1.

"A" and "B" are both a relationship. One involves "being together" while the other involves "being apart".. but they are both still relations/related to one another. The feelings involved are irrelevent, concerning the arguement. The context of things may change, yes, of course.. but that doesn't mean that it redefines the previous one. (as in, 1st relationship isn't non-existant because 2nd relationship comes along)...so, No: one is not more true. One is not with more weight. Our feelings (to be crude) are what would make them of importance to us.

I don't know where else to go with that one.. to me, it would flow directly into the philosophy of emotions or behaviorism (such as our reactions to these perceptions/definitions..)

2.

Yeah, empiricism is stupid. I think it's more about putting a beginners mind in the right place. Both examples of the sun are true and both should be applied to the proper context which suits them. Period.

It's as if that branch of empiricism totally ignores the profound aspects of language (among other things).

I think I answered that as best as I can..

Going back to this:

I was wanting/trying to veer the topic of Nietzsche, his morals (our morals of right/wrong, etc) into the deeper aspects of Truth via the Metaphysics/Behaviorism/Emotions because to me, it gets more "real" and less by-the-book where we argue semantics....since, you and I (and probably most of us) agree on the fundamentals of philosophy...

I'm interested to know (at length, perhaps..i like to read!) what you think of the cognitive truth idea. If you think it applies. Controlling our perceptions, letting them free, and etc, etc..

Percipience is bound by ones own personal experience and will differ in every case. Everyone is keenly aware of thier own persona and yet absolutely ignorant of anothers except for a keen understanding of how that other persona may effect thier own.

Perceptions and viewpoints are devils in disguise dancing a different jig for each brain

Good summary, but do you believe it's possible to evolve into a "higher/greater" state of conciousness (individually or collectively)? And don't give me that pessimism crap.

I'm wondering how one would define our animal natures and if our animal natures could succesfully co-exist with the ideals of civilization without reverting into base savagery.

In order to do so one would have to suffer the loss of self. So yes it is yet what is its worth if you have no sense of self. Everything a person does thier entire life is in order to satiate the desires drawn from our self. In order to evolve into a higher order of consciousness one would have to devalue the ideal of ones self. Abolish the entire line of thought in fact.

There are those who have claimed to do this; Bhuddha, Jesus, Mohammed; etc etc. The greatest way to prove one has lost all sense of self is to sacrifice ones self.

The Egyptians did it long ago.

Ba-Ra-Ka.

Ba= the vegetative state of being. That which unconsciously runs the mechanisms of life- breathe, heart, etc etc.

Ra= the instinctual animal state of being. That which drives us to eat, gather, hunt, and subsist.

Ka= the conscious human mind which attempts to reason out existence and its tenants.

I agree. Renouncing all things is the "true" enlightened path, yet many beliefs conflict with this..many of them being Western in ideology. Tempting as it is to proclaim, are Western ideologies utterly "wrong" then? In my personal opinion, I'm all for "the East" but I do value the teachings of prophets such as Jesus for instance..which has nothing to do with The Bible......

My mind is straying back to the word "moderation" because religious thought, although very useful and good (in my opinion) isn't always necessary. Moderation implies a way of thought that is more secular for those that have distaste for the idea of religion...I'm looking for a universals, in a way... even though "secular" thought is political at that. Psh. Beats me..

Eastern or Western almost all of it centers around the loss of self. Though Western Theology tends to benefit the self with the loss of self. Yes I know it is a paradox. You shall be rewarded in Heaven for your selfless deeds on earth and in the flesh. Reward the self for selfless actions. But hell we are the center of paradox thought we are

Science shall save us; science shall condemn us. etc etc..... I can understand why alot of folks think we Westerners are nutjobs.

Everything in Moderation sucks as far as I am concerned. If you are going to have fun have as much as you possibly can. And so on and so on.

I think about moderation in terms of being at balance. For instance, drugs are good, but too many can fuck you up permanently AND restrict you from experiencing other things as well..

The paradox isn't quite there with me. Maybe because I'm claiming that I don't really do anything for myself (which is the root of a lot of my unhappiness, I admit)...and that changed when I started to commit to my personal growth. The trick is balance...moderation...and I still have fun thank-you-very-much! I see a lot of people who put themselves through needless suffering because of impatience and ambitious desires and whatnot...but that's a judgement in the end...

I think a lot of people get caught up in the semantics of what "losing your Self" is... understanding the basic concept of the Self isn't that difficult, but then people look at the lifestyle of Bhuddists, for instance, and say "I don't want to live that way! etc".. which isn't necessary.

Science will kill us just as quickly as it saves us. Same idea concerning guns: it's harmless as a tool but in the hands of a killer, it's a weapon. In the hands of a pacifist, it's scrap metal...in that vein, it comes down to who controls the technology that science grants us. Which leads to motives and politicians and power and seductive sexy women and movies with George Clooney....er. sorry.

I think we're on the same level though. nod-nod.

Probably.

Though I have to admit that most everything I do is for myself. I would never dissolve my self-awareness in order to elevate my conscious mind when I feel that in the end I shall be elevated in one sense or another anyways.
My flesh is now and I feel that it was given me to enjoy.

Well, I used to be on the opposite spectrum for a long time. You could call me quite selfish at this time in my life. But, I'm making up for lost time, as I see it..

Although, that would change if I had a significant other. In terms of that, I'm about balanced reciprocity. Actually, I'm like that with pretty much any relationship (teacher, friend, work-acquaintance, etc) ... I don't like walking away from a situation having taken something from someone without giving something in return...

... kinda like I grace you with my presence, so gimme Mod status. roar.

The Justice League only takes apps from Heroes

So a balanced way of life then? Obviously either extreme would be negative, just like with anything else.

interesting....

but back to "perception" since i'm very interested in that discussion, since a lot of my friends been ranting on and on about it, i have something that might interest you Quiet.... although, i still think you'll provide an intriguing counter-argument.....

so, i was reading up on the subject, and here is how i've come to understand it....which, again, seems to justify perception as slightly flawed....

The main argument boils down to how indepth is our source or form of knowledge. We all know that we have a-posteriori and a-priori forms of knowledge. When concering the prior, objects which we percieve in the external world, not limited to material things, but also ephinomenal things (like shadows, rainbows, etc.), is argued as being flawed primarily from the theory of "illusion."

When regarding "illusion" there are many forms.

1. Basic illusions, tricks per-se....that whole, these two lines look bent, but are actually straight. You know what I'm talking about. Or, is it an "old lady" or "young woman."

2. Vivid dreams, visions, hallucinations, all of which seems to indicate to the subject that they have indeed percieved something, though there is actually nothing public (external) and percievable at all.

3. The case where a public object has been percieved, but isn't what the subject thinks is being percieved. For example: a star. You think you see a star, but actually you're just seeing the light emited from a star that has long since died.

4. The most common perceptial mistakes. For example, a coin from a certain angle looks oval, when it is truly a circle.

5. The "missing limb" theory (as i've dubbed it). You get the idea...your arm is no longer there, yet you can still feel it itch.

Now, the main purpose of perception, when regarding external objects, is that it stimulates us into having "sense data." But the theory denies that we truly know anything about said object, only our experience (known as "Veil of Appearance"). My favorite example I personally like to use, is "what is the moon?" Of all the facts and definitions one can give me, nothing truly informs me of what the moon is; of what the "being/self" of the moon truly is, for I (myself) am not the moon. So, as what we percieve stimulates our sense data, but misinforms us truly of what the perceivable object is (since it is relative to our own "percieved notion"), then in the end, "[as] we never do directly confront any public objects, then it must be impossible to know anything about, or even that there are, such objects, and hence to know that they are causing us to have sense data, some of which may or may not be faithful representations of their producers." -- Anthony Flew.

The counter-argument, however, can be found in Phenomenalism and Naive Realism. Phenomenalism is a tricky little subject, especially when concerning the mind. Roughly, it states that since we can discuss (like we are now), then we must have some reference which we can agree upon. Which, i think means: "Okay, let's talk about the moon." You have an idea of what the moon is, which is similar to my idea of the moon, thus we both know what the moon is. Naive Realism states that when an external object causes us to have an APPROPRIATE (note that word) sense datum, then we are percieving; hence, we are aware of the object.

So all in all, I think that my argument prior, that some things contain more truth than others (as indicated with Naive Realism's "appropriate sense datum") justifies that perception isn't always justified, and in fact requires another sense of justification to justify it as well. Said justification is usually granted when the physical aspects (usually granted by physical science) is justified.



Most of this was paraphrased from A Dcitionary of Philosophy: Revised Second Edition by Anthony Flew.

Love.

There is no greater mystery and yet no greater Truth.

It answers all your questions. We invest in it when it makes no logical sense. We believe in it when all sense of reason tells us otherwise. We trust in it (to our specific culture) when all odds are against us.

It makes us real. In an emotional sense, in a metaphysical sense, in a real sense. It makes us alive. It thrusts itself upon our core and drives our greatest motives (some may argue that revenge equals/rivals this feeling) but it is undeniable.

It applies to every example you listed (#1 to #5) and it applies (humorously) to the illusions/"Veil of perception" and Phenomenalism and Naive Realism.

But the catch ...the catch is that it's REAL. We can discuss the frameworks, we can discuss the illusions, we can discuss data that isn't justified but we will always come "home" to Love.

I'm not talking about being pussy-whipped or intoxicated with desire or base loneliness. I'm talking about drive and motivation. What propels a belief other than energy...which stems from..? Love of a concept or a belief is one thing.. and ideology we must all surely die for in the end, but what is primary in our core Needs is Love of another. Not to be justified and be completed by another, but the acknowledgement that we EXIST. That this moment is REAL.

Enter sensory experience. Enter the realizations (and hallucinations/intoxications) of love...meaning, the daydreams, the wishes, the born-again (once dead/abandoned) dreams...etc, etc...

We aren't creatures of rational thought. We'd endorse a system that lacks emotion, that lacks passion, that lacks instability, but we are not creatures of the like. We are creatures in constant flux. Our perceptions are thrown into constant chaos. We are the ultimate metaphor and we can't accept that. We are utterly afraid of that. (lack of perception/understanding of this concept are at play here)...

Bringing this energy under our reign.. our control....that's the "never ending task"...

Minimalism begs us to leave off our materialistic desires for our own sake. For our very health of our being, but we refuse because quite simply: we love distractions. Intoxicate me because I am afraid and I am lazy and I have no faith in the size of me penis (male) or the size of my waist (female)......

We're truly stupid creatures....that's our perception. (at least us Westerners...Eastern people is another story..)

Again, I reintinerate myself: Love....It makes us real. In an emotional sense, in a metaphysical sense, in a real sense. It makes us alive.

I believe you are absolutely correct when you say that the emotional aspect is what draws the tie between the metaphysical and the rational... our interpretation of that is ....well.... it's uncompromising. Desire is one of the problems. One of the sins...ambition, another. Dyshade was drawing good conclusions earlier...about the Self. It's a deeper topic, but first, if you disagree with anything I've said here, I want to give you a chance to reply before I go on...

i can wear spandex.