax and you can say its not true.  Or I can be a part of some business, and I say a statement, and that statement puts into action lots of movement and production, so I guess this has to do with the truth of language, is it subjective or objective.

Language is a tool for communicating values. It requires more than one person to speak it. It's a means to create inter-subjectivity (not objetivity) to get different people to understand each others goals and conceptions, do ad to be able to work together.

English contains words for which there are no words in Chinese, and vice versa. How are you going to explain this "objectively", or as an expression of objectivity, without framing it in terms of subjectivity and perspective?

Quote :
Fixed Cross wrote:

Rain may objectively the same molecular structure if it falls in the desert and if it falls in the swamp, but its objective effect is different - thus it is objectively different rain. It is objective fact that subjectivity (perspective, context, value-standard) determines the possible content of objectivity, which is what you were perhaps hinting at.

Oh yes, but it still objectively exists, the point of objectivity is the inability to argue its existence, it is tautologically true in its existence.  It is truth.  You, whatever you are objectively exist, this is true, you are truth, your body, the existence of your thoughts,

In other words, my subjectivity. Yes, this is true. Objectivity is only true in as far as it is grounded in a subjectivity. Moreover, it is only expessible in terms of subjectivity, perspective.


Quote :
my point is, subjectivity isnt necessarily true.

You just did a lot to refute that point.
But I think what you mean is that a subjective judgment does not always lead to what the one who is making the judgment expects it will lead to. Of course this is true. A subject is not omnipotent.

Quote :
And then I am trying to ask, in what ways are subjectivity true, without being objective?

Objectivity is a vague terms unless you get into definitional logic.
Try to phrase what it is that must be true in every case. Only this can be said to be objective. And you'll run into the fact that all that can be said to be true in every case is an instance of subjectivity, of affect, of 'something doing something to something else'.

There is no objective medium. The medium of existence is subjectivity, perspective. This goes for every atom and every human. If it does not hold its position, it dissipates and cease to exist.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3695
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:20 pm

"Subjectivity" may be better understood if you think of it as "position" "force" and "receptivity to force".

Not all judgments are accurate, but all judgments are instances of subjectivity. When there are many concurring judgments, man starts to believe in objectivity. It is his drive to impose his judgment on the world, his will to power. For that he has to let the world impose itself on him in a certain way.

Objectivity is measured in the power it grants the subject. Science is the human (a species of subjectivity) documentation of judgments that allow the human predict and manipulate his environment. In applying science, he selects the part of his environment to which he responds. Science is extremely subjective. It is extremely existential, active, manipulative, 'artificial'.

Science is highly selective. Science is selecting responses that form patterns and further responses that make sense in terms of these patterns. It's art is selection, and selection is the quintessence of perspective, subjectivity, holding a position.

Do you follow? My terms are opaque precisely because the belief in the objectivity of language is far more treacherous than any other superstition.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:37 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Imafungi wrote:

Well in regards to objective truth it matters if a story is true or not, in regards to truth it matters if things are true, this is what I was trying to express, when I said truth is objectivity.  If I say the sun is a jelly bean, this is not true, no matter how true it may be to me subjectively.  If subjectively something is true, then it is true in an objective way, thus it is objectivity.  

This sounds as if you think that language, your own in particular, is god-given.  For all I know "Jelly bean" means "Sun" in some language, in a manner of speaking.

The word "Sun" has absolutely no objective relationship to that which it indicates to us.  Anything you say is an expression of a perspective. The Sun is not to the Sun what it is to you. The sun will not "agree" that it is "the sun". All of what you say is subjective, perspectival.

Language is an extension of math.  As 1=1, the only reason I felt confident using the term sun is because we have agreed that Sun= the massive sphere of nuclear fusion at the center of our solar system, and we have agreed that jelly bean equals some little piece of candy.  I am not talking about the language, the symbol, but what the symbol represents.  When I point to the moon im not intending for you to be looking at my finger, but what the finger is pointing to, the finger represents the word.  There are many human words for sun, there is 1 sun, that objectively exists.  

Fixed Cross wrote:
Imafungi wrote:
Harry Potter isnt true as in an accurate depiction of a known history of earth.  But because it is an extension of human existence, characters and conflict, a human can garner value from the fictitious story.  The human reading it is objective, the activity the human faced in their life is objective, an interesting thing to think about are how emotions and feelings may be objective or not, the person dealt with how they chose to or didnt choose to interact and react to the events of their life (though those were subjective struggles that occurred in objective reality..yea see this is tough, because I dont know what the deal with thoughts are, they objectively exist but they are creations of a will/being, I guess im wondering about the objective truth or validity of thoughts, which are primarily if not totally words, images, and streams of images or video), and so one person may interpret something one way and another another way, and this is the whole idea behind subjectivity, interpretation.  But my point I keep coming back to is, interpretation can either be accurate, in which case it aligns itself with some objective truth, or it can be non accurate, in which it is just subjective folly.

