BuddyFerris Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 All we have is our perception. Things are good or worthy based on that, not whether there is some abstract arbitrator or concept of justice out their that makes it true. We make it true, by valuing it and making it work. Are our thoughts, ideals, and beliefs the veneer you spoke of? Isn't that enough? Isn't that all it's ever been? Foundational truths sound nice and all but we don't get them, even if you were to say they exist they are all still contingent on individual perception. Our values are not as strong as we would be comfortable with, but that's how it is. We have reasons for things like altruism, justice and such and they either stand or fail. It's early, so I rambled, but I hope that makes some sense. You offer a valid perspective, of course. All anyone ever has is their perception of things. Would you object to foundational truths in botany or in mathematics? We don't all see them, but are they they there for each to discover? How about something a little less precise like astrophysics which must be deduced by remote observation rather than handled? Shall we relegate truth to only those things an individual can grasp? Is there any use looking for layers of meaning in music or poetry? Should we abandon philosophy? Perhaps truth is larger than that which you or I might be able to express in words. Perhaps there is validity, value, maybe even goodness in things which we personally haven't yet grasped. I'm inclined to think that's the reality with which we are faced. Buddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 For example, the only truth about a musical composition is that it is comprised of certain notes rendered in a certain way. The only truth? All I need do is show one more truth, to make that statement false. Here’s one: The composition is an expression of the artist’s vision of beauty. Here’s another: It a reflection of the culture the artist lives in. Here’s some others: It mimics the sounds of nature; it obeys certain psychological patterns; it causes people to weep; it causes people to sing; it inspires artists to write music themselves; it inspires poetry; it inspires art; it moves people to believe in beauty, in hope, in love, in truth, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on. All of these things may be truth about that piece of music. Truth is a multifaceted jewel, full of many living realities. Not a static, flat surface called “fact”. Quoted for truth. Music is a very good example of something where the raw, physical data just can't encapsulate the whole 'truth' about the thing. There are other human realities like that - which are greater than the sum of their facts. Love and morality are two. I think it's things like that which give religion such power. People think there must be some God, gods or spirits behind those things that are more than mere facts. I think gods or spirits can be poetic symbols of the levels of reality that go beyond mere facts. But I don't think any such entities exist as literal beings. But I do think that reality itself is more than mere facts - and there is much about the universe that we don't understand. Perhaps existence itself or the mysterious universe of which we are a part could itself be considered a God. But calling it a god would be to define it too much. I think it is better to simply reach out to the mystery with awe and wonder rather than define it and call it 'God'. This is where I differ from religious types. I think that calling it God belittles it. However, when I see it as wonderous and mysterious but ultimately impersonal - that is when I view it with true awe and respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 I think it is better to simply reach out to the mystery with awe and wonder rather than define it and call it 'God'. This is where I differ from religious types. I think that calling it God belittles it. However, when I see it as wonderous and mysterious but ultimately impersonal - that is when I view it with true awe and respect. I thought this was very nicely said EB. I have mixed feeling about personalizing the mysterious though. On the one hand when I look at things like Niagara Falls or the full moon or a beautiful sunset the mysterious definitely has an impersonal edge to it. But when I look at a frog or a tree or a blade of grass the mysterious has an element of agency. So when I attempt to contemplate our entire universe there is one inexorable mystery but it seems to be some mixture of personal and impersonal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 How about something a little less precise like astrophysics which must be deduced by remote observation rather than handled? Shall we relegate truth to only those things an individual can grasp? Is there any use looking for layers of meaning in music or poetry? Should we abandon philosophy? I get you, and I am inclined to agree. My point though is that perhaps these abstract concepts can be "true" without being true in the physical sense that a mathematical abstraction is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Try describing a friend's position on a given subject 'adequately'. "The process of description is immediately interpretive." I think someone here said that recently, and that, "the process of description immediately diminishes that which is described." Sounds like something AM would say. It's true though, and troublesome. As soon as we begin the process of describing this scientific fact or that philosophical explanation, we begin immediately to interpret through our own filters and perhaps diminish that which we attempt to describe. For instance, we might try describing some element of love. It might be based on a filter set of 'attraction-affection-friendship-respect-commitment-covenant' concepts or on a filter set of 'natural selection-sex drive-bonding-offspring'. Does one exclude the other? Is either adequate? Or music. Describing music is pretty much a bust. Music is experienced; it communicates to us in some fashion, and we're affected by it. Try describing that without your filters. Pick an extraordinary musical piece that you find powerful and expressive; now try to describe it adequately in words, with an emphasis on 'adequately' so that it is conveyed to another. An observational analysis of the audience at a rock concert (watching with the sound off) yields an interesting perspective on the participants. They're nuts, apparently. No reasonable quantity of words will 'adequately' convey the mosh to a reader. Try it. Similarly, the various artistic fields (sculpture, oils, fabrics, pastels, etc.) convey so much more than words, and they're diminished in an attempt to describe them. Character concepts are even more elusive as we approach nobility, courage, generosity, grace, kindness, and the like. Discussions here are sometimes painful as we reach for something that words can't quite encompass. How do you avoid being rendered narrow-minded by your filters? Mr. Ferris, Placing my two cents in......words alone can be comforting and meaningful from a distance, but words and actions leave much less to the imagination.....and I think that is the point. See, I wouldn't mind buying some of the guys and gals dinner and discussing life over a cold beer, which would go so much further, regardless, in the my description of my philosopy than the words. Perhaps is like the