ArloNet • A step toward tolerance and inclusion

Goofus · **Posted:** Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:02 am

Ceashel wrote:

My 2 cents' worth: The only possible truth available to us is the physical laws of our own particular universe, and the rest is how we perceive it. Western math and science are trying to get ever closer to understanding those laws (truth) through mathematical proofs and empirical means. Philosophy (including religious philosophy) tries to do the same, but through reasoning. And most religions are more or less based on a religious philosophy (but dump on that a lot of social and political strictures and call them truth, as well). A somewhat clumsy analogy; here's how the Wizard wrote the very page you're looking at now (there's more in other files, but this one drives the page):
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

<html>
<head>
<title>ArloNet</title>
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />
</head>

<frameset cols="20,*,20" frameborder="no" framespacing="0" border="0"
borderwidth="0">
<frame src="left.htm" noresize scrolling="no" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="0" name="left">

<frameset rows="127,*,28" frameborder="no" framespacing="0" border="0"
borderwidth="0">
<frame src="header.php" noresize scrolling="no" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="5" name="head">

<frameset cols="127,*,0,0,0,0" frameborder="no" framespacing="0" border="0"
scrolling="no" borderwidth="0">

<frame src="nav_res.shtml" noresize scrolling="no" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="0" name="nav">
<frame src="main.php" noresize scrolling="yes" marginwidth="15"
marginheight="15" name="main">
<frame src="myspace/horoscope/daily_extended.php" noresize scrolling="no" name="junk" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
<frame src="myspace/horoscope/daily_singles.php" noresize scrolling="no" name="junk" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
<frame src="myspace/vis_tracker/visitors.php" noresize scrolling="no" name="junk" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
<frame src="myspace/comics/comics.php" noresize scrolling="no" name="junk" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
</frameset>

<frame src="footer.htm" noresize scrolling="no" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="0" name="foot">

</frameset>

<frame src="left.htm" noresize scrolling="no" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="0" name="right">
</frameset>

</body>
</html>

So what we're all seeing is a representation of that, but we're seeing it through Internet Explorer, or Firefox, or Safari, etc., and some on Macs, some on PCS, etc. Also, we can change the look somewhat with the controls available in our accounts. It may act and look a little differently for each of us. Some among us can read the code and if the other files are available, could pretty much predict what the page looks like (mathematicians, scientists). Some could look at the page and figure out how it was probably coded (philosophers). The rest of us look at it through their various computers and browsers (personal beliefs), and that's fine, too; we're all seeing the same thing. As long as you don't try to make me use the same configuration you use because you think it's better. I like mine, thank you very much. My favorite part of all this is that PCs and Macs get more alike as time goes by, and science and some religious philosophy seem to be on a convergent path as well. And that's all I have to say about that (maybe).

Are you sure that's true?

Ron · **Posted:** Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:26 pm

Yeah Ceashel, PC's are becoming more Mac like every day (after all the Windows you know is just a copy of the Mac OS)

And while Mac can run Windows the reverse is not - the last time I checked - true.

Honestly, I see them both as tools - like Craftsman and Snap-On - whatever works for you is cool.

Ceashel · **Posted:** Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:18 pm

Goofus wrote:

Are you sure that's true?

All I can be sure of is that that's how I see it. :wink:

Ron · **Posted:** Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:17 pm

Ceashel's comment brought another question to mind. How does one reconcile two statements, both claimed to be true, that contradict each other? Example: (1) global warming is real - with facts and figures to back it up; (2) global warming is a hoax - with facts and figures to back it up.

Both statements cannot be true as they are in opposition. If truth is as many have commented it to be, are both statements true as "long as you don't tell me which one I'm to consider the truth"? If that is the case how do we accomplish unity of purpose to deal with the issue? - for those who believe number one to be true. I recall someone commenting something to the effect "if there was one truth it would sure make things a lot easier" which kind of applies to this question in a sense.

Ceashel, I think your thought breaks down at a certain point. The content/posts/words (truth) is easily read regardless of the browser (vantage point). So regardless of browser (vantage point) all of us "see" the exact same content. Example: all of us see your name as "Ceashel" regardless of browser, computer, location, connection speed/type or time of day. That does not fit in with a "many truths" or "relative/subjective truth" idea that many support. Indeed, as you mention, the non-essential portions - superfluous appearance mainly - would be different, but the essential portion - the content - would be unchanged. I DO like your comment though.

Thanks for the Jones agnes!

nortonkevin · **Posted:** Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:59 am

I think that different folks can look at the exact same content and come away with different truths which may or may not contradict one another. It seems to me that people generally assume that the existance of multiple truths is an unreconcileable paradox. I believe that the willingness to accept at least the possibility of coexisting versions of reality, or states-of-being, or truths keeps doors open for new ways of thinking and be-ing, and keeps my journey new and constantly amazing to me. And if someone gets those same feelings of wonder and awe from believing there is one truth, then the end result is the same and both of those different points of view make precisely the same amount of sense to me.

Captain Zap · **Posted:** Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:27 am

There's the "Yeah, but..." factor. I worked for a company that had a lot of branches under its umbrella. One manufacturing branch manager claimed to have made record sales of the product his branch produced. This was true. "Yeah, but..." he sold them to the warehouse distribution division of the same company which had this product stacked up to the ceiling of the warehouse. The product wasn't moving very fast so the parent company did not make record sales. Two contradicting "truths". It all depends on which numbers (or facts) you use and which ones you don't use. Looks good on the manufacturing manager's resume, though.

Ron · **Posted:** Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:55 pm

I would have to disagree Kevin. To me "Ceashel" is "Ceashel". I would agree though if you consider song lyrics, as an example. They would be the same no matter who's listening, but they may mean something totally different to different listeners. (Yellow Submarine is a drug song. Yellow Submarine is a fun kids tune. It's 2, 2, 2 mints in one.)

That brings another question(s): Does truth cease to be truth if it is misinterpreted? Does it remain truth regardless of the interpretation?

Capt., did the manager did an "atta boy" for his effort?

nortonkevin · **Posted:** Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:47 pm

Ron wrote:

"I would have to disagree Kevin. To me "Ceashel" is "Ceashel". I would agree though if you consider song lyrics, as an example. They would be the same no matter who's listening, but they may mean something totally different to different listeners."

IMHO, Ceashel is a song, as are we all. My "truth" of Ceashel is not the same as Jay's or Jess's or Arlo's.......not to mention Ceashel's "truth" of herself.

Ron wrote:

"That brings another question(s): Does truth cease to be truth if it is misinterpreted? Does it remain truth regardless of the interpretation?"

That's an excellent question. I think that depends on one's definition of "misinterpreted".......I don't think we can use that term if what is interpreted was never a truth (for everyone) to begin with. Ron, I think we have all thought about this alot and discussed it in a very civilized manner, with lots of great insights and perspectives......I think I understand where you're coming from, and believe your position to be completely valid.....for you. I'm just not at the point (yet?) in my experience to find any satisfactory evidence for the existance of anything that can be definitively identified as a "universal truth".

Captain Zap · **Posted:** Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:32 am

More contradictions:

One person's treasure is another's trash.

Some people like me. Some people dislike me. Most don't give a crap.

All true. All contradictory.

This isn't going to make any one's head short circuit like the androids or computers in Star Trek episodes, is it? (i.e. "Mudd's World")

nortonkevin · **Posted:** Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:03 am

Actually, it short-circuits my brain (a relatively common occurance) with it's concise simplicity :shock:

Ron · **Posted:** Wed Feb 17, 2010 5:38 pm

I guess I was referring to the word "Ceashel" Kevin. That bit of content I would think to be consistent regardless of who may be viewing it - consistently true so to speak. The person would be another story of course. I've never met Ceashel so I have very little to reference.

I was thinking of what can occur when something said that is truth is taken out of context and/or twisted to fit a personal point of view. I agree with you - my terminology is most likely clumsy if not in error for what I was thinking.

Your closing statement tempts me to be cheeky and say something like, "OH, so you don't think 7 is the square root of 49 eh?!?!?!? Don't consider that a universal truth eh?!?!?!?!" But I won't.

(I guess I was cheeky anyway eh?!?!?!?!)

Capt. you surprise me. Dealing with abstracts. (the preceding to be said with your best John Lennon accent - "Now John, just because I'm a drummer doesn't mean that I..., I feel funny." "Hey Ringo, you're no longer like you used to be.")

Ceashel · **Posted:** Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:14 pm

nortonkevin wrote:

...I believe that the willingness to accept at least the possibility of coexisting versions of reality, or states-of-being, or truths keeps doors open for new ways of thinking and be-ing, and keeps my journey new and constantly amazing to me. And if someone gets those same feelings of wonder and awe from believing there is one truth, then the end result is the same and both of those different points of view make precisely the same amount of sense to me.

I love a good paradox--makes my brain get all twisty and stretchy and numinousy. :shock:

nortonkevin · **Posted:** Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:35 pm

I could sign onto the concept that there are "Universal Truths, For All Pactical Purposes". or things that are true in most situations. In what kinds of situations might they not? I was wondering...... if humans destroyed the planet, or each other completely, and no human consciousness existed to contemplate the concept of square roots, would "7 is the square root of 49" be "true" or "meaningless?" Can something meaningless be true? Can something which is true be meaningless?

Captain Zap · **Posted:** Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:55 pm

Gads! Now it's going into the tree falling in the woods thingy!

nortonkevin · **Posted:** Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:05 pm

Yeah, what's up with that???

Forums

FAQ

Chat

Links

Contact

Search

Home of Everyone's Favorite Folkslinger!

Login

Register

Options

A step toward tolerance and inclusion

Topic Options

Who is online