What I hear abook saying is that the first statement is fair, because it is not being absolute--rather it's covering the bases with the qualification that it can potentially go over the brink and at the same time it doesn't have to.
This statement is absolute:
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty."
Each of the 3 sentences in that statement is an absolute statement. The first and last are contradictory to the middle, also incorrect. Every judgement does not "teeter on the brink of error" unless one also is willing to also say that every judgment "rises to the challenge of being correct". Regardless, either way is incorrect. Judgments based on faulty premises are incorrect. Judgmenets based on complete and valid premises are correct. The statement pretends that judgments are nothing more than mist....slaves to the fortunes of a chance wind.
Great point, abook. The first statement, although using the word "every" is not an absolute because it further goes on to identify that it can go either way. Therefore, as you say, it IS true.
You must be seeing something there that I'm not there. When I read this:
"judgement could easily have gone the other way. Can't a person be declaritive anymore?"
I see a question and an answer, reverse to the punctuation.
farfromglorified, how is she in any way implying there is not control over judgment? Rather, she's being objective=every judgement CAN go either way.
It implies that judgment controls the man, rather than the man controlling the judgment. Certainly for every judgment there is an alternate choice. But to suggest that the alternate choice is of equal validity and equal probability is silly. That's what this statement implies:
"teeter on the brink of error"
When you use a fork, are you "teetering on the brink of error" because under the right conditions that fork could be struck by lightning?
Regardless, the statement seems to then encourage not "being declarative" because the declarative man becomes "monstrous".
This is about something that appears contradictory on one level--we have the appearance of saying opposite things, and yet when we step to a wider encompassing perspective--in this case the actual message of the quote--he ties the opposites together in a higher order, where they make perfect sense.
He is tying it all together and the message is clear:
"Do not make any judgments, lest you become a monster. I will make your judgments for you"
That's what he's saying. He says "be afraid of judgment". That statement is based, however, on his judgment. He says "don't claim absolute knowledge, lest you become a monster". That statment is based, however, on his absolute knowledge. He says "knowledge is an adventure on the edge of uncertainty", meaning, "one can never be certain". Yet that statement is based on his certainty.
This is how psychological health and resolution of contradictions works. If one cannot look to the higher level, but instead chooses to only look at the opposites, one will not get the message, or the resolution. This is exactly my problem with logic, that if oblivious to the big picture it can be quite innacurate.
If the opposite of true is false, I'm quite ok with this.
If we can accept this, we can embrace all our inconsistencies--the full breadth of our inner variations--and be our full selves. By embracing what we don't understand, we can then by that acceptance, give ourselves permission to understand.
I won't embrace foolishness. I won't embrace apathy. I won't embrace contradiction. All are part of the "full breadth of my inner variations", but they are something to be overcome, not "embraced". Certainly they must be recognized, but I will not embrace the parts of my Self I do not like simply because they're there. I will recognize them and seek to change them, and that's what "gives ourselves permission" to grow.
On the other hand, with the western propensity to strive to BE logical (as opposed to using logic as a tool), we must reject conflicting, yet existing aspects of ourselves. And by rejecting rather than understanding "contradictory" aspects of ourselves others, we act out inner self rejection. Integrating the rejected shadow of humanity is about becoming whole and about realising it was flawed logic that caused us to reject major parts of ourselves to begin with--logic without a healthy, understanding context.
Logic without a "healthy, understanding context" is logic with faulty premises. And that will always lead to faulty conclusions. If you think a "healthy, understanding context" is one full of faulty premises and contradictions, certainly you're "teetering on the brink".
First of all, maybe you could clear up this contradiction I'm seeing in the logical process for me. You say: "Judgments based on faulty premises are incorrect." If logic is built upon the premises that may be faulty, how do you come to know if they are faulty or not?
Every judgement does not "teeter on the brink of error"...
Really? Each judgment is either right or wrong. It can go either way.
You must be seeing something there that I'm not there. When I read this:
"judgement could easily have gone the other way. Can't a person be declaritive anymore?"
I see a question and an answer, reverse to the punctuation.
She said: "It is true that every judgement teeters on the brink of error. Every judgement could easily have gone the other way."
--I hear: Every judgement can go either way: that of error, or that of correctness.
She also said: "Can't a person be declaritive anymore? I guess he should have added IMO at the end of his quote".
--I hear: Can't people make a firm statement in expressing their view? Or do they have to distinguish between their view an absolute truth by adding "imo" in order to qualify each statement?
Obviously, I don't know if I'm hearing what she intends. From what I hear, I agree.
It implies that judgment controls the man, rather than the man controlling the judgment. Certainly for every judgment there is an alternate choice. But to suggest that the alternate choice is of equal validity and equal probability is silly. That's what this statement implies:
"teeter on the brink of error"
When you use a fork, are you "teetering on the brink of error" because under the right conditions that fork could be struck by lightning?
Regardless, the statement seems to then encourage not "being declarative" because the declarative man becomes "monstrous"
It sounds to me that you've missed the author of the quote's intended point along with abook's point. Ironically, I think you agree with them: You are agnostic, because you realise the potential huge error of judging God to not exist. I assumed you recognise that you can trap yourself in a bubble of subjective opinion/judgment, rather than be open to learn and understand from your surroundings. Do you choose to believe you must use a fork and only a fork will do for your purposes? Is it not possible to also use a spoon? Or do you recognise that even if you do feel only a fork will work, other people's purposes will be defined by differing frameworks and your "absolute judgment" may not be absolute to them? Do you understand that while science holds absolute truths, they also hold that tomorrow that same truth could be rendered lacking?
Do you disagree with these points? I believe the author alluded to this type of thing. And "when you're green you grow, when you're ripe you rot". In other words: If you think you are "right", you are no longer open to understand and learn.
He is tying it all together and the message is clear:
"Do not make any judgments, lest you become a monster. I will make your judgments for you"
Yikes.
That's what he's saying. He says "be afraid of judgment". That statement is based, however, on his judgment. He says "don't claim absolute knowledge, lest you become a monster". That statment is based, however, on his absolute knowledge. He says "knowledge is an adventure on the edge of uncertainty", meaning, "one can never be certain". Yet that statement is based on his certainty.
Are you condemning, then, also science's certainty of knowing that whatever you know, there is always more to know?
I won't embrace foolishness. I won't embrace apathy. I won't embrace contradiction. All are part of the "full breadth of my inner variations", but they are something to be overcome, not "embraced". Certainly they must be recognized, but I will not embrace the parts of my Self I do not like simply because they're there. I will recognize them and seek to change them, and that's what "gives ourselves permission" to grow.
More power to you on your personal journey and your approach.
Logic without a "healthy, understanding context" is logic with faulty premises. And that will always lead to faulty conclusions.
I agree. So the truth you start with--the clarity of perception determines whether the logic serves you or deceives you. Again, how do you ascertain the truth of your premise? By the logic built on the questionable premise? By the logic that can only show truths/untruths in light of the validity of the premise? If you have a bad computer program and you use the bad computer program to determine the validity of the program, how valid will your findings be?
If you think a "healthy, understanding context" is one full of faulty premises and contradictions, certainly you're "teetering on the brink".
I say that by removing a predeterimined right/wrong judgment from one's self, one begins by accepting that all in nature is exactly as it is for a reason. Then one starts with the intent of looking to understand what that reason is. By saying this, it does not mean that in the growth process, one does not make adjustments. It does say, though, that everything happens for a reason, at-one with nature and therefore it cannot be "wrong" (which is a subjective personal judgment, not an objective one)
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
First of all, maybe you could clear up this contradiction I'm seeing in the logical process for me. You say: "Judgments based on faulty premises are incorrect." If logic is built upon the premises that may be faulty, how do you come to know if they are faulty or not?
If logic is built upon a faulty premise, then it is faulty. I do not believe logic is built upon a faulty premise.
Really? Each judgment is either right or wrong. It can go either way.
She said: "It is true that every judgement teeters on the brink of error. Every judgement could easily have gone the other way."
--I hear: Every judgement can go either way: that of error, or that of correctness.
She also said: "Can't a person be declaritive anymore? I guess he should have added IMO at the end of his quote".
--I hear: Can't people make a firm statement in expressing their view? Or do they have to distinguish between their view an absolute truth by adding "imo" in order to qualify each statement?
Obviously, I don't know if I'm hearing what she intends. From what I hear, I agree.
Ok.
It sounds to me that you've missed the author of the quote's intended point along with abook's point. Ironically, I think you agree with them: You are agnostic, because you realise the potential huge error of judging God to not exist.
I'm agnostic because there is no way to judge whether or not God exists.
I assumed you recognise that you can trap yourself in a bubble of subjective opinion/judgment, rather than be open to learn and understand from your surroundings. Do you choose to believe you must use a fork and only a fork will do for your purposes? Is it not possible to also use a spoon? Or do you recognise that even if you do feel only a fork will work, other people's purposes will be defined by differing frameworks and your "absolute judgment" may not be absolute to them? Do you understand that while science holds absolute truths, they also hold that tomorrow that same truth could be rendered lacking?
I understand all of those things. I understand them because of logic, not in spite of logic.
Do you disagree with these points? I believe the author alluded to this type of thing. And "when you're green you grow, when you're ripe you rot". In other words: If you think you are "right", you are no longer open to understand and learn.
Thinking you're right and ignoring all evidence to the contrary is not very logical.
Are you condemning, then, also science's certainty of knowing that whatever you know, there is always more to know?
No. I'm condemning any scientist who says there's nothing to know. I'm condemning any scientist who damns the only tool available for knowledge.
More power to you on your personal journey and your approach.
Thanks.