Accurate with respect to what? I think you mean that an accurate interpretation is what allows manipulation, power. An accurate interpretation of a car allows you to drive it. You might also try to eat it, which would result from an inaccurate interpretation.

All of this still is in terms of your subjectivity.
Your being, you doing those things, is required for any of this discourse to exist at all.

There needs to be perspective in order for there to be objective truths, accuracies, at all.

Yes of course it does, but my stream of thoughts on this topic have to do with the idea of truth.  I am questioning what truth means, what is it, how is it.  Through my being and perspective I am giving access to the objective world, and though I am not given complete sensory data of the objective universe, I am given enough so that I may perceive the universe/the earth and exist.  If my perception of the earth was completely different, say something wrong with my brain, so that all the sensual data from my senses when sent to my brain made me see things bad and taste things bad and all that, and what I perceived was completely different then the earth, more of a constant view of my imagination, then it could not be said what I was viewing was truth.  Just as perhaps a blind man from birth, could not possibly comprehend all the aspects of earth from such limited information, and his imagination must do wonders to create 'his own subjective' reality and world view, which if it does not align with the objective truth of reality, must be said to be false.  

Fixed Cross wrote:
Imafungi wrote:
If you think subjective interpretation can be correct, yet not align with any objectivity, at what point of my interpretation of the mona lisa do you say, errr I dont think its possible to interpret it that way? "Ohh I know exactly what this painting means, the painter was trying to tell us; blue bungee cord hamburger balloon shoes California pizza kitchen yes ha lol 243, its so obvious...this really means a lot to me"

like I can literally live my whole life in my mind just saying random strings of non logical meaningless syntax and you can say its not true.  Or I can be a part of some business, and I say a statement, and that statement puts into action lots of movement and production, so I guess this has to do with the truth of language, is it subjective or objective.

Language is a tool for communicating values. It requires more than one person to speak it. It's a means to create inter-subjectivity (not objetivity) to get different people to understand each others goals and conceptions, do ad to be able to work together.

English contains words for which there are no words in Chinese, and vice versa. How are you going to explain this "objectively", or as an expression of objectivity, without framing it in terms of subjectivity and perspective?

Science is pretty much nothing other then 'knowing objective reality' as much and as well as it can.  I can say the word Sun, and science can present 10000 text books full of words on the current total knowledge of what we have of this objective phenomenon.  My biggest concern with the nature of objective truth and reality, is that even it is transient, and but a temporal expression of contextual relationships, in 99999999^9999999^999999^999999^9999 light milenia from now 'Truth' will be very different.


Fixed Cross wrote:

Rain may objectively the same molecular structure if it falls in the desert and if it falls in the swamp, but its objective effect is different - thus it is objectively different rain. It is objective fact that subjectivity (perspective, context, value-standard) determines the possible content of objectivity, which is what you were perhaps hinting at.

Oh yes, but it still objectively exists, the point of objectivity is the inability to argue its existence, it is tautologically true in its existence.  It is truth.  You, whatever you are objectively exist, this is true, you are truth, your body, the existence of your thoughts,

Fixed Cross wrote:

In other words, my subjectivity. Yes, this is true. Objectivity is only true in as far as it is grounded in a subjectivity. Moreover, it is only expessible in terms of subjectivity, perspective.

No I disagree.  If all subjectivity vanished tomorrow, the objective reality will still remain.  Objectivity is true regardless of anything, it is what is.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Thu Jan 23, 2014 7:23 pm

I guess what I was getting at was; When asking a question like 'What is truth/what is true/what does truth mean'? The answers will depend upon the 'truth' of whether or not; All is true (there is no thing that occurs or is thought or done or exists that is not true), or There is such thing as what is true/truth, and not true/truth, and then what would be the guiding factor and rules for separating the two? And also depending on those things, what would it mean for there to be a gradient of truth, can things be more true then others?

And regarding value and the idea of value, I have asked you if you thought all things can be compared, values determined to ordered in charts and graphs and determined which courses of action, belief, existence can create the ultimate values at least comparatively, and you answered that you dont think this can be done. I would then ask, what then is the point or meaning or matter of any values, if they are not comparable, if they are all equal in meaning or worth, or value? If someone values life, chopping their own head off with a chain saw can not be seen as valuable as eating spinach.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2961
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:15 am

Truth is defined as "existence". Existence exists, therefore truth exists. Whatever/however existence exists, what/however it is, is truth. This is all straight-forward.

But what is existence?

Value Ontology proposes an essential thing: that every objectivity is composed of subjectivities. What does this mean? It means that whatever level of "objective reality" you choose to examine you will always find, under and within that reality, subjectivities interacting with each other. Every subjectivity is a perspective, and perspective is defined as the subjectivity, the subject and its object-relations.

So objectivity has been re-defined as subjectivity.

Of course it is a FACT that existence exists, and that things exist, and the how/what of their existence is also FACTUAL. This represents the greatest level of understanding: conceptual truth. Reason is the ability to understand not just existence but the fact of it, not just things which exist but the fact of these things. The sun is what it is, and how the sun "sees itself" is different from how other things perceive the sun, and every possible perspective has a unique vantage upon "the sun". But we, as humans, are capable of obtaining universal perspective above this subjectivism. What is this universality of knowledge? It is reason, it is conception. Logic and ideas.

Facts are objective, and existence itself, truth itself, is objective. But the nature of objectivity is always already subjective, composed of subjectivities within subjectivities, perspectives within perspectives. Every single point-perspective constitutes a self-valuing, a "knot of space-time" which values itself. This means it acts according to its own causal necessity, and the more it is able to act with respect to its actual needs and the actual conditions to which it is subject the more it will be capable of holding itself in existence.

Reality consists of innumerable quantity and layers of quantities of self-valuings, of subjectivity-perspectives. What are these subjectivity-perspectives composed of? More quantity and layers of subjectivity-perspectives. What is the content of these perspectives? Themselves and those surrounding values which must interact with them, which are forced upon them. "reality" therefore is also re-defined as the mutual agreements of self-valuings. What does this mean?

It means that what we know of as reality is not some simple objective truth that just exists, that has some degree of "objectivity" or universality; no, rather reality is a complex conflux of self-valuings, point-perspectives of energy, all within, next to, and through each other.. where these points meet, war takes place. Each point-perspective is attempting to value itself, is attempting to continuously "be what it is" and create itself over and over, to consume and solidify itself against that which is other than itself. Because every point is attempting to do this with every other point, certain agreements and disagreements are formed. The agreements constitute "reality" in the sense of its objectivity, that about it which is "stable and immutable", i.e. what we call physical laws. The disagreements constitute "energy", the movements and shiftings of space and time as material force-relations, the creation and destruction of forms.

Only factual knowledge (rational conception) is capable of understanding this, and thus is capable of attaining to universal, objective truth. But that truth must include the proper understanding of both the nature of objectivity and subjectivity, worlds and perspectives, values and self-valuings, or else it is only another form of mistakenly ideology, a false ontology, which is to say a merely psychological self-justification of a particular kind of subjectivity-consciousness.

The only true objectivity is understood by comprehending the universality of subjectivity. Through the activities of subjectivities, self-valuings, reality itself is brought into existence and sustained in existence. Only the fact of this remains the objective truth beyond this… and not even, because to sustain and know such a fact, for such a fact to truly exist, requires a highly-developed subjectivity-structure capable of producing and comprehending it, e.g. human-like consciousness, which is to say, philosophy. This is Plato's true insight, the genius of the Ideas. Truth exists independent of minds because facts exist independent of minds, in so far as a mind comprehends facts as it produces them and in so far as minds properly capable of comprehension re-make themselves in the image of truth (existence) via the procession of factual forms in continual development. But not all facts are equivalent or in possible agreement; many lower perspectives exist and clash, constituting varying plateaus of truth each valid in its own proper range and limit, and will either make themselves rigid and closed in the presence of difference, or will seek a perpetual equivocation in the face of their limits, or will perish, or, in the more rare case of an aspiration to greatness at all costs, will rise above themselves to accomplish a wider and more complete perspective, will climb the ladder of eternal forms to ultimately arrive at universal truth. And, at this threshold, that truth which understands what here has been called value ontology, either by these terms or others, will of necessity be larger and more complete than those truths which do not, will contain those which do not.

 

___________
"We must, now armed with such a language, realize the “transcendental unity of ideas,” through a new morality that aims, not to hypostasize experience and grasp in positive knowledge a series of particular virtues and vices, but rather to fully explicate this continuity; where philosophy exists to represent this transcendental order, morality most exist to mediate the two spheres, the spheres of experience and ideality." --Parodites

"Between this sky and the faces turned toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion—only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch." --Camus
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3695
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:28 pm

Imafungi wrote:
I guess what I was getting at was; When asking a question like 'What is truth/what is true/what does truth mean'?  The answers will depend upon the 'truth' of whether or not; All is true (there is no thing that occurs or is thought or done or exists that is not true), or There is such thing as what is true/truth, and not true/truth, and then what would be the guiding factor and rules for separating the two?  And also depending on those things, what would it mean for there to be a gradient of truth, can things be more true then others?

And regarding value and the idea of value, I have asked you if you thought all things can be compared, values determined to ordered in charts and graphs and determined which courses of action, belief, existence can create the ultimate values at least comparatively, and you answered that you dont think this can be done.  I would then ask, what then is the point or meaning or matter of any values, if they are not comparable, if they are all equal in meaning or worth, or value?   If someone values life, chopping their own head off with a chain saw can not be seen as valuable as eating spinach.

