It was just to help convey the idea that a situation of a subject observing an object itself becomes an object of observation. I should have said "incidentally, described by O2 = S -> O". Good catch though
But wouldn't "the standpoint of actuality" also be a subject observing the absolute? If the standpoint of actuality were not included in the absolute, then the absolute wouldn't be absolute. Moreover, the standpoint of actuality would have to be posited in some way in order to then discern some aspect of the absolute, where the positing is done by humans, and then what's observed by the standpoint of actuality would only be in terms of how actuality was constructed.First thought: the statement, “[absolute truth] cannot be both observed and absolute at the same time” I take to be true only from the perspective of the subjects (assuming human subjects), not—or not necessarily—from the standpoint of actuality.
When I think about the Big Bang, I imagine myself as a virtual point outside the universe watching it expand, but then I realize it doesn't make sense to do that. What does it mean to look at something objectively when what it means "to look" is only defined inside the thing I'm looking at? What does it mean to look at the universe from the outside when "looking" only applies within the universe? What does it mean to even BE outside the universe?
I think what exists is entirely dependent upon what kind of a "you" you are. The object doesn't determine what the subject sees, but the relationship between both determine what is observed and what is observed only exists in that specific situation.
Me + the world = one specific reality.
You + the world = one specific reality.
If you change, then reality changes and what exists in relation to you changes.
IOW, reality isn't an observerless objective situation, but the relationship between some subject and some object. Reality isn't the subject nor the object, but the relationship. And the how the subject is made is just as relevant to what's real as how the object is made. It seems therefore that there is no absolute... or that any concept of "reality" or "existence" couldn't exist outside of a situation where there is a subject and an object.
James posited that which has no affect, does not exist. Therefore what exists depends on what avenues to be affected something has. A corollary is that the absolute totality of everything that exists therefore cannot itself exist because there is nothing outside of everything to be affected by, so the totality doesn't exist, since it has no affect
I guess it doesn't mean that the absolute can't exist because we can infer that it does (I mean, it has to, right? Otherwise it's an infinite regress of subject observing object), so if it means anything, it must mean that the absolute can never be an object beheld by anything within the absolute and there is nothing outside the absolute to be the subject. Or maybe there is some way that the absolute doesn't exist and our inference is wrong. Either way, the absolute can never be perceived as an absolute from any frame of reference since any frame of reference will contain its own biases that taint the data.
I see no reason why T could not actually fail to be observed yet be absolute at the same time outside of apprehension.
What does it mean to observe? It means to interact with, right? Electrons observe other charged particles via the electromagnetic force. Planets observe stars via gravity. We observe through our senses which ultimately are supported by the 4 fundamental forces which only apply within this particular universe. What if the absolute is more than what can be affected by the 4 forces? Even if we could extend our universe outside the universe to make an observation, there is still no guarantee that what we observe would be accurate and absolute when based on what seems to be a "mere" 4 forces.
For example, if we were a simulation in a computer, what evidence on the inside of the simulation would illustrate to us what the computer running the simulation looks like? Even if we could extend the simulated world to encapsulate the world running the simulation, what we see would still only be in terms of what the simulation was equipped to display. There is no way to know whether the simulated world is in any way indicative of the real world.
In fact, that we’re able to sense the propriety or logic of an absolute suggests to me that this reality is available just on the basis of it being apprehended information.
But it could only be apprehended via the lens we're given to apprehend it and there are two problems with this: the lens is bestowed by the thing under investigation and the investigators are also products of the object. It's as if we're trying to use light to illuminate light so we can look at it.
Yes, I agree.I hold that anything the mind is able to apprehend has reality of some sort. A unicorn is a construct taken from certain aspects of really existing things: horse and horn from the material, magical powers conveyed from and as a feature of the spiritual realm, where things like miracles would be spiritual realities that occasionally “pop through” into the material sphere or within grasp of sensory experience. Such experiences seem to matter-grounded human minds like magic, so it seems natural that we shape the nearly unseen spiritual into mysterious magical happenings in our spatiotemporal reality and apply them to our fictions.