I agree. So the truth you start with--the clarity of perception determines whether the logic serves you or deceives you. Again, how do you ascertain the truth of your premise?
By checking for any contradictions.
By the logic built on the questionable premise?
No, by logic built on non-contradictory and complete premises.
By the logic that can only show truths/untruths in light of the validity of the premise?
Yes.
If you have a bad computer program and you use the bad computer program to determine the validity of the program, how valid will your findings be?
The results won't be valid at all! That's what this guy is doing when he uses judgment to damn judgment, absolutes to damn absolutes, certainty to damn certainty.
I say that by removing a predeterimined right/wrong judgment from one's self, one begins by accepting that all in nature is exactly as it is for a reason. Then one starts with the intent of looking to understand what that reason is. By saying this, it does not mean that in the growth process, one does not make adjustments. It does say, though, that everything happens for a reason, at-one with nature and therefore it cannot be "wrong" (which is a subjective personal judgment, not an objective one)
I'm not impugning absolutes. I'm impugning the contradictory use of them.
If I was saying: "this guy is absolutely wrong because he makes absolute statements" then you'd have a point.
You can defend your own impugning because you know your intent. You cannot legitimately condemn the authors impugning, as you do not know that you comprehend what he is saying, correctly. After all, our judgments may be right or wrong.
When we point the finger, there are three more (a mirror) pointing back to our own perceptions, and possible flawed premises, etc.
I was also trying to somehow show abook's point that because someone makes a statement does not mean they are believing their own statement to be absolute truth (particularly when they qualify that we cannot know absolute truth, thereby indicating that THIS was their point to begin with). Because you "guess" they intend their truth to be the absolute truth by no means depicts absolute truth for me.
Again, if you want to use the bad computer program to determine the validity of the bad program, you might find that the logic within the bad program is impeccable. In the end, the bad program is still bad. If the logic depends on the premise, and the premise MAY be faulty, that would be teetering on the brink. You cannot be assured of the truth. In the process, we can learn a WHOLE lot about the context of the computer program (our judgments and logic can tell us a lot about our own minds) and yet, how do we know the underlying premise is "right" or not? It CAN go either way.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
First of all, maybe you could clear up this contradiction I'm seeing in the logical process for me. You say: "Judgments based on faulty premises are incorrect." If logic is built upon the premises that may be faulty, how do you come to know if they are faulty or not?
You come to know if they are faulty by discovering a disproof, contradiction, or incompleteness in them.
You can defend your own impugning because you know your intent. You cannot legitimately condemn the authors impugning, as you do not know that you comprehend what he is saying, correctly. After all, our judgments may be right or wrong.
Nor can you celebrate it then.
When we point the finger, there are three more (a mirror) pointing back to our own perceptions, and possible flawed premises, etc.
Ok. I have no problem with this.
I was also trying to somehow show abook's point that because someone makes a statement does not mean they are believing their own statement to be absolute truth (particularly when they qualify that we cannot know absolute truth, thereby indicating that THIS was their point to begin with). Because you "guess" they intend their truth to be the absolute truth by no means depicts absolute truth for me.
I "guess" they intend their truth to be absolute truth because it is said absolutely. There is no qualification, other than the implied self-exemption ("do as I say, not as I do") to his own statement.
Again, if you want to use the bad computer program to determine the validity of the bad program, you might find that the logic within the bad program is impeccable. In the end, the bad program is still bad.
Then is it not the program that is bad, but the programmer.
If the logic depends on the premise, and the premise MAY be faulty, that would be teetering on the brink. You cannot be assured of the truth. In the process, we can learn a WHOLE lot about the context of the computer program (our judgments and logic can tell us a lot about our own minds) and yet, how do we know the underlying premise is "right" or not? It CAN go either way.
We know the underlying premise is right or wrong by holding it up to the standards of truth.
No. I'm condemning any scientist who says there's nothing to know. I'm condemning any scientist who damns the only tool available for knowledge.
Bringing this back to the point on hand--the quote--where did the author say there is nothing to know? Where did the author condemn the tools to uncovering knowledge?
By checking for any contradictions.
By checking contradictions, you can ascertain whether your logic is logical unto itself. How do you determine if your initial underlying premise is correct? Are you saying you use the logic springing from that possibly-faulty-premise to determine the validity of the premise itself?
No, by logic built on non-contradictory and complete premises.
It looks like you are not hearing my point. Of course you want to use a valid premise to build your logic upon. At the same time, how do you know if it IS a valid premise? If you say by "checking contradictions", those contradictions would stem FROM the premise. thereby not being outside the premise enough to be a measure of OBJECTIVE accuracy.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I say that by removing a predeterimined right/wrong judgment from one's self, one begins by accepting that all in nature is exactly as it is for a reason. Then one starts with the intent of looking to understand what that reason is. By saying this, it does not mean that in the growth process, one does not make adjustments. It does say, though, that everything happens for a reason, at-one with nature and therefore it cannot be "wrong" (which is a subjective personal judgment, not an objective one)
I absolutely agree with this.
