"Battles between truth and reality" or "Douglas, It's Simple, Really!"

["Alan Partridge" <apartridge@turbonet.com>]

I have not been rightly able to focus much attention to these
discussions of late, as items appearing on the list have been of actual
use, until recently. I suppose this is where I come in.

The discussion at hand is whether from one frame of reference a being
can truly relate to another with a considerable degree of validity as
viewed from either sphere.

Consider the following: Each individual experiences the world on a
subjective level only. There is no universal truth that can be perceived
by human experience. Two individuals experiencing the same event within
the same sphere of influence will have different perceptions regarding
the event and each other's experience of the event. Two individuals can
acquire a given concept, but experience this concept differently.
Distilling this concept to a form that either can understand is
interpersonal communication, which relies on a means of transport. This
means of transport is based on a series of other concepts that is
perceived differently by both parties.

Each common concept defined within our collective boundary acts on
individuals differently, as other individuals react to others exhibiting
degrees of the perceived trait. Honesty, for example, can never be a
subset of Tolerance, or vice-versa, neither can the perceptions of
either take firm hold in the absolute as the perceptions of such are
subjective. The more that we probe into these concepts the more we
realize that one individual cannot truly understand another, as that
would require one to assimilate another's existence into their own,
altering both the actual perception and the one perceiving. There is no
static confluence of the said constructs either, as perception, spheres
of experience, and relativistic contact between individuals are all in
flux. In other words, good luck in making people understand you.

Your proposal that human beings share an understanding is invalid under
the umbrella of absolute truth and logic. Each human being's sphere of
existence shares a commonality with each others', since we all are, for
the most part, human. Being human means that we do indeed share tiny
pieces of experiences on a level greater than or equal to rumour. On a
purely relativistic level that statement would be valid.

But it appears that you trust your perception of the world too much, as
many of us do. These "common experiences" such as appreciation of
emotions, crying while watching the sunrise, seeking human friendship,
beauty of passion between lovers, etc. sure, that's great. I am pleased,
as I'm sure we all are, that some of us can appreciate them and
understand them to a degree. Empathy and compassion are self-serving
concepts. For example, one does not donate to a charity out of
compassion, they do it because it will make them feel better about
themselves. 

So, in conclusion, it is unnecessary to state the obvious. We have
commonalities unfortunately, no matter how small they would be.
Emotionally-charged drivel doesn't help me to see your viewpoint any
better, as I don't drink from the emotional trough of my fellow man.

Best regards,

Alan Partridge

-A non-member of the BBC or its affiliates, at home or abroad

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Moffett [mailto:ted_moffett@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 6:30 PM
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Cc: dougwils@moscow.com; credenda@moscow.com
Subject: Douglas, It's Simple, Really!

Visionaries:

I am resending the vision2020 post that appears below in part because it

addresses some of logical knots twisted around the current MCA
progressives 
vs. the local Trinitarians debate about value systems relating to 
"tolerance" "inclusiveness" and "honesty."  But mainly, if Doug Wilson
et. 
al. will carefully read this post, and respond to the suggestion I pose
that 
human beings share an understanding of many fundamental and valuable 
experiences that can be a basis for profound communality of SOME values
by 
everyone, then we might get somewhere in defining "tolerance" in an in
depth 
manner beyond the contradictions hidden in the "trivial" dictionary 
definition by Webster.

I never got a direct answer from Doug W. about my fundamental point in
this 
vision2020 post from last August.  So, Douglas, or anyone else in Doug's

club,  are we really living in different universes?

Ted

Douglas et. al.

My point is simple.  I am merely saying you cannot prove your absolutes
are 
any more absolute than other contradictory absolutes, and therefore your

belief in your absolutes is a matter of faith.  You are subject to the 
objection that your values are relative when they are compared with 
competing differing value systems which also claim they are absolute.
You 
are subject to the same logical difficulties in proving your values are
true 
and correct and absolute relative to other differing absolute value
systems, 
as anyone is who claims they have absolute ethical values.

I agree there are serious difficulties in claiming that there are no 
absolute values of right and wrong.  But your conclusion that if we
admit 
these difficulties we should all just run amok with a who cares attitude

seems hysterical!  Again my point is simple.  For example, I enjoy and
like 
other human beings.  Why should I then want to harm them and not use my 
basic human feelings of empathy and compassion as a guide to being
gentle 
and supportive of my fellow human companions?  This is not propaganda,
it is 
something everyone who knows friendship understands.  The issue of
whether 
or not there are ultimate ethical absolutes revealed by a Supreme Being,
or 
proven like a mathematical equation, does not have to be definitely
answered 
to understand and value friendship, or the love between mother and
child, or 
the heroics of someone who saves a life, or the beauty and passion
between 
lovers, or the delight of a beautiful sunset, to list a few of life's 
rewards.  If you do not in at least some small way understand (even if
you 
disagree) what I am saying we must be living in different universes!

I think we are at an impasse in this exchange.

Have a great weekend!

Ted

>From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Good Morning
>Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 09:20:47 -0700
>




_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail