Questions for a basis

If nothing is universally true then all we have is a reference point. What is this reference point? why it must be the observer. What is the observer? Classically its a series or bundle of information, DNA, molecules, atoms collecting in an assmued manner to hold together an item that this or others perceive as individual, linked, yet somehow seperate to the environment that is not it.

What keeps this assumed manner? Well the most detailed thing we have, in essence is DNA, but this DNA is itself composed of finer material..so right down we come to pure energy. But energy and mass are equivalent-we know this? yes..but what holds this energy to form what we perceive as mass? Again it must be information..a law if you like. But all see differently so there are no universal laws?

What causes things to assume character. Two things:

1. Perception or perspective...both similar.
2. Information, intelligence, law, design.

But I ask if the phrase goes:

I think therefore I am

and NOT

I am therefore I think

Then 1 reduces into 2. Perhaps, we are all part of a oneness, all collectively forming ideas which are perceived outwardly but come from a kind of essence, a kind of law?

Something to think on

It's taken you a while but youve finally gotten yes... It's called nihilism.

I'm gathering this thread is simply reinterating that reality is a perception. Being part of a 'oneness' would negate the ideaology of relativism. To state that there is no universal absolutes yet then state that a 'oneness' exists simutaneously is a contradictory thought. That is simply an empty abstraction.

Its not really called nihilism. A nihilist who may state that reality forms nothingness would not then state in a 'oneness' concept.

'It was the worst of times; it was the best of times' Dickens

Is this phrase not contradctory; nonetheless is it true?

As for the idea of relativism an observer will hold relativism if they classiy themeselves as an observer within or sperate to the environment. That does not mean that reality is somehow not an absolute law, but that the idea of a law itself misunderstood; do all laws of physics work at a time period a few hundred nanaoseconds near the big bang?

Imagine a tangible whole which you might call an equation whose answer is always the same but where the constitution of its parts are always different.

For the nihilist statement the problem here is that we exist don't we tehrefore there is meaning at least for now so I reject the notion. However, whilst the meaning of this life might be something like acceptance, the meaning of al life, I believe is a daft statement. There is meaning within life but not meaning about life (when here used as a word to describe all that was, is will be).

"To state that there is no universal absolutes yet then state that a 'oneness' exists simutaