Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 89 of 305 (359584)
10-29-2006 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 12:41 AM


Man O Man O Manuscripts!
If you are suggesting that the Scriptures we have now are not actually the 'real' scriptures, then the burden of proof remains with the one making the assertion-- in which case, I think we'd all like to know how this esoteric knowledge has come into your possession.
I understood the statement, NJ, to be referring to the fact that Judaism and Christianity lack original documents or even first-generation copies for any book of the Bible as defined in anyone's canon.
Variants exist, too. Take the oldest extant copies we now have of a book like Isaiah. The oldest copies in this case are the Qumran scrolls circa first-century BCE/CE. These scrolls differ at many points from the later Masoretic text already standard as a source of translations. Multiple copies of Isaiah were discovered at Qumran and they do not agree at every point with each other, either.
You also have sources like the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made in the most recent years BCE and quoted by the first Christians. This translation, along with others from ancient times, is based on Hebrew originals earlier than those we now have. We thus have a window on how some earlier versions of the documents read. Some remarkable divergence exists betweeen the translatoins and any docments we now have. But ancient translations do agree with each other on some of these same points. This indicates that this does reflect content in the original documents rather than idiosyncracies of translation.
There's nothing 'esoteric' about taking this reality into account. Much of the information is supplied in the translators' forewards and notes in any reputable translation (NRSV, JPS, New Jerusalem Bible, NIV, etc). Further information may be found in the scholars' commentaries provided in standard academic study Bibles (Oxford UK, HarperCollins USA, JPS Torah Commentary).
The point being made is that one cannot naively equate the Scriptures one quotes with the original content penned by the original authors. The original content is not content you have.
For most literary purposes the documents we possess may be taken as a credible enough transmission of ancient ideas to allow us to proceed on a conditional basis. We don't possess the original manuscripts of the The Iliad, either, or the Tao Te Ching. Yet the versions of these books we have today clearly possess content of ancient origin and we may study them on that basis. At the same time, the search for more ancient sources for all these books continues.
Fundamentalists up the ante when they claim word-for-word inerrancy in an ancient text. Now even the smallest variants in wording between ancient sources raise serious questions about whether 'God's words' are being reliably preserved.
The reality of variant texts, along with the absence of original manuscripts, challenges the entire premise of inerrancy.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Lack of inerrancy in original manuscript.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 12:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 11:01 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2006 7:41 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 222 of 305 (395892)
04-18-2007 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rob
04-13-2007 9:08 AM


Re: physical reality and morality?
Rob:
Can you think of a truth that is absolute?
Truth itself.
.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 9:08 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2007 5:55 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 224 by Rob, posted 04-18-2007 8:16 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 225 of 305 (396095)
04-18-2007 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Rob
04-18-2007 8:16 PM


Reality
Rob: Can you think of a truth that is absolute?
Archer: Truth itself.
Rob: Be more specific...
That is specific. Your question has been answered.
reality only allows one ultimate answer.
Reality is the ultimate answer. Anything else is not real.
You pay insufficient attention to the necessity, Rob, of distinguishing between reality and our ideas of it. Your request for 'specifics' is a request for ideas about it. That's where you want to move the discussion.
To discuss ideas, though, is to leave the subject you introduced. You asked for an absolute. Ideas are not absolute.
A picture of reality you can carry around in your head is not the ultimate reality.
____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Rob, posted 04-18-2007 8:16 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Rob, posted 04-18-2007 11:06 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 232 of 305 (396623)
04-21-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Rob
04-20-2007 11:24 PM


Re: Reality
I'm ready for Rob to either make his 'morality' point once and for all--rationally and logically and self-consistently, showing all the math--or forever drop it.
He's been shown the problems. The paramount problem is that he wants to sacrifice reality and all inquiries into it on the altar of (his idea of) morality.
On what rational basis can anyone make such a demand? How can truth--reality--occupy an inferior position to anything else? Outside reality nothing is real. By definition.
As soon as you argue that something stands superior to truth, that thing--whatever you call it--can only be untruth. Unreality.
Clue for Rob: Beware thinking of reality as 'good for' something--as a useful tool for persuading others of an idea that is more important to you than what is real. As soon as you do that you abandon reality as a mooring for your mind. A dangerous place to be.
Listen to yourself. You are actually trying to shame people for being truth seekers. There is no Christian case to be made for such a supreme act of folly. On what basis do you do this?
You've been called on it in a manner that is patient, detailed, and fair. All you you've done in response is kick up sand. We're seeing the patented Rob defense mechanisms of avoidance and preachy rhetoric and name calling and basically just yelping like stuck pig.
Make a point, Rob, if you have one. Now is the time.
___

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Rob, posted 04-20-2007 11:24 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 12:08 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 252 of 305 (396729)
04-21-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rob
04-21-2007 12:08 PM


Re: Reality
Rob:
It's like this; you spoke of reality and truth in your last post as though it is inarguable and absolute.
It is absolute.
People do argue about reality, though. Some people even argue with it. (This course of action is not recommended.)
Where do you see it?
Reality does not depend on anyone seeing it in order to be real.
Every example you can give is relative.
What we as individuals see of reality is limited, and thus relative.
A picture of reality you can carry around in your head is not the ultimate reality.
The only place we can find an absolute is in the moral law.
That's where you see it. But what you see of reality is limited, and thus relative, as with anyone else.
That's why a bare assertion proves nothing. One could as easily say 'The only place we can find an absolute is in stinky tofu.' The idea has as much support.
To establish morality or stinky tofu as an absolute, you have to show how all other phenomena depend on morality or stinky tofu. Once you establish morality or stink tofu as an absolute, you are still faced with the problem that ideas about morals or stinky tofu differ. You then either have to allow for this, or demonstrate why your idea of morality or stinky tofu is absolute. To accomplish the latter, you need to show why your idea is not just another idea but... reality.
Oops. Little problem there. To establish the universal validity of your own beliefs you need to ground those ideas in reality. How are you going to do that while denying the absolute nature of reality itself?
Interesting problem. Glad it's not mine. Good luck solving it.
You've glorified and exalted the emperical (physical) world so high, that you have completely missed the fact that all things physical are relative.
Sorry, wrong number. Show me where I ever said the physical world is absolute, must less 'glorified' it.
Neither have I 'completely missed' its relativity. I have heard of Einstein.
I never said the physical world is absolute. I said reality is absolute.
Reality is the ultimate reality. Reality is the only thing that is real. This is true by definition.
You may as well acquire a taste for it.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 12:08 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Rob, posted 04-22-2007 1:32 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 253 of 305 (396734)
04-21-2007 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rob
04-21-2007 12:08 PM


Re: Reality
Rob:
Problem: The fact is... everyone dies. That is reality and that is life! What again is reality and life? It is death!
I understand why you dramatize the idea of death. To sell band uniforms it helps to find trouble in River City first.
But the math is incorrect.
Here is your equation:
reality and life = death
In effect, you've said:
4 + 2 = 2
This equation, though, is more sound:
2 + 2 = 4
life and death = reality
Life and death are two sides of one reality. Living things die. Dying things live.
Test the math against reality. I think you'll find it holds up.
Reality. It's what's for dinner.
______
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 12:08 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Rob, posted 04-22-2007 1:42 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 254 of 305 (396746)
04-21-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rob
04-21-2007 12:08 PM


Re: Reality
Rob:
you spoke of reality and truth in your last post as though it is inarguable and absolute. Where do you see it? Every example you can give is relative. The only place we can find an absolute is in the moral law.
On the contrary: to establish 'the moral law'--or stinky tofu or anything else--as an absolute you must first establish it as a reality.
The supremacy of reality is a given.
And how can morality take an inferior position [to reality]?
Because if it isn't real it's unreal. Unreal things are notoriously bad at being absolute.
No modern sci-fi can compete. Their all artificial copies of the reality.
Oh. So you DO think reality is absolute.
Well, well.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 12:08 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Rob, posted 04-22-2007 1:36 AM Archer Opteryx has replied
 Message 259 by Rob, posted 04-22-2007 1:56 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 261 of 305 (396795)
04-22-2007 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Rob
04-22-2007 1:36 AM


Re: Reality
Morality is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Very good. You say we're not on the same map, Rob, but I think we're doing fine.
Here are some more for you.

Stinky tofu is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Life is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Death is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Science is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Art is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Action is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Inaction is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Beauty is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Ugliness is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Elvis is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Elvis impersonators are part of reality. And reality is absolute.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Rob, posted 04-22-2007 1:36 AM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2007 12:48 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 262 of 305 (396802)
04-22-2007 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Rob
04-22-2007 1:56 AM


Re: Reality
Archer: Oh. So you DO think reality is absolute
Rob:
Yes... and that is why 'wrong' things like what happened at V. Tech are wrong.
That is why lying about facts is wrong. I'm not talking about ignorance. I am talking about a intentional falsehood. It is absolutely wrong.
And telling the truth, even at the expense of our own political expediency is absolutely good.
Can you question those examples logically?
Logically, yes. Your entire statement depends on equivocation. This is a fallacy.
'Wrong' can mean factually wrong (false, unreal, untrue) and morally wrong (cruel, dishonest, immoral).
You use the word both ways and take this equivocation as 'proving' somehow that reality and morality are synonymous terms.
I know you conflate the two meanings on purpose. Logically, though, you can't do this.
One reason why you can't is because it's begging the question to assume the conclusion in one's argument.
Another reason why you can't is because you recognize a distinction between these two meanings in the argument. This makes the argument self-contradictory.
You do this when you make an exception for ignorance. Falsehoods arising from ignorance, you allow, are not necessarily 'wrong' in moral terms.
This acknowledges a difference between factual wrong and moral wrong. The two are not the same.
_____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : concision.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Rob, posted 04-22-2007 1:56 AM Rob has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 264 of 305 (396821)
04-22-2007 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Rob
04-22-2007 1:42 AM


Re: Reality
Rob:
I presented the counterperspective as a more livable alternative to the weakness of the naturalist implications.
Of course. You were talking about pictures of reality.
You wanted to show everyone your picture of reality. You wanted to let them see how much prettier it is than some other picture. How much more 'liveable' it is (for you) than some other picture is (for you).
This is like showing everyone a crisp, shiny new postcard of Los Angeles and a frayed, battered old postcard of San Franscisco and on that basis declaring that living in Los Angeles is better than living in San Francisco.
No one can argue with a statement from Rob about where Rob would prefer to live. Rob is the expert on what Rob likes.
But it's another thing to start saying 'Because I, Rob, prefer living in Los Angeles to living in San Francisco, Los Angeles is the one right answer for everybody.' Now you treat Rob, and Rob's ideas, as the absolute. You mistake your picture of reality for reality itself.
It's well and good to share ideas about models of reality and state why you find one or the other more 'liveable.' None of this says anything about absolutes.
Reality is absolute. Pictures of it vary.
A picture of reality you can carry around inside your head is not the ultimate reality.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Rob, posted 04-22-2007 1:42 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Rob, posted 04-22-2007 10:46 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 266 of 305 (396824)
04-22-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Rob
04-22-2007 10:46 AM


Re: Reality
Rob in Message 257:
I presented the counterperspective as a more livable alternative
Rob in Message 265:
I never said anything about it being livable

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Rob, posted 04-22-2007 10:46 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Rob, posted 04-22-2007 11:04 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 269 of 305 (396835)
04-22-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Rob
04-22-2007 11:04 AM


Re: Reality
Rob:
the counterperpective takes into consideration, the other needs of the human soul, like the desire to live.
You assume the human desire to live is not considered in other perspectives. This is false.
A fair-minded hearing of other views besides yours will show this to be so.
I am not saying you will find other pictures to your liking. You will like what you will like and you will believe what you will believe. These may well turn out to be different things. I am only saying that the human desire to live is considered in other pictures besides your own. You do them a disservice when you say otherwise.
It's true that it is easier to sell a product when you can hold it next to a single Brand X and make that Brand X look as unappealing as possible. Evangelists know this. Evangelism has always been about making sales. But if you would be a person of integrity, leave salesmanship behind. Become a person interested in truth. Follow the truth wherever it leads. Let the product endorsements fall where they may.
You discredit yourself when you repeatedly step into the strawman fallacy--misrepresenting another view and treating that as Brand X. The exercise is anti-intellectual and anti-truth. Rejecting corrections to the picture from the people in the best position to know only highlights the unreality of it. It does nothing to help you make your case.
You have set two pictures against each other: (your idea of) faith against (your idea of) science.
Pictures that are blurry and distorted offer a poor basis for making comparisons. How good are yours? Not very. If we grant that Los Angeles is full of human souls filled with a desire to live, it does not follow that San Francisco isn't. Yet this is what you ask us to believe. Your comparison begins with a fallacy.
I submit that the world--reality--is big enough to accommodate both science and faith, just as it is big enough to accommodate multiple cities and many ways of living.
Postcards cannot do the same. A postcard is two-dimensional and flat. The view it offers is severely restricted. A postcard is not a city. It is not the world.
When your pictures of science and faith look incompatible, it's time not to jump to conclusions, but to ask what has been left out of the shot by the people who framed your pictures. It may be time to put the postcards in a drawer and do some travel. See real places. Meet the natives. Make better, more complete pictures for yourself out of your own richest experiences of the real thing.
Pictures show us things, hide things, bracket things. Some give us details, some panoramas. We can find them beautiful or ugly or boring or inspiring. We can prefer one to the other. We will gain a better perspective from a gallery than a single image. But in the final analysis pictures are limited. There is always that frame.
Reality is everything. Always.
_____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Rob, posted 04-22-2007 11:04 AM Rob has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 270 of 305 (396883)
04-23-2007 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by RAZD
04-22-2007 12:48 PM


Re: Reality
RAZD:
Not sure I agree with you here. These are subjective items and are different for different people. Isn't that just a perception of reality?
Sure. The subjective is also part of reality.
There are things that people perceive to be beautiful, ugly, moral, etc. and we can discuss these concepts and write books about them, but does that make the perception real? Doesn't that also make every myth, science fiction novel and dream real?
You're taking this into some advanced areas for some of our readers... but yes, novels and dreams are real.
The content is not factual. But Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a real novel and your dreams are real dreams. I can show you a copy of the novel and your dreaming can be monitored on instruments.
Novels and dreams are phenomena of our experience, as are earthquakes and Elvis impersonators. Yes?
___

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2007 12:48 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by RAZD, posted 04-27-2007 9:46 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 272 of 305 (397466)
04-26-2007 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by ikabod
04-24-2007 8:34 AM


Re: Reality
ikabod:
What is needed is a well equiped observer outside of reality
Anything outside of reality is not real.
____

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by ikabod, posted 04-24-2007 8:34 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by ikabod, posted 04-26-2007 7:41 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3588 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 274 of 305 (397500)
04-26-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by ikabod
04-26-2007 7:41 AM


Re: Reality
ikabod:
i agree if reality is everything there is ,then i can not see of any way to find such an observer . Even any god/gods would be part of reality .
Sure. My point exactly.
We with our very limited perceptive abilities have no hope of "seeing" what reality . (let alone what shade of blue it is )
I agree.
Except that reality can't be any shade of blue because that would require light from outside reality to hit it so it can reflect the blue part of the spectrum and absorb the other colours. But if the light is outside reality it can't be real so there's no light to...
Aw, skip it.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by ikabod, posted 04-26-2007 7:41 AM ikabod has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024