Bible says, faith and works. It is what it is. BTW, the "Hope springs eternal" avatar is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaramon Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Truth or perception is affected by circumstances, environment and knowledge (and probably many other consequences). What was accepted as truth yesterday may not be accepted as true today. Music is a good "truth" to discuss. As a musician and student of Baroch and Classical Theory I understand that certain rules govern the structure of composition. Compositions are written according to accepted structures that graphically display the intent of the composer, namely staffs, time notations, note length representations and other performance instructions. The composer does their best to represent their intent through these graphic representations accompanied by instruction as to meter, tempo, volume and intensity. This composition becomes a truth to the composer at that point in time. But that representation, when placed in the hands of musicians and conductors usually takes on a different meaning and interpretation based on as Buddy said, the filters of perception of the current performers. But let's say that we are able to recreate the composition exactly as the composer intended. Each note, chord and inflection are perfectly metered to what be true to the composition as written. St. Martin's in the Field performs it in the acoustically perfect environment of a studio setting the music digitally perfect to CD. We listen to the piece digitally reproduced through our BOSE headphones (or whatever headphone you like) in crystal clear reproduction. We do this while on the way to hear SMIF perform this same piece live at Carnegie Hall, or for S&G, St. John's Cathedral in NYC. After a few stanzas of the piece, if we are truly listening, we will hear far more than what was presented digitally. What was a crystal clear representation of the piece is now affected by the harmonics of the environment in which it is presented. Perhaps a cellist goes flat at some point, or one of the windows in St John's begins to resonnate with the tuba section. The presentation of the piece is affected by the environment and takes on a new and different representation. Perhaps we yawn and the music is distorted by the distortion of our eardrums. We hear a different presentation for at least a moment. Environment and circumstances do affect the perception of truth. It is true that the leaves of the tree are green at midday, yet at night they appear to be dark and gray. These are the same leaves, yet cast in different lights they appear to transform into a different shade of color. Shakespeare said that a rose by any other name is still a rose. But what a bout a trunk? What is the trunk? Is it the boot of a car? Is the portion of the tree that connects the limbs and leaves with the root system? Is it the apparel we wear to swim in? Definition clouds truth at times. There is an old cliche that says, "Perception is reality" and I have seen that proven timeless times in my 46 summers. How do we perceive truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Zaramon, your reference to music make me remember something that happened to me many years ago. I downloaded a song (yes, illegal copy, which I don't do anymore... no seriously I don't ) which was encoded to 128 bps MP3 format, and I totally liked the song. And there was a part in it that had really cool sounds. I decided to buy the whole CD, and I listened to that song, and to my surprise the cool sound wasn't there. I could tell it was the exact same song, but I learned a real-life experience how compression algorithms for sound can change the actual experience of the song. So now, I can sometimes tell when a song was poorly compressed, and I have a hard time accepting anything below 192 bps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 25, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2009 Tubes and turntables. That's the ticket! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Flordy, I just remember another similar situation, the difference between turntable editions and the CD editions. Big difference in sound. My brother had a classical piece on turntable 30 years ago when I grew up, and when I bought the CD some years ago, some of the experience was missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted March 25, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted March 25, 2009 Of course records are harder to steal than files are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Harder to buy too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddyFerris Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 Mr. Ferris, Placing my two cents in......words alone can be comforting and meaningful from a distance, but words and actions leave much less to the imagination.....and I think that is the point. See, I wouldn't mind buying some of the guys and gals dinner and discussing life over a cold beer, which would go so much further, regardless, in the my description of my philosopy than the words. Perhaps is like the Bible says, faith and works. It is what it is. BTW, the "Hope springs eternal" avatar is great. Thanks, pal. You'll enjoy the conversation I had at dinner this evening in Djibouti City. The fellow at table with me had married a Catholic girl; he was recounting the classes they'd been required to attend before marriage. There was good stuff there, worthy of thought and adoption, but his fiance had heard it all before. It was new to him and opened up a world of nuance he hadn't considered before. He's the better for it all. Religion messes up so many things, and as you say, we'd be better off getting together with folks over dinner and a cold beer. The fellow and I chuckled together over the difference between what the religionists say (at great length) and what they do. The 'do' part shows what's real inside them. As we were leaving the restaurant, a barefoot kid ran along side us asking for money. We gave him a couple hundred francs, but he pointed to his bare feet (calloused, dirty) and asked for more. Now here's where you have to figure out what to 'do'. He's a beggar, of course. He's probably not going to spend the money you might give him on shoes. On the other hand, you're embarrassingly rich with several hundred dollars in you pocket and you're flying out tomorrow with no need of the cash. The kid's need is legitimate in a country with 50% unemployment. You ask yourself if you mind being scammed, if you care enough to help the kid, if, if, if... ad nauseum. But what do you 'do'. So I gave the kid some more money and blessed him as best I could. As-Salāmu `Alaykum, may the peace of God be with you, I'll do you no harm in word or deed. That's the extent of my linguistic ability, but he smiled and scampered off. What you do matters; what you say is mostly crap and nobody remembers it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 What you do matters; what you say is mostly crap and nobody remembers it anyway. Agree. Words are just symbols, while action is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Tubes and turntables. That's the ticket! Tubes and Vinyl? Seriously? Here's my turntable: and my tube amp: Only a analog fan would understand. BTW... I do want to jump back into this discussion. Just been too busy lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts