Time Upside Down

Mastriani · Post by **Mastriani** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:57 am

Some, (minority percentage), can yes, but the largest majority who consistently quote "absolute truth" are ludicrously deluded by their own perceptions.

Again, broadbrush generalities do not fit well.

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:11 pm

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:48 pm

Mastriani wrote: Absolutely excellent post Bgood. Well done.

That was a perspective I had not the vision to entertain. Absolutes as abstractions. The Creator being an absolute, also an abstraction. Completely escaped my line of thought.
I never understood infinity to be an absolute because of it's held position as a theoretical, but nevertheless, I accept your definition. (Besides, I am a wretch with math, so likelihood is I would be in error anyways ... LOL)
One further inquiry: I accept your definition that absolutes are used for logical comparatives by the mind for testing subjectives. But then again, does that not make the absolute subjective based upon individual perceptions and adroitness of logic?

This is true, but only in the understanding of the absolutes, the actual abstract idea exists outside of the individual.

Mastriani · Post by **Mastriani** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:27 am

I disagree on that point.

Abstracts are conceptual, true, but within the context of mind, abstracts are as much within as they are without. How else do they exist if the watcher is not present to entertain the abstract?

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:33 am

Mastriani wrote:I disagree on that point.

Abstracts are conceptual, true, but within the context of mind, abstracts are as much within as they are without. How else do they exist if the watcher is not present to entertain the abstract?

Consider it a trancendental thought. An idea shared by many individuals constantly being reinforced and defined by others.

Like a wave does not belong to a single water molecule, an abstract idea does not belong to an individual.

Mastriani · Post by **Mastriani** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:50 am

LOL.... well done.

Perhaps I should call my friend Bgood by a new name?

Sir Kierkegard perhaps?

I digress, you win the day, quite handily, out of the box at that.

Mastriani · Post by **Mastriani** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:35 pm

Jbuza wrote:
Mastriani wrote:Some, (minority percentage), can yes, but the largest majority who consistently quote "absolute truth" are ludicrously deluded by their own perceptions.

Again, broadbrush generalities do not fit well.
How do you think one finds the actual truth?

I apologize for not answering this earlier Mr. Jbuza. Very provocative and stirring question. But I have not the answer you require.

For myself, and therefore only my methodology, I am a proponent of consistent study, health(for longevity), meditation(prayer) and active observation of the world of natural order laid out before me.

Your methodology, if you have one, will most likely differ greatly. I think what is important, my opinion only, is not so much whether or not we agree/disagree, do like/unlike things, that is important.

It is the journey for truth that matters, and at the end of physicality, if we have both worked hard enough, and had enough faith, our paths will converge at a single point of light, and we will both know that we knew nothing and the journey was all we had. That is the summation of my perspective.

Evidence for God from Science

Time Upside Down

Re: Eureka!!! Thought outside the vacuum