12 Nov 09
I'm of the understanding that some things are universal and that some things are composite,(ie. made up of putting some universal things together).
For example the colour blue could be said to be universal whereas the colour green is made of combining blue and yellow.
I'm wondering if anyone else has gone down this line of reasoning(?)
Like is 'truth' universal? Or 'Mind'?
Before I get ahead of myself I would like to know what the panel thinks. Cheers🙂
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelYour example is flawed, green is a colour of a particular wavelength and not made up of any composition of things.
I'm of the understanding that some things are universal and that some things are composite,(ie. made up of putting some universal things together).
For example the colour blue could be said to be universal whereas the colour green is made of combining blue and yellow.
I'm wondering if anyone else has gone down this line of reasoning(?)
Like is 't ...[text shortened]... ind'?
Before I get ahead of myself I would like to know what the panel thinks. Cheers🙂
I think you need to clarify what you mean by universal, do you mean something that pervades everything, something that is present everywhere, something that has the same qualities in every situation, something that exists eternally? As it stands now there's nothing I can say about your approach to truth/mind as I do not understand your interpretation of 'universal'.
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelyou know Karoly i was thinking about this yesterday. take chess for example, we are told that we are to be objective at all times, to look for the objectively best move etc. however it is clear to me that if there is truth in chess it results as a consequence of the 'conversation', between the two players, the composite as you put it. Before this how can one state that 1.e4 is objectively better than 1.d4, it cannot be the case, for many prefer a more manoeuvring and positional approach and fair badly playing 1.e4, ex world champion Vladimir Kramnik for example. therfore it is only as the result of the melee, the interaction of the pieces that 'truth', may be established, at least that what me thinks.
I'm of the understanding that some things are universal and that some things are composite,(ie. made up of putting some universal things together).
For example the colour blue could be said to be universal whereas the colour green is made of combining blue and yellow.
I'm wondering if anyone else has gone down this line of reasoning(?)
Like is 't ...[text shortened]... ind'?
Before I get ahead of myself I would like to know what the panel thinks. Cheers🙂
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelIn RGB additive color model, green is a primary color (along with red and blue). Yellow is made by combining green and red. Blue and yellow only combine to make green in the subtractive CMYK color model. So much for universals.
I'm of the understanding that some things are universal and that some things are composite,(ie. made up of putting some universal things together).
For example the colour blue could be said to be universal whereas the colour green is made of combining blue and yellow.
I'm wondering if anyone else has gone down this line of reasoning(?)
Like is 't ...[text shortened]... ind'?
Before I get ahead of myself I would like to know what the panel thinks. Cheers🙂
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by StarrmanOk lets start with eternal. Is there "stuff" that is not subject to entropy and therefore existing forever?(I think 'stuff' is the wrong word here)
Your example is flawed, green is a colour of a particular wavelength and not made up of any composition of things.
I think you need to clarify what you mean by universal, do you mean something that pervades everything, something that is present everywhere, something that has the same qualities in every situation, something that exists eternally? As it ...[text shortened]... about your approach to truth/mind as I do not understand your interpretation of 'universal'.
How about light?
12 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFolowing on from from my point above, if something is eternal then it is outside the realms of time. So it would have a different perspective on your chess game. I'm not saying what you postulated isn't right , I'm contending that both views could be right.
you know Karoly i was thinking about this yesterday. take chess for example, we are told that we are to be objective at all times, to look for the objectively best move etc. however it is clear to me that if there is truth in chess it results as a consequence of the 'conversation', between the two players, the composite as you put it. Before this ...[text shortened]... he interaction of the pieces that 'truth', may be established, at least that what me thinks.
Like what is 'infinity'? There is no such thing right. An infinite amount of anything could only exist outside time/space...
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by rwingettSo when Bhuddists and others talk about a 'universal Mind', you are saying there is no such thing? Or is it that you can't prove it?
In RGB additive color model, green is a primary color (along with red and blue). Yellow is made by combining green and red. Blue and yellow only combine to make green in the subtractive CMYK color model. So much for universals.
12 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczelI am making no claim as to what Buddhists may or may not be saying. My main objection was with your equating CMYK primaries as being 'universal' and the secondary colors (such as green) as being somehow contingent. Clearly their alleged universality does not extend into the RGB color space, where green is a primary color. My secondary point was to hint that (based on this example) perhaps your perceived "universals" may not actually be universals at all.
So when Bhuddists and others talk about a 'universal Mind', you are saying there is no such thing? Or is it that you can't prove it?
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by rwingettIts just that I thought "so much for universals(or universalities?)" was an indication that you thought there was no such thing.
I am making no claim as to what Buddhists may or may not be saying. My main objection was with your equating CMYK primaries as being 'universal' and the secondary colors (such as green) as being somehow contingent. Clearly their alleged universality does not extend into the RGB color space, where green is a primary color. My secondary point was to hint that ...[text shortened]... on this example) perhaps your perceived "universals" may not actually be universals at all.
Do you personally believe there is different kinds of light? 'Universal light' and light that has an end?(i do)
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelI'm afraid I don't know enough about light to comment. I know there is 'Miller Lite', though. My experience is that it always comes to an end.
Its just that I thought "so much for universals(or universalities?)" was an indication that you thought there was no such thing.
Do you personally believe there is different kinds of light? 'Universal light' and light that has an end?(i do)
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by rwingettWell I once experienced a 'light' that seemed to 'burn' right through me. It was very dazzling and blinding and I could only bear it for a few seconds. Now I'm not sure if that was eternal or not but it didn't seem like any other type of discrete light scource. Like I said it seemed to shine right through me...(words fail but I'm trying🙂 )
I'm afraid I don't know enough about light to comment. I know there is 'Miller Lite', though. My experience is that it always comes to an end.
13 Nov 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelI'd say good and evil are universals; right and wrong, that sort of thing. Past that, I'd have a tough time defining anything as universal.
I'm of the understanding that some things are universal and that some things are composite,(ie. made up of putting some universal things together).
For example the colour blue could be said to be universal whereas the colour green is made of combining blue and yellow.
I'm wondering if anyone else has gone down this line of reasoning(?)
Like is 't ...[text shortened]... ind'?
Before I get ahead of myself I would like to know what the panel thinks. Cheers🙂
13 Nov 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydGood and evil...now you are getting into muddy water. Care to elaborate a little? BTW-I do essentially agree with you-its just that not everyone seems to think this way.
I'd say good and evil are universals; right and wrong, that sort of thing. Past that, I'd have a tough time defining anything as universal.
I remember the famous(ish) line in the movie K-pax where Kevin Spacey said "every being in the universe knows the difference between right and wrong".
Hmmm. Strong words. But again, b4 I get ahead of myself....
16 Nov 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelI don't think so--every time I elaborate on the universality of good and evil at the local Socrates Cafe meetings, some smartass throws up Kant, or Ree, or some other philosopher I haven't studied in 30 years😉
Good and evil...now you are getting into muddy water. Care to elaborate a little? BTW-I do essentially agree with you-its just that not everyone seems to think this way.
I remember the famous(ish) line in the movie K-pax where Kevin Spacey said "every being in the universe knows the difference between right and wrong".
Hmmm. Strong words. But again, b4 I get ahead of myself....
I'm sure there are plenty of good arguments against absolutism and in favor of relativism. In hard reality however, I just don't buy them. It is always evil to do some things. It is always good to do some things. In between things (abortion, gambling, euthanasia, rap music) we can debate.
17 Nov 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydNice. Probaly doesn't matter if you haven't studied it in 30 years-not to me anyway..
I don't think so--every time I elaborate on the universality of good and evil at the local Socrates Cafe meetings, some smartass throws up Kant, or Ree, or some other philosopher I haven't studied in 30 years😉
I'm sure there are plenty of good arguments against absolutism and in favor of relativism. In hard reality however, I just don't buy them. It ...[text shortened]... o some things. In between things (abortion, gambling, euthanasia, rap music) we can debate.
So some things are always good. Some things are always evil, And some things are always relative. Right? (sounds like you've got it covered ... )
Rap music🙂 (never judge music by its genre-unless you want to)