The value of value is the kind of values it compels the valuer to cause, create, in trying to attain this value. Of course I can certainly compare values as held by beings, or humans in general - I can estimate or experience the value they have to me, an we can try to do this together - but no objective assessment can be made. The closest we can get to that is to measure (select, 'value in terms') the quantum of affect it produces. The quality and context of that affect can not be measured, as it takes place in all the entities that are being affected, and self-valuing is not measurable in life or death. Self-valuing transcends the importance of life. When a human does not accomplish self-valuing for a while he will kill himself or try to forget that he exists.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3695
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:47 pm

"The ultimate value" is necessarily extremely particular, not a basic or universal value. So far nature has produced no greater values (values valued most powerfully and highly) than a "Caesar" or "Jesus" or "Mohammed" - "Rembrandt" isn't a value in this sense, nor is "Mozart" - these are man who produced values, not men whose self-valuing became a standard for other self-valuings. The whole point of Christianity is this dude called Jesus. His archetypical actions are interesting only because he was so impressive to people around him. All actions will appear archetypical if the one who performs them is an archetype. This is the type of existence that employs the scientific method, which may be perceived as the greatest value, to an end. Science allows for many values to exist - it is almost a meta-value. But our belief in science does no justice to the sheer will implicit in enforcing the method on our surroundings. Scientists select like no animal has ever selected - the narrowness of the scientists threshold for truth is unprecedented, which means that the power he derives is done by excluding almost all information about what he is studying. His knowledge is of the smallest parts, and the limit to his knowledge is that which keeps the smallest parts together. (gravity, EM, forces).

Value ontology discloses the nature of these forces, the logically attainable principle that allows for the phenomenology that the scientific method produces/discloses.

Human archetypes are the ultimate human values. Not essential, ultimate - accumulative height. In that they they employ everything, man, woman child, animal, land, resources and the scientific method (or the crafts and industries based on protocience) The ultimate value is not essential, unlike the many values on which the existence of a human who may aspire to such a value relies. An ultimate value is the result of capitalization on an incident, a lucky circumstance in nature that allows a human self-valuing to be of physiologically and psychologically excellent quality and then continue to grow on these terms. That is very rare. The rarest thing the universe ever produced.

Lucky circumstances are almost always summarized in one word: war.

Character is the essence. Herein is the impossibility of defining "the" ultimate value - one can only try to claim the title. And whatever it turns out to be, it won't be ultimate forever, since the world is will to power and the essence of any form of being is the process of overcoming the values projected by different natures and embodying the source of the world for those beings who have been overcome.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Sat Jan 25, 2014 8:12 am

Hm I read that but im not quite sure I completely understand or agree what your point is.  The way I see it is, objectivity is the fact that if all humans (all consciousness on earth) died tomorrow, the earth and the universe would still exist.  There is a total reality, composed of something we refer to as energy, and its quantity cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.  Subjectivity is the fact that this process of 'total energy changing; time' has led to the creation of galaxies; stars and planets, and on some of these planets, the mixture of quantities and qualities of energy quanta; subatomic and atomic and molecular quanta, can for what we refer to as life.  This life are anti entropy machines, utilizing surrounding material to construct itself, and over time/evolution, this life has created many forms in which it exists and interacts with itself and the environment.  The way in which it interacts with itself and the objective environment, has been termed subjectivity, being a subject within the objective, being stuck in a particular perspective with limited knowledge of the objective, limited to specific experiences and limited ability to process and interact with those experiences.  

An interesting discussion related to what you were saying about whether truths can exist in the mind without existing objectively is the nature of math and geometry.  The mind can certainly imagine perhaps infinite things which do not exist in objective reality, but what then is the meaning of truth. Is it true to say a unicorn does exist because it exists in a mind, does a dog that exists in the mind just as much a dog that objectively exists in the universe as a dog that exists on earth?  It all is a matter of what you mean I suppose.  If you ask does a unicorn exist that is made out of molecules and is a real alive being on earth, I suppose not.  This is why the mind is a marvelously mysterious and baffling thing, noone even knows yet how it does what it does, how we can see data in our minds (imagination/thought) and use it as a highly advanced etcher sketch in which we can develop and draw and dream using more basic concepts and principals.  

So back to my original point, the realm of the mind concerns humans, it is subjective, we dont think of absolute truth for consciousness in general when we think of truth because we are not exactly interviewing the cows and chickens, we eat them.  So is there an ultimate absolute consciousness that is beyond being, human or being material, an intelligence that is absolute in every sense, a spectrum of infinity that is a set in stone value system (like the abstract and  perfect plato realm of forms) which anything(any reality any universe any orientation of energy and substance and matter) that can ever exist is only an imperfect crappy off shoot?  We can never achieve perfect justice, or intelligence, or create a perfect circle, or experience the highest pleasure or love, because material has limits and perfection is unlimited? Or is this all nonsense, and there is no abstract spectrum, only energy/matter exists, and in the entire history of history the only thing that will ever exist is the geometry, quantity, and quality of the energy and its contextual relationships, and it can only be compared to itself and all else, and if you are in love that is a truthful form of love, and if you feel good that is true, and if you do good that is true, and in Iraq if there is justice that is justice, and in US if there is justice that is justice, and if you use pi with a pencil and compass to draw a circle that is a circle, and if you use complex algorithms on a super computer in a 2d matrix to draw the most perfect circle ever using electrons and binary, that too is a circle.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:14 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
"Subjectivity" may be better understood if you think of it as "position" "force" and "receptivity to force".

Not all judgments are accurate, but all judgments are instances of subjectivity. When there are many concurring judgments, man starts to believe in objectivity. It is his drive to impose his judgment on the world, his will to power. For that he has to let the world impose itself on him in a certain way.

Objectivity is measured in the power it grants the subject. Science is the human (a species of subjectivity) documentation of judgments that allow the human predict and manipulate his environment. In applying science, he selects the part of his environment to which he responds. Science is extremely subjective. It is extremely existential, active, manipulative, 'artificial'.

Science is highly selective. Science is selecting responses that form patterns and further responses that make sense in terms of these patterns. It's art is selection, and selection is the quintessence of perspective, subjectivity, holding a position.

Do you follow? My terms are opaque precisely because the belief in the objectivity of language is far more treacherous than any other superstition.

I think I follow, but though I understand it is out of my subjectivity I declare "the sun exists", it is objective that the sun exists. Scientifically it is known to high degree what the sun is composed of and how it works, so for me out of my subjectivity to declare that "the sun is a jelly bean and equal in size to a penny", cant it be said that my statement is false? Like wise after coming to the conclusion that the sun=the sun, would it be false/not truth for me to claim that the sun does not exist? Would it be true if I covered my eyes and claimed you did not exist? What if be true if I claimed chopping my head clean off was good for my continued existence? But I think it can be objectively true to claim subjectively that eating food x or nutrient y can be objectively proven to be beneficial to the continuation of ones existence. The main thing about all this that sparked my interest was if subjectivity can be 'true or truth' without being objectively true, what that would mean. And if it cannot, does that mean that every time subjectivity is not objectively true, it is false? And does that mean If subjectivity does completely to a significant extent grasp objectivity, in that moment (ie my comprehension that the sun exists) does my subjectivity becoming objectivity? Just the simple objective knowledge that the sun does exist, thats objective truth, my subjectivity can become objective truth, in those instances?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Sat Jan 25, 2014 9:30 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
"The ultimate value" is necessarily extremely particular, not a basic or universal value. So far nature has produced no greater values (values valued most powerfully and highly) than a "Caesar" or "Jesus" or "Mohammed" - "Rembrandt" isn't a value in this sense, nor is "Mozart" - these are man who produced values, not men whose self-valuing became a standard for other self-valuings. The whole point of Christianity is this dude called Jesus. His archetypical actions are interesting only because he was so impressive to people around him. All actions will appear archetypical if the one who performs them is an archetype. This is the type of existence that employs the scientific method, which may be perceived as the greatest value, to an end. Science allows for many values to exist - it is almost a meta-value. But our belief in science does no justice to the sheer will implicit in enforcing the method on our surroundings. Scientists select like no animal has ever selected - the narrowness of the scientists threshold for truth is unprecedented, which means that the power he derives is done by excluding almost all information about what he is studying. His knowledge is of the smallest parts, and the limit to his knowledge is that which keeps the smallest parts together. (gravity, EM, forces).

Value ontology discloses the nature of these forces, the logically attainable principle that allows for the phenomenology that the scientific method produces/discloses.

Human archetypes are the ultimate human values. Not essential, ultimate - accumulative height. In that they they employ everything, man, woman child, animal, land, resources and the scientific method (or the crafts and industries based on protocience) The ultimate value is not essential, unlike the many values on which the existence of a human who may aspire to such a value relies. An ultimate value is the result of capitalization on an incident, a lucky circumstance in nature that allows a human self-valuing to be of physiologically and psychologically excellent quality and then continue to grow on these terms. That is very rare. The rarest thing the universe ever produced.

Lucky circumstances are almost always summarized in one word: war.

Character is the essence. Herein is the impossibility of defining "the" ultimate value - one can only try to claim the title. And whatever it turns out to be, it won't be ultimate forever, since the world is will to power and the essence of any form of being is the process of overcoming the values projected by different natures and embodying the source of the world for those beings who have been overcome.

Hm, if I follow you correctly in a part in the slightest, it is your stance that the highest, greatest, most ultimate achievement of a human is to be an embodiment of ideal? Not just any embodiment though all people do or attempt this in some manner, but it is the big characters in human history which have stood the tests of time with their being and character. That is what you say the highest value is, to be a monument to human beings potential, so that others may admire and in turn attempt to embody those ideals, and then there will be more and more characters approaching equal of that high valued human?

The problem I have with that (of course I am not confident I understood your main points or what you were truly getting at) is who is the decider of the ultimate value, or greatest ideals? What is the unseen power which dictates that Jesus is a greater embodier of ideal and value then Hitler? There are many different governments over the world and the history of human time, and there are many potentials to come, of how the individual interacts with themself and their community and society and government. But what says what is the right? The highest value. Is the highest value the constant attempt of achieving higher values, individually and collectively? Or just individually? Think of a secluded tribe in the woods, they still though sparse exist today, of indigenous people. Is a member of that tribes life just as valuable as yours? Is every individual humans life equally valuable? At least to themselves? And then value contributed to the collective as a whole, such as inventors like Tesla compared to a criminal, can be compared in value?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3695
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:05 pm

Imafungi wrote:
Hm, if I follow you correctly in a part in the slightest, it is your stance that the highest, greatest, most ultimate achievement of a human is to be an embodiment of ideal? Not just any embodiment though all people do or attempt this in some manner, but it is the big characters in human history which have stood the tests of time with their being and character.  That is what you say the highest value is, to be a monument to human beings potential, so that others may admire and in turn attempt to embody those ideals, and then there will be more and more characters approaching equal of that high valued human?

The problem I have with that (of course I am not confident I understood your main points or what you were truly getting at) is who is the decider of the ultimate value, or greatest ideals? What is the unseen power which dictates that Jesus is a greater embodier of ideal and value then Hitler?

I should probably have mentioned Hitler as well. Of course he is also such a person. What matters not is if I like him, but if a lot of Humans valued themselves in the terms he set. And ads with all these men, the man embodies the terms.

You can make a list of dozens of such people, but the longer the list becomes the more questionable its entries.
There's no doubt that Hitler was a supreme human value.
But none of these individuals is good enough for me. I require men who are without nationality, who have global dominance, Masters of the Earth.
I, as a human philosopher, command such people into being. I bring forth the Superman, I have devised his code, his education.  We are standing before the light, the Sun of the future man is visible to us now.

To understand this code, you must now learn the meaning of subjectivity.

Quote :
There are many different governments over the world and the history of human time, and there are many potentials to come, of how the individual interacts with themself and their community and society and government.  But what says what is the right? The highest value. Is the highest value the constant attempt of achieving higher values, individually and collectively? Or just individually? Think of a secluded tribe in the woods, they still though sparse exist today, of indigenous people.  Is a member of that tribes life just as valuable as yours?  Is every individual humans life equally valuable? At least to themselves? And then value contributed to the collective as a whole, such as inventors like Tesla compared to a criminal, can be compared in value?

Value is assessed subjectively.
But not only humans assess value -
humans are arrogant twats, thinking that their thought and emotional processes separate them from the rest of existence, where in fact they are doing precisely the same thing as any atom must be doing in order to persist.

This is self-valuing: allowing only to those stimuli that keep the structural integrity of the being intact.

In us, valuing has become conscious. This is not a big difference in terms of how we behave. It does not grant us free will, not anything of the sort. It only allows us to make mistakes and become quasi-entities.

This is the biggest difference between man and snake, and man and water molecule - man can forget what he is.
But this is also the beauty. Hitler, Napoleon, Caesar - all men who remembered.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Sun Jan 26, 2014 1:34 am

Fixed Cross wrote:
Imafungi wrote:
Hm, if I follow you correctly in a part in the slightest, it is your stance that the highest, greatest, most ultimate achievement of a human is to be an embodiment of ideal? Not just any embodiment though all people do or attempt this in some manner, but it is the big characters in human history which have stood the tests of time with their being and character.  That is what you say the highest value is, to be a monument to human beings potential, so that others may admire and in turn attempt to embody those ideals, and then there will be more and more characters approaching equal of that high valued human?

The problem I have with that (of course I am not confident I understood your main points or what you were truly getting at) is who is the decider of the ultimate value, or greatest ideals? What is the unseen power which dictates that Jesus is a greater embodier of ideal and value then Hitler?

I should probably have mentioned Hitler as well. Of course he is also such a person. What matters not is if I like him, but if a lot of Humans valued themselves in the terms he set. And ads with all these men, the man embodies the terms.

You can make a list of dozens of such people, but the longer the list becomes the more questionable its entries.
There's no doubt that Hitler was a supreme human value.
But none of these individuals is good enough for me. I require men who are without nationality, who have global dominance, Masters of the Earth.
I, as a human philosopher, command such people into being. I bring forth the Superman, I have devised his code, his education.  We are standing before the light, the Sun of the future man is visible to us now.

To understand this code, you must now learn the meaning of subjectivity.

Quote :
There are many different governments over the world and the history of human time, and there are many potentials to come, of how the individual interacts with themself and their community and society and government.  But what says what is the right? The highest value. Is the highest value the constant attempt of achieving higher values, individually and collectively? Or just individually? Think of a secluded tribe in the woods, they still though sparse exist today, of indigenous people.  Is a member of that tribes life just as valuable as yours?  Is every individual humans life equally valuable? At least to themselves? And then value contributed to the collective as a whole, such as inventors like Tesla compared to a criminal, can be compared in value?

Value is assessed subjectively.
But not only humans assess value -
humans are arrogant twats, thinking that their thought and emotional processes separate them from the rest of existence, where in fact they are doing precisely the same thing as any atom must be doing in order to persist.

This is self-valuing: allowing only to those stimuli that keep the structural integrity of the being intact.

In us, valuing has become conscious. This is not a big difference in terms of how we behave. It does not grant us free will, not anything of the sort. It only allows us to make mistakes and become quasi-entities.

This is the biggest difference between man and snake, and man and water molecule - man can forget what he is.
But this is also the beauty. Hitler, Napoleon, Caesar - all men who remembered.

So you desire the superman, which I take it to mean the state of the world (or nation, individuals and the collective of them) is not currently functioning at a high enough standard, and this is wrong/bad. The most important thing is for all to begin to evolve to higher standards of being, am I interpreting your view correctly? Can you describe a little what this possible future ideal world may appear as to you?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3695
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Sun Jan 26, 2014 8:26 pm

"Collective" is kind of antithetical to "Superman", even though they stand causally related. A superman engages a lot of human 'resource' in a collective movement.  The superman is not the result of improvement, he is the agent of change leading to great unified effort. Caesar was not the result of an improvement, he was a man whose individuality - his subjectivity and values - filled a power vacuum and went on to cause an unprecedented wave of purposeful effort to wash over the continent. The meaning of Rome is to ride out under its banner. Everything is transient - to cause the transit of a paradigm is the most solid 'meaning'.  

In the end "enjoyment" is just another word for "meaning" and equally for "justification".

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3695
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:50 pm

Film writer-directors count as relatively superhuman beings. Consider the relationship between Tyrannus and Christopher Nolan. The resources, human genius, talent and dedication/sacrifice that they employ in order to bring about a ruling archetype based on their nature, are greater and more diverse than what any artists in history have employed. And it is utterly pointless to speak of superhumanity if not in terms of the creative Child - what else could be a purpose of human life but the most glorious kind of play?



This points to the reason why I can not employ a forum to unfold my vision of the world as I love and desire it. I am here to explain a simple principle. What you do with it is not my business, not my desire to know.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3695
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:14 pm

But all this is still dystopian.
As soon as film becomes capable of projecting an utopic vision that is as attainable as the dystopian, and equally as strongly mobilizing the human instincts, supermanly values will pervade the human race, and create a whole new kind of soup.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3695
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Sun Jan 26, 2014 10:19 pm

All great art rises from the terrible, the acknowledgment of the demonic and the gradually increasing courage in the face of it. At one point the artist becomes aware that he is a warrior - or the warrior becomes aware that he is an artist - and an accomplished style appears and begins to conquer the outside world.

Our world is in the process of turning inside-out.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:08 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
"Collective" is kind of antithetical to "Superman", even though they stand causally related. A superman engages a lot of human 'resource' in a collective movement.  The superman is not the result of improvement, he is the agent of change leading to great unified effort. Caesar was not the result of an improvement, he was a man whose individuality - his subjectivity and values - filled a power vacuum and went on to cause an unprecedented wave of purposeful effort to wash over the continent. The meaning of Rome is to ride out under its banner. Everything is transient - to cause the transit of a paradigm is the most solid 'meaning'.  

In the end "enjoyment" is just another word for "meaning" and equally for "justification".

So according to your last sentence, it sounds like your stance would be one of hedonism? And there are no absolute ideals or morals; If a man enjoys raping children so be it, if a man enjoys building space ships so be it?  If a man commits an act of terrorism and is remembered in history and causes the transit of a paradigm that is more admirable and valuable and worthy then say some small town middle school teacher?

Also as you said the individual in this day and age, and usually by rule (not exception) doesnt exist without the collective. And according to your terms of value, is deemed valuable by and according to the collective. If Nietzsche was Nietzsche and had all his thoughts and lived his life but never wrote anything down and never spoke to anyone and then died, would he have still been equally valuable? Or his influence on the collective is what made him valuable? And are you just in love with other peoples egos and characters, you being the collective, value is the potential for a human to do 'great and novel and super' things? Is it not worthy, or valuable for the collective, all humans to attempt to achieve this, or it is thought to be impossible, or it is thought it would lessen the value if everyone was at the same heightened level?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Imafungi
bowstring
bowstring


Posts : 48
Join date : 2014-01-22

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:20 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Film writer-directors count as relatively superhuman beings. Consider the relationship between Tyrannus and Christopher Nolan. The resources, human genius, talent and dedication/sacrifice that they employ in order to bring about a ruling archetype based on their nature, are greater and more diverse than what any artists in history have employed. And it is utterly pointless to speak of superhumanity if not in terms of the creative Child - what else could be a purpose of human life but the most glorious kind of play?



This points to the reason why I can not employ a forum to unfold my vision of the world as I love and desire it. I am here to explain a simple principle. What you do with it is not my business, not my desire to know.

Why do you put art on such a high pedestal? Do you think someone who doesnt care for art, or could shrug their shoulders at great and masterful art is 'wrong' or dumb? Yes I can understand the aspect of play, but at the same time, and prior to play, life is very difficult and demanding struggle, and usually non playful work is necessary for the continuation of life.  Having a baby for instance is no walk in the park.  So are you suggesting human evolutions man value is greater and greater means of play?(keep in mind I am never or rarely expressing my opinion, you dont necessarily know what I think of these things let alone me, im just asking questions)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3695
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:28 am

Imafungi wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
"Collective" is kind of antithetical to "Superman", even though they stand causally related. A superman engages a lot of human 'resource' in a collective movement.  The superman is not the result of improvement, he is the agent of change leading to great unified effort. Caesar was not the result of an improvement, he was a man whose individuality - his subjectivity and values - filled a power vacuum and went on to cause an unprecedented wave of purposeful effort to wash over the continent. The meaning of Rome is to ride out under its banner. Everything is transient - to cause the transit of a paradigm is the most solid 'meaning'.  

In the end "enjoyment" is just another word for "meaning" and equally for "justification".

So according to your last sentence, it sounds like your stance would be one of hedonism? And there are no absolute ideals or morals; If a man enjoys raping children so be it, if a man enjoys building space ships so be it?

I had forgotten how most people are stuck in the idea that existence demands a morality.
I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE MIND OF A RAPIST.
RAPISTS EXIST
ONTOLOGY = LOGIC OF EXISTENCE.

NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY.


A rapist exist.
What do you want to say "in my ontology, rapists do not exist?"

Please get this through to yourself.

AN ONTOLOGY DOES NOT PRESCRIBE.



Quote :
 If a man commits an act of terrorism and is remembered in history and causes the transit of a paradigm that is more admirable and valuable and worthy then say some small town middle school teacher?

Please make an effort to understand.

Was this not about the Ultimate Value that you wanted to get described?
I try to accommodate you and go way the hell out of my way to phrase things so that you can read them in the terms you want.
But then please make a fucking effort dude.

Don't shut off your brain when you read my posts.

Quote :
Also as you said the individual in this day and age, and usually by rule (not exception) doesnt exist without the collective.

Of course I have not said that.

Quote :
 And according to your terms of value, is deemed valuable by and according to the collective.
 
What the fuck? I have been saying the absolute opposite.

Quote :
Nietzsche was Nietzsche and had all his thoughts and lived his life but never wrote anything down and never spoke to anyone and then died, would he have still been equally valuable?

Listen to yourself.

"If Nietzsche lived his life except he he didn't and he lived a totally different life but forget about that he was still Nietzsche, would he still be Nietzsche to you?"

OF COURSE he would not have had the same effect on me then. And thus not the same value to me.
Do you really need this explained?

If an apple grows except it is really an orange, will it still taste like an apple to you?

Quote :
Or his influence on the collective is what made him valuable?  And are you just in love with other peoples egos and characters, you being the collective, value is the potential for a human to do 'great and novel and super' things?  Is it not worthy, or valuable for the collective, all humans to attempt to achieve this, or it is thought to be impossible, or it is thought it would lessen the value if everyone was at the same heightened level?

If, if, if - wouldn't it be nice if we are all like, suuuper happy??? And if there was no suffering and everyone would go huggy huggy huggy??? Is that what you're asking?

Go for it. Don't come asking my permission.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3695
Join date : 2011-11-09

PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:48 am

Imafungi wrote:
Why do you put art on such a high pedestal?

VALUES, HOMBRE. Learn the word.

And man and art sure as hell don't need me to put art on a pedestal.
Art could almost be defined as "that which is put on a pedestal by man".

That which man creates beyond his bestial life.

Quote :
Do you think someone who doesn't care for art, or could shrug their shoulders at great and masterful art is 'wrong' or dumb?

I think he seems very unfortunate and bleak - and rare - but 'wrong' - with respect to what 'right'? Why should I even care to judge this hypothetical 'someone' you try to conjure up?

Quote :
Yes I can understand the aspect of play, but at the same time, and prior to play, life is very difficult and demanding struggle, and usually non playful work is necessary for the continuation of life.  Having a baby for instance is no walk in the park.  So are you suggesting human evolutions man value is greater and greater means of play?

Yes.

Finally, a real question. (though not a real sentence)

Quote :
(keep in mind I am never or rarely expressing my opinion, you dont necessarily know what I think of these things let alone me, im just asking questions)

That is the problem. You try to be objective but your opinions and judgments ooze all over your questions. VO explains why this is so. You can never ask a question that does not rise from your core beliefs, your subconsciously held values. You could not imagine what to ask that's not in some way related to what your being affirms.

So instead of trying to remain impartial - an impartial subject is a contradiction in terms - be partial, be opinionated, be honest, be real, be.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Truth and value   

Back to top Go down
 
Truth and value
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Ethics-
Jump to: