|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 30, 2020 23:15:19 GMT
Interpretations are emergent from reality, reality is absolute given it exists as is, thus interpretations have an absolute existence. Given man is interpreter, man is the means from which interpretations emerge from reality thus necessitate man as the absolute means from which interpretations occur.
|
|
lorac
Full Member
Posts: 214
Likes: 141
|
Post by lorac on Dec 1, 2020 9:00:58 GMT
Surely interpretations given by man vary because of their individual interpretations. Then we get into a debate on whose interpretation is valid and was it interpreted correctly/justly/right. Yes man has to make the interpretation thus it exists but how it is interpreted is the question man has to answer.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 1, 2020 16:25:12 GMT
Surely interpretations given by man vary because of their individual interpretations. Then we get into a debate on whose interpretation is valid and was it interpreted correctly/justly/right. Yes man has to make the interpretation thus it exists but how it is interpreted is the question man has to answer. I am fascinated by the conversation between 9x and you, that is, by the fact that such misunderstandings can occur. I f I interpret you rightly, your mind suddenly started to think about various interpretations and the need to debate the issue about which interpretation is correct. On the other hand, 9x has nothing of this in his mind and, indeed focuses on man as the absolute means from which interpretations occur, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the interpretations. His standpoint is ontological; yours is epistemological. Anyway, you could engage in a logical conversation, if either of you explained what an INTERPRETATION is or gave at least one example of interpretation, for there are different KINDS of interpretation. Anyway, by "interpretation" I mean the making clear of something that is obscure to a human mind. So, Interpretation = Elucidation, which presupposes that an interpreter has an UNDERSTANDING of (or a mere OPINION about) what is obscure for another person. Thus, now, if you wish, you can start a debate between Understanding (or true knowledge) and Opinion (conjecture; guesswork). And, 9x, please try to avoid a word, like "absolute", in both your straightforward language and your metalanguage, so as to avoid the fallacy of equivocation.
|
|
lorac
Full Member
Posts: 214
Likes: 141
|
Post by lorac on Dec 1, 2020 18:18:22 GMT
Joustos, I cannot give you the answer as I am not educated as you are with the subject matter. I had to look up "ontological and epistemological". I wrote how I felt to 9x's post. What did fascinate me was your interpretation of my answer, you interpreted it correctly stating my thoughts were epistemological, a mere opinion and yes they were. You translated it as a misunderstanding when in fact for me it was not. I accepted and said "yes man has to make the interpretation" but took it one step further which is what I wanted to do. Is that clear now and not obscure.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Dec 1, 2020 20:03:10 GMT
Interpretations are emergent from reality, reality is absolute given it exists as is, thus interpretations have an absolute existence. Given man is interpreter, man is the means from which interpretations emerge from reality thus necessitate man as the absolute means from which interpretations occur. If we assume that absolute reality is outside man's subjectivity, then we can say that every man approaches reality with a different capacity to assimilate it. Nor only that but man also molds it according to the personal framework he has, which has been built as a result of previous engagements with outer realities. Man does not create reality but he can always paint it in away to suggest that it belongs to him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2020 16:31:42 GMT
Interpretation are made in the relation of a observer and a object of thought that exists. If this emerges from reality, so interpretation does.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 2, 2020 16:52:47 GMT
Interpretations are emergent from reality, reality is absolute given it exists as is, thus interpretations have an absolute existence. Given man is interpreter, man is the means from which interpretations emerge from reality thus necessitate man as the absolute means from which interpretations occur. If we assume that absolute reality is outside man's subjectivity, then we can say that every man approaches reality with a different capacity to assimilate it. Nor only that but man also molds it according to the personal framework he has, which has been built as a result of previous engagements with outer realities. Man does not create reality but he can always paint it in away to suggest that it belongs to him. Absolute reality cannot be limited to outside man's subjectivity given the interpretations man makes exist as defining man as part of that absolute reality thus necessitate a degree of absoluteness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2020 19:44:47 GMT
Complementing: there is no interpretation of a non-existent.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 3, 2020 4:22:09 GMT
Complementing: there is no interpretation of a non-existent. That is a negative interpretation thus an interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Dec 3, 2020 8:13:20 GMT
If we assume that absolute reality is outside man's subjectivity, then we can say that every man approaches reality with a different capacity to assimilate it. Nor only that but man also molds it according to the personal framework he has, which has been built as a result of previous engagements with outer realities. Man does not create reality but he can always paint it in away to suggest that it belongs to him. Absolute reality cannot be limited to outside man's subjectivity given the interpretations man makes exist as defining man as part of that absolute reality thus necessitate a degree of absoluteness. O I think reality exists without man's awareness of it. Man's consciousness is the pot he has to squeeze reality inside it, and the result is just a subjective version of reality.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 4, 2020 4:33:38 GMT
Absolute reality cannot be limited to outside man's subjectivity given the interpretations man makes exist as defining man as part of that absolute reality thus necessitate a degree of absoluteness. O I think reality exists without man's awareness of it. Man's consciousness is the pot he has to squeeze reality inside it, and the result is just a subjective version of reality. If all is composed of points and man's beginning perspective is grounded in a simple dot, then all consciousness is United to reality through the same source. Reality cannot be seperated from awareness.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 5, 2020 5:22:11 GMT
You are aware of less then 5% of reality around you because your 5 since faculties are limited and yet that unexperienced part of reality still exists Likewise you aren't aware of how your body is processing food and making ATP yet your body does it anyways.
Human Awareness is just a tiny slivered this reality that we think is the entire pie
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 6, 2020 4:11:27 GMT
Surely interpretations given by man vary because of their individual interpretations. Then we get into a debate on whose interpretation is valid and was it interpreted correctly/justly/right. Yes man has to make the interpretation thus it exists but how it is interpreted is the question man has to answer. To interpret interpretation is to relegate interpretation to a cycle, thus interpretation is a cycle and this cycle is definition. Interpretations are emergent loops.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 6, 2020 4:12:42 GMT
Surely interpretations given by man vary because of their individual interpretations. Then we get into a debate on whose interpretation is valid and was it interpreted correctly/justly/right. Yes man has to make the interpretation thus it exists but how it is interpreted is the question man has to answer. I am fascinated by the conversation between 9x and you, that is, by the fact that such misunderstandings can occur. I f I interpret you rightly, your mind suddenly started to think about various interpretations and the need to debate the issue about which interpretation is correct. On the other hand, 9x has nothing of this in his mind and, indeed focuses on man as the absolute means from which interpretations occur, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the interpretations. His standpoint is ontological; yours is epistemological. Anyway, you could engage in a logical conversation, if either of you explained what an INTERPRETATION is or gave at least one example of interpretation, for there are different KINDS of interpretation. Anyway, by "interpretation" I mean the making clear of something that is obscure to a human mind. So, Interpretation = Elucidation, which presupposes that an interpreter has an UNDERSTANDING of (or a mere OPINION about) what is obscure for another person. Thus, now, if you wish, you can start a debate between Understanding (or true knowledge) and Opinion (conjecture; guesswork). And, 9x, please try to avoid a word, like "absolute", in both your straightforward language and your metalanguage, so as to avoid the fallacy of equivocation.See above response to Lorac.
|
|
lorac
Full Member
Posts: 214
Likes: 141
|
Post by lorac on Dec 6, 2020 14:12:43 GMT
Surely interpretations given by man vary because of their individual interpretations. Then we get into a debate on whose interpretation is valid and was it interpreted correctly/justly/right. Yes man has to make the interpretation thus it exists but how it is interpreted is the question man has to answer. To interpret interpretation is to relegate interpretation to a cycle, thus interpretation is a cycle and this cycle is definition. Interpretations are emergent loops. OK I can understand the cycle and ending up as a definitions, are the loops created/emergents because of how they are interpreted?
|
|