But true/false and white/black only have meaning within this universe. They're like the rules of a game we're currently immersed in and they may not apply to another game or outside the game (if there is such a thing). What does it mean to be fragmentally falsified if there is nothing inherently true?But to the matter of why (assuming all S->O situations are cases of humans engaged in perception of some set of circumstances) we aren’t able to unite with T [except on a very distant or diminutive sense, this I think is adequately explained by the idea that human essence is fragmentally falsified. This state of falsification is exemplified in the Bible in Deut 5:23-26 and other places, where the fear of hearing God’s voice is a metaphor for the severe resistance between absolute Truth and falsity in human spirit. Falsification acts as a ‘darkening agent’ of the mind by way of the spirit [essence]. It creates ignorance of, dumbs us down, to prescriptive matters. Think of the old time newspaper print where shades of gray were created by admixtures of white and black dots. Imagine the human soul similarly salt-and-peppered with white (true) and black (false) informational elements. (Essence and universals aren’t easily found in time and space, [though easier if you accept tropes] but like matter, essence and attributes reveal themselves in the mind as information, and information carries meaning. If something has meaning, it has existence of some sort imo.)
Krishnamurti said being well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society is no measure of health. Whatever situation you're adjusted to doesn't necessarily confer intrinsic health, but only that you happen to jibe well in that particular situation.
Or like Warren Buffett who said if he had been born in some other time, he would be some animal's lunch and that the fact that he is successful in this place and time is purely a matter of luck.... that things just happened to work out that way: that his construction and his environment happened to be in such harmony. Buffett could say that 1000 years ago, he would have been fragmentally falsified for that particular environment.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by fragmentally falsified?
Tell Brad Pitt he's short and ugly and I doubt he'd care Whether something is good or bad depends on how you look at it.If we use a ‘thing (A)-attribute (B)’ model of reality, truth is a “value condition” of existence as a fundamental feature of both A and B. B seems to play out in human perception naturally: ought, ought not, good, evil, etc. As creative beings, we assign our own truth to certain areas of life—laws, standards, rules, etc.—all of which are impermanent and mutable. Material truths have little power to affect intellect. Tell someone 6+6=8 and little if any offense occurs. Tell the same person she’s fat and ugly and observe a more robust set of reactions. Prescriptive truth is the powerful one.
To my thinking, saying absolute truth is outside human perception and common existence is just acknowledgement that God mercifully places Himself [for the most part, not entirely] out of sight.
Couldn't the fact that absolute truth cannot be known also be evidence that the knower and the known are the same thing? On one hand, we could posit that God hides himself out of mercy for us or, on the other hand, we could posit that all things are God and we'll therefore accomplish the same goal of preventing God from ever being an object of knowledge, because the object cannot be its own subject and therefore God could never be an object of his own knowledge. If both are equally valid, why postulate that God hides himself out of mercy instead of choosing the other alternative?
This is a lot like the brain teaser about the 10 guys sitting in a circle with different colored hats. The only hat that cannot be seen is the hat on one's own head, so if we ask why God can never be an object of knowledge, it reminds me of that type of problem where God cannot be an object of his own knowledge and since we also can't have an idea of God, then it might not mean that God is too complex to be understood, but the knower and the known are the same thing.Absolute truth is a roaring fire to the kindling of falsity, which is one of the most commonly taught metaphoric principles in the OT. This I think answers in some sense at least your last question:Also, if it's true that absolute truth cannot be known, what would that fact suggest about the knower in relation to that unknowable absolute?
I also wanted your take on this line of thought (it should be cued):
Here is the same argument by Bertrand Russell
If murder is wrong because God says it's wrong, then morality is arbitrary (depends who you ask; in this case, it's God's opinion).
If murder is wrong because of the way God is put together (his nature), then it's some force beyond God that dictates morality, so we don't need God for it to be true.
My problem here is that if morality is independent of God, then how do we have the power to be immoral? If God cannot be immoral, then how can we? Breaking a law of morality would be like breaking the law of gravity. But if morality were simply God's opinion, then perhaps we could be in disagreement with him.