I agree. Short and Tall are necessarily relative because they are perceived qualities. There is no "Short" measurement. Likewise, there is no "Evil" measurement. We have to define it in the context of an action.
How do you know something without reference to something else?
Here's another question: What makes something, a "thing", desireable?
Lust(desirability) could be a product of many different things. Usually it is self gratification.
However, to find true happiness I would say you need to measure those things very carefully. Make sure it is not ignorance of it's neagatives and that you see this thing as it truly is. This would allow you to shed a lot of unnecessary desires to ficus on the ones that are truly significant.
As to my bias...I think I was actually asking how (if it is possible even) to know anything without having something different to reference it to.
Hm. If I understand this correctly, you're wondering whether you can really valuate something even if you don't understand every one of its contextual definitions?
I'm thinking about one of Einstein's illustrations of relative motion: the juggler on the shore, and the juggler on the riverboat. From the jugglers' points of view, the balls in motion are moving the same way. But of course they are not.
So: should the juggler care one way or the other, as long as he's got them all up in the air?
And I believe the point of our discussion is: YES, the juggler ought to care, because the boat might suddenly stop moving.
Not exactly, but I am not exactly sure if it will make a functional difference in the human condition.
Let us say everyone was short. Would the concept of tall ever occur to us? Most likely not, except in scifi. :)
So... I wonder what things are we missing in conception because it is not different from one of us to another...or what if you have something that we have no tangible different thing from which to make it relative?
Do we then not know the total truth of you? (Setting aside the inconsistant nature of humans)...
My view is that we are missing quite a bit in conception because it is not different from one of us to the other. My view is also, that we can't know the total truth of each other, all at once.
Which isn't to say we can't know more and more of each other over time. That notion is exactly what makes me more and more fascinated by, and committed to, my friendships. What more is there to this lovely person, that I don't already know?
I think your argument does make sense. My response is that for me, the necessity of striving is a given and a challenge to learn.
What are you thinking about, hon? What happened, that drives the question?
(The comment has been removed)
How do you know something without reference to something else?
Here's another question: What makes something, a "thing", desireable?
Reply
However, to find true happiness I would say you need to measure those things very carefully. Make sure it is not ignorance of it's neagatives and that you see this thing as it truly is. This would allow you to shed a lot of unnecessary desires to ficus on the ones that are truly significant.
As to my bias...I think I was actually asking how (if it is possible even) to know anything without having something different to reference it to.
I'ld love the answer to that.
Reply
Does it trouble you, if the answer is No?
Reply
Reply
For you to know something because it is different, you must have encountered what is different.
If you never do, you will never know that truth.
I hope there is a better way, but I don't *know* if there is.
Reply
Hm. If I understand this correctly, you're wondering whether you can really valuate something even if you don't understand every one of its contextual definitions?
I'm thinking about one of Einstein's illustrations of relative motion: the juggler on the shore, and the juggler on the riverboat. From the jugglers' points of view, the balls in motion are moving the same way. But of course they are not.
So: should the juggler care one way or the other, as long as he's got them all up in the air?
And I believe the point of our discussion is: YES, the juggler ought to care, because the boat might suddenly stop moving.
Is that your concern?
Reply
Let us say everyone was short. Would the concept of tall ever occur to us? Most likely not, except in scifi. :)
So... I wonder what things are we missing in conception because it is not different from one of us to another...or what if you have something that we have no tangible different thing from which to make it relative?
Do we then not know the total truth of you? (Setting aside the inconsistant nature of humans)...
Make any sense?
Reply
My view is that we are missing quite a bit in conception because it is not different from one of us to the other. My view is also, that we can't know the total truth of each other, all at once.
Which isn't to say we can't know more and more of each other over time. That notion is exactly what makes me more and more fascinated by, and committed to, my friendships. What more is there to this lovely person, that I don't already know?
I think your argument does make sense. My response is that for me, the necessity of striving is a given and a challenge to learn.
What are you thinking about, hon? What happened, that drives the question?
Reply
Leave a comment