So you understand why I say we must accept (embrace) all inconsistencies and accept their validity as being there for a reason, even though we may seek adjustments that enable us to move on as we wish to do? Do you see this within the context that were we to accept judgments about aspects of ourselves, we get out of synch with nature and the idea that everything has it's purpose irrespective of our good opinion of it?
Ultimately, when we can blend these seemingly contradictory aspects (accepting yet not accepting) we can strike the balance to grow in healthy ways. Often people are not able to accept the validity of their base state, and that it has purpose outside their opinion. They believe the judgments they've been taught. This is why people do not accept their problems and idiosynchracies. When they do not accept them, they deny them and cannot see them, much less get help. These idiosynchracies go unconscious. This paralysing process is bound by the glue of shame and prejudgments of "right" or "wrong", "good" and "bad", etc. People want to be good at the expense of being real. We're compelled to be consistent at the expense of accepting who we are. This is why people live as the false self.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Bringing this back to the point on hand--the quote--where did the author say there is nothing to know? Where did the author condemn the tools to uncovering knowledge?
Nowhere. You asked me if I impugn scientists based on something. I told you under what scenario I impugn scientists.
By checking contradictions, you can ascertain whether your logic is logical unto itself. How do you determine if your initial underlying premise is correct? Are you saying you use the logic springing from that possibly-faulty-premise to determine the validity of the premise itself?
No. You use a different set of premises, ideally the opposite set of premises.
It looks like you are not hearing my point. Of course you want to use a valid premise to build your logic upon. At the same time, how do you know if it IS a valid premise? If you say by "checking contradictions", those contradictions would stem FROM the premise. thereby not being outside the premise enough to be a measure of OBJECTIVE accuracy.
You seem to be taking issue with the self-evidency of a root premise here. And no, you cannot prove a root premise with itself without violating the rules of logic. You simply must find a counterexample or an underlying force that justifies the self-evidency.
If you do not see the author's point of view, you cannot celebrate it. If Abook and I see the author's point of view, because we share it, we may celebrate it. We may repeat it. We may even preach it, if we are so inclined.
Then is it not the program that is bad, but the programmer.
Well, that's ultimately my point, so if you want to jump to that. If you use logic, you are not perfect. Therefore your premises, judgments, and logical processes may "teeter" between right or wrong. Therefore I can't trust anything you, I or the author of the quote says, absolutely. Period. Therefore, I absolutely deem the authors quote to be an absolute truth!
We know the underlying premise is right or wrong by holding it up to the standards of truth.
What are the standards of truth?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you do not see the author's point of view, you cannot celebrate it. If Abook and I see the author's point of view, because we share it, we may celebrate it. We may repeat it. We may even preach it, if we are so inclined.
And if I see the author's mistakes, I can condemn them, right?
Well, that's ultimately my point, so if you want to jump to that. If you use logic, you are not perfect. Therefore your premises, judgments, and logical processes may "teeter" between right or wrong. Therefore I can't trust anything you, I or the author of the quote says, absolutely. Period. Therefore, I absolutely deem the authors quote to be an absolute truth!
Do you understand why this makes absolutely no sense?
That's what he's saying. He says "be afraid of judgment". That statement is based, however, on his judgment. He says "don't claim absolute knowledge, lest you become a monster". That statment is based, however, on his absolute knowledge. He says "knowledge is an adventure on the edge of uncertainty", meaning, "one can never be certain". Yet that statement is based on his certainty.
Are you condemning, then, also science's certainty of knowing that whatever you know, there is always more to know?
No. I'm condemning any scientist who says there's nothing to know. I'm condemning any scientist who damns the only tool available for knowledge.
Again: do you impugn science's certainty that for what we know, we must always keep our minds open to the new discovery that may cause us to alter what we know--aka, we must keep aware of the uncertainty of all knowledge?
No. You use a different set of premises, ideally the opposite set of premises.
So what you are saying is: in order to understand the validity of a premise, you must keep it's opposite in mind in order to consider all sides in assessing it's validity? So therefore it would be valid to say that in order to be certain, we must keep in mind our potential to be uncertain?
You seem to be taking issue with the self-evidency of a root premise here. And no, you cannot prove a root premise with itself without violating the rules of logic. You simply must find a counterexample or an underlying force that justifies the self-evidency.
Right, so in order to be relatively certain, we must entertain the full validity of uncertainty.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
And if I see the author's mistakes, I can condemn them, right?
Of course.
This quote is brilliant, because he included his own disclaimer. If you want to focus on the detail, and take it out of context, you will view mistakes. The fact is, he covered his bases.
Do you understand why this makes absolutely no sense?
I understand that you do not allow yourself to resolve contraditions and to accept the level of thought that includes paradox. I am not so imprisoned, however. This inability to comprehend the beauty and truth of paradox is what keeps many from appreciating truth.
Yep, many jump to "truth" without the valid underlying premises and therefore do not have truth. I maintain that the full truthful paradox maintains the balance--my logic is not flawed, and at the same time, I can appreciate that which is not logic--the opposites in marriage represent the whole picture.
The objective standards of reality.
If you or I are the flawed programmer, how do we access the objective standards of reality without the potential of tainting it? Doesn't that make it all an "unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty"?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Again: do you impugn science's certainty that for what we know, we must always keep our minds open to the new discovery that may cause us to alter what we know--aka, we must keep aware of the uncertainty of all knowledge?
No, I would not impugn the scientist who says we don't know everything. I would impugn the scientist who says we don't know anything, or that there is nothing to know.
So what you are saying is: in order to understand the validity of a premise, you must keep it's opposite in mind in order to consider all sides in assessing it's validity?
You don't necessarily have to "keep it in mind". Your simply must consider its validity just as you consider the validity of your own premise.
When I say 1+1=2, I don't also consider that 1+1=3. I already considered that premise and found it to be faulty.
So therefore it would be valid to say that in order to be certain, we must keep in mind our potential to be uncertain?
Now that makes sense, but isn't what you're saying above. In order to be certain, we must understand what both certain and uncertain mean. To be certain about something we must understand whether that something is true or false.
Right, so in order to be relatively certain, we must entertain the full validity of uncertainty.
You must understand what it means to be uncertain in order to understand what it means to be certain. But when you posit an absolute premise, you have must enterain the opposite of that premise and find it to be invalid before positing your own.
This quote is brilliant, because he included his own disclaimer. If you want to focus on the detail, and take it out of context, you will view mistakes. The fact is, he covered his bases.
If I must ignore "the detail", I'm not going to call anything brilliant.
I understand that you do not allow yourself to resolve contraditions and to accept the level of thought that includes paradox. I am not so imprisoned, however. This inability to comprehend the beauty and truth of paradox is what keeps many from appreciating truth.
Your use of the word beauty is very apt here. The statement in question is not a coherent statement but rather a piece of art. If you wish to hold it up to a measure of beauty, by all means do so. If you wish to hold it up to a measure of truth, it fails.
Yep, many jump to "truth" without the valid underlying premises and therefore do not have truth. I maintain that the full truthful paradox maintains the balance--my logic is not flawed, and at the same time, I can appreciate that which is not logic--the opposites in marriage represent the whole picture.
If you choose a world where true equates to false, that's certainly your right.
If you or I are the flawed programmer, how do we access the objective standards of reality without the potential of tainting it? Doesn't that make it all an "unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty"?
By not being a flawed programmer, of course. By not allowing someone to damn judgment when it's our only tool for accessing reality. I certainly understand why you make the statement you do above and why you agree with this post. I'm not surprised you see knowledge as an "unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty" instead of an "unending adventure away from uncertainty". I'm not surprised that you see every judgment as "teetering on the brink of error", instead of what saves us from the brink of error. I understand why you see absolute knowledge as "monstrous", rather than what protects us from monsters.
If you or I are the flawed programmer, how do we access the objective standards of reality without the potential of tainting it? Doesn't that make it all an "unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty"?
By not being a flawed programmer, of course.
Are you saying that for each endeavor you undertake, and for each problem you approach with logic, that the person who is using logic and approaching the problem can suddenly become perfect for such purposes? How do you do this, I would like to know? Are you becoming perfect for your purposes, or are you overlooking you are imperfect as you meet your purposes with your valid, objective tools?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Are you saying that for each endeavor you undertake, and for each problem you approach with logic, that the person who is using logic and approaching the problem can suddenly become perfect for such purposes?
Ideally, yes. Guaranteed, no.
How do you do this, I would like to know? Are you becoming perfect for your purposes, or are you overlooking you are imperfect as you meet your purposes with your valid, objective tools?
I believe I can do anything I set my mind to. And that's as close to perfection as I care to be.
I'm saying that what "truth" you get, depends on what premises you build your argument and reasoning. Depending on A premises may yield X as truth, while B premises may yield Y truth. The premises defines what kind of truth and what truth you can get. Logic is much like math. You build on axioms whose truth you deem self-evident or certain, and everything you build further upon that depends ultimately on the correctness of the assumed/self-evident premises. Which is why I like to define it a bit wider to leave room for that.
Consistency is in this vein a good thing, however, I have no problem with ambivalence, because I have no delusions of man's reason's grandeur. We do what we can with what we got. The closest we can get to truth may well be contradictive or ambivalent. This will rub ffg all the wrong way, I know. He's in the aristotelian tradition of logic and reality. That tradition do not have neither hegemony nor sole claim to "truth". And it usually demands a bit over the top belief in man's "reason" for my tastes. But this is one of the more fundamental conflicts between me and ffg.
My point was really that logic also is used in a more conventional sense, as a synonym to coherent. In that sense, logic is indeed based upon premises, which I tried to illustrate with imaginative literature. That sense of logic needs have no connection at all with ffg's ultimate logic...
And, really, I like to set the questionmark after ffg's "and this is how it is, so there" statements.
Peace
Dan
I agree with all you've said ( I really like your mathematics analogy, btw). It's pretty much what I was thinking, but you explain it much more eloquently than I ever could.
I also agree that Aristotelian logic is flawed. To me, this type of logic is not very pragmatic. In other words, I think it hinders creative & realistic thinking.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Whoa, clash of the titans here over my sigline...
Now where did I put my popcorn...
Glad to be of service baraka.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I believe I can do anything I set my mind to. And that's as close to perfection as I care to be.
So it looks like you must walk that line of uncertainty, then, since there are no guarantees. I agree you can do anything you set your mind to, however, the base premise that is "you"--the "one" who can do anything--is human and contains human error, and therefore uncertainty and room for improvement is ever at hand. Thank God this all plays out in time! But wait, if we want to switch to the view of infinity, you are that potential--the ideal--right now.
And I didn't realise all this debate is about Dan's signature!
Great quote, Dan!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm beginning to suspect that you put that there on purpose and "Laz" is really just your instigating doppelganger.
My hands are clean, I swear. I found it interesting that now of all times over the past several months someone commented on it.
Somewhere illogical I'm sure....check the freezer....
Found it! Now should I want my popcorn cold, that would be completely and utterly logical.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So it looks like you must walk that line of uncertainty, then, since there are no guarantees.
I do walk that line of uncertainty, but I don't walk it because I seek knowledge as the quote implies. It is because I seek knowledge through a process of logical judgment and the discovery of absolutes that the line gets further and further away.
I do walk that line of uncertainty, but I don't walk it because I seek knowledge as the quote implies. It is because I seek knowledge through a process of logical judgment and the discovery of absolutes that the line gets further and further away.
I'd love to hear how you arrived at idea that the author of the quote is not talking about the exact same purpose as you are.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
This statement is absolute:
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty."
Each of the 3 sentences in that statement is an absolute statement. The first and last are contradictory to the middle, also incorrect. Every judgement does not "teeter on the brink of error" unless one also is willing to also say that every judgment "rises to the challenge of being correct". Regardless, either way is incorrect. Judgments based on faulty premises are incorrect. Judgmenets based on complete and valid premises are correct. The statement pretends that judgments are nothing more than mist....slaves to the fortunes of a chance wind.
You must be seeing something there that I'm not there. When I read this:
"judgement could easily have gone the other way. Can't a person be declaritive anymore?"
I see a question and an answer, reverse to the punctuation.
It implies that judgment controls the man, rather than the man controlling the judgment. Certainly for every judgment there is an alternate choice. But to suggest that the alternate choice is of equal validity and equal probability is silly. That's what this statement implies:
"teeter on the brink of error"
When you use a fork, are you "teetering on the brink of error" because under the right conditions that fork could be struck by lightning?
Regardless, the statement seems to then encourage not "being declarative" because the declarative man becomes "monstrous".
He is tying it all together and the message is clear:
"Do not make any judgments, lest you become a monster. I will make your judgments for you"
That's what he's saying. He says "be afraid of judgment". That statement is based, however, on his judgment. He says "don't claim absolute knowledge, lest you become a monster". That statment is based, however, on his absolute knowledge. He says "knowledge is an adventure on the edge of uncertainty", meaning, "one can never be certain". Yet that statement is based on his certainty.
If the opposite of true is false, I'm quite ok with this.
I won't embrace foolishness. I won't embrace apathy. I won't embrace contradiction. All are part of the "full breadth of my inner variations", but they are something to be overcome, not "embraced". Certainly they must be recognized, but I will not embrace the parts of my Self I do not like simply because they're there. I will recognize them and seek to change them, and that's what "gives ourselves permission" to grow.
Logic without a "healthy, understanding context" is logic with faulty premises. And that will always lead to faulty conclusions. If you think a "healthy, understanding context" is one full of faulty premises and contradictions, certainly you're "teetering on the brink".
No, because I'm not claiming the absolute knowledge that there is no absolute knowledge.
She said: "It is true that every judgement teeters on the brink of error. Every judgement could easily have gone the other way."
--I hear: Every judgement can go either way: that of error, or that of correctness.
She also said: "Can't a person be declaritive anymore? I guess he should have added IMO at the end of his quote".
--I hear: Can't people make a firm statement in expressing their view? Or do they have to distinguish between their view an absolute truth by adding "imo" in order to qualify each statement?
Obviously, I don't know if I'm hearing what she intends. From what I hear, I agree.
It sounds to me that you've missed the author of the quote's intended point along with abook's point. Ironically, I think you agree with them: You are agnostic, because you realise the potential huge error of judging God to not exist. I assumed you recognise that you can trap yourself in a bubble of subjective opinion/judgment, rather than be open to learn and understand from your surroundings. Do you choose to believe you must use a fork and only a fork will do for your purposes? Is it not possible to also use a spoon? Or do you recognise that even if you do feel only a fork will work, other people's purposes will be defined by differing frameworks and your "absolute judgment" may not be absolute to them? Do you understand that while science holds absolute truths, they also hold that tomorrow that same truth could be rendered lacking?
Do you disagree with these points? I believe the author alluded to this type of thing. And "when you're green you grow, when you're ripe you rot". In other words: If you think you are "right", you are no longer open to understand and learn.
Yikes.
Are you condemning, then, also science's certainty of knowing that whatever you know, there is always more to know?
More power to you on your personal journey and your approach.
I agree. So the truth you start with--the clarity of perception determines whether the logic serves you or deceives you. Again, how do you ascertain the truth of your premise? By the logic built on the questionable premise? By the logic that can only show truths/untruths in light of the validity of the premise? If you have a bad computer program and you use the bad computer program to determine the validity of the program, how valid will your findings be?
I say that by removing a predeterimined right/wrong judgment from one's self, one begins by accepting that all in nature is exactly as it is for a reason. Then one starts with the intent of looking to understand what that reason is. By saying this, it does not mean that in the growth process, one does not make adjustments. It does say, though, that everything happens for a reason, at-one with nature and therefore it cannot be "wrong" (which is a subjective personal judgment, not an objective one)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"Sigh. If one wishes to impugn absolutes with an absolute, one needs a mirror not a pulpit."
If one wishes to impugn that which impugns, I would assume that one then would also need a mirror not a pulpit. (and so on, and so on, and so on,...)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'm not impugning absolutes. I'm impugning the contradictory use of them.
If I was saying: "this guy is absolutely wrong because he makes absolute statements" then you'd have a point.
If logic is built upon a faulty premise, then it is faulty. I do not believe logic is built upon a faulty premise.
Ok.
I'm agnostic because there is no way to judge whether or not God exists.
I understand all of those things. I understand them because of logic, not in spite of logic.
Thinking you're right and ignoring all evidence to the contrary is not very logical.
No. I'm condemning any scientist who says there's nothing to know. I'm condemning any scientist who damns the only tool available for knowledge.
Thanks.
By checking for any contradictions.
No, by logic built on non-contradictory and complete premises.
Yes.
The results won't be valid at all! That's what this guy is doing when he uses judgment to damn judgment, absolutes to damn absolutes, certainty to damn certainty.
I absolutely agree with this.
When we point the finger, there are three more (a mirror) pointing back to our own perceptions, and possible flawed premises, etc.
I was also trying to somehow show abook's point that because someone makes a statement does not mean they are believing their own statement to be absolute truth (particularly when they qualify that we cannot know absolute truth, thereby indicating that THIS was their point to begin with). Because you "guess" they intend their truth to be the absolute truth by no means depicts absolute truth for me.
Again, if you want to use the bad computer program to determine the validity of the bad program, you might find that the logic within the bad program is impeccable. In the end, the bad program is still bad. If the logic depends on the premise, and the premise MAY be faulty, that would be teetering on the brink. You cannot be assured of the truth. In the process, we can learn a WHOLE lot about the context of the computer program (our judgments and logic can tell us a lot about our own minds) and yet, how do we know the underlying premise is "right" or not? It CAN go either way.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You come to know if they are faulty by discovering a disproof, contradiction, or incompleteness in them.
Nor can you celebrate it then.
Ok. I have no problem with this.
I "guess" they intend their truth to be absolute truth because it is said absolutely. There is no qualification, other than the implied self-exemption ("do as I say, not as I do") to his own statement.
Then is it not the program that is bad, but the programmer.
We know the underlying premise is right or wrong by holding it up to the standards of truth.
By checking contradictions, you can ascertain whether your logic is logical unto itself. How do you determine if your initial underlying premise is correct? Are you saying you use the logic springing from that possibly-faulty-premise to determine the validity of the premise itself?
It looks like you are not hearing my point. Of course you want to use a valid premise to build your logic upon. At the same time, how do you know if it IS a valid premise? If you say by "checking contradictions", those contradictions would stem FROM the premise. thereby not being outside the premise enough to be a measure of OBJECTIVE accuracy.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So you understand why I say we must accept (embrace) all inconsistencies and accept their validity as being there for a reason, even though we may seek adjustments that enable us to move on as we wish to do? Do you see this within the context that were we to accept judgments about aspects of ourselves, we get out of synch with nature and the idea that everything has it's purpose irrespective of our good opinion of it?
Ultimately, when we can blend these seemingly contradictory aspects (accepting yet not accepting) we can strike the balance to grow in healthy ways. Often people are not able to accept the validity of their base state, and that it has purpose outside their opinion. They believe the judgments they've been taught. This is why people do not accept their problems and idiosynchracies. When they do not accept them, they deny them and cannot see them, much less get help. These idiosynchracies go unconscious. This paralysing process is bound by the glue of shame and prejudgments of "right" or "wrong", "good" and "bad", etc. People want to be good at the expense of being real. We're compelled to be consistent at the expense of accepting who we are. This is why people live as the false self.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Nowhere. You asked me if I impugn scientists based on something. I told you under what scenario I impugn scientists.
No. You use a different set of premises, ideally the opposite set of premises.
You seem to be taking issue with the self-evidency of a root premise here. And no, you cannot prove a root premise with itself without violating the rules of logic. You simply must find a counterexample or an underlying force that justifies the self-evidency.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And if I see the author's mistakes, I can condemn them, right?
Do you understand why this makes absolutely no sense?
The objective standards of reality.
Again: do you impugn science's certainty that for what we know, we must always keep our minds open to the new discovery that may cause us to alter what we know--aka, we must keep aware of the uncertainty of all knowledge?
So what you are saying is: in order to understand the validity of a premise, you must keep it's opposite in mind in order to consider all sides in assessing it's validity? So therefore it would be valid to say that in order to be certain, we must keep in mind our potential to be uncertain?
Right, so in order to be relatively certain, we must entertain the full validity of uncertainty.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
This quote is brilliant, because he included his own disclaimer. If you want to focus on the detail, and take it out of context, you will view mistakes. The fact is, he covered his bases.
I understand that you do not allow yourself to resolve contraditions and to accept the level of thought that includes paradox. I am not so imprisoned, however. This inability to comprehend the beauty and truth of paradox is what keeps many from appreciating truth.
Yep, many jump to "truth" without the valid underlying premises and therefore do not have truth. I maintain that the full truthful paradox maintains the balance--my logic is not flawed, and at the same time, I can appreciate that which is not logic--the opposites in marriage represent the whole picture.
If you or I are the flawed programmer, how do we access the objective standards of reality without the potential of tainting it? Doesn't that make it all an "unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty"?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No, I would not impugn the scientist who says we don't know everything. I would impugn the scientist who says we don't know anything, or that there is nothing to know.
You don't necessarily have to "keep it in mind". Your simply must consider its validity just as you consider the validity of your own premise.
When I say 1+1=2, I don't also consider that 1+1=3. I already considered that premise and found it to be faulty.
Now that makes sense, but isn't what you're saying above. In order to be certain, we must understand what both certain and uncertain mean. To be certain about something we must understand whether that something is true or false.
You must understand what it means to be uncertain in order to understand what it means to be certain. But when you posit an absolute premise, you have must enterain the opposite of that premise and find it to be invalid before positing your own.
Then why did you claim I had no right to do so?
If I must ignore "the detail", I'm not going to call anything brilliant.
Your use of the word beauty is very apt here. The statement in question is not a coherent statement but rather a piece of art. If you wish to hold it up to a measure of beauty, by all means do so. If you wish to hold it up to a measure of truth, it fails.
If you choose a world where true equates to false, that's certainly your right.
By not being a flawed programmer, of course. By not allowing someone to damn judgment when it's our only tool for accessing reality. I certainly understand why you make the statement you do above and why you agree with this post. I'm not surprised you see knowledge as an "unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty" instead of an "unending adventure away from uncertainty". I'm not surprised that you see every judgment as "teetering on the brink of error", instead of what saves us from the brink of error. I understand why you see absolute knowledge as "monstrous", rather than what protects us from monsters.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ideally, yes. Guaranteed, no.
I believe I can do anything I set my mind to. And that's as close to perfection as I care to be.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what came over me.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I agree with all you've said ( I really like your mathematics analogy, btw). It's pretty much what I was thinking, but you explain it much more eloquently than I ever could.
I also agree that Aristotelian logic is flawed. To me, this type of logic is not very pragmatic. In other words, I think it hinders creative & realistic thinking.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Now where did I put my popcorn...
Glad to be of service baraka.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'm beginning to suspect that you put that there on purpose and "Laz" is really just your instigating doppelganger.
Somewhere illogical I'm sure....check the freezer....
So it looks like you must walk that line of uncertainty, then, since there are no guarantees. I agree you can do anything you set your mind to, however, the base premise that is "you"--the "one" who can do anything--is human and contains human error, and therefore uncertainty and room for improvement is ever at hand. Thank God this all plays out in time! But wait, if we want to switch to the view of infinity, you are that potential--the ideal--right now.
And I didn't realise all this debate is about Dan's signature!
Great quote, Dan!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Found it! Now should I want my popcorn cold, that would be completely and utterly logical.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I do walk that line of uncertainty, but I don't walk it because I seek knowledge as the quote implies. It is because I seek knowledge through a process of logical judgment and the discovery of absolutes that the line gets further and further away.
That's a pretty big "should", isn't it? Yuk......
I'd love to hear how you arrived at idea that the author of the quote is not talking about the exact same purpose as you are.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Probably about the time he referred to me as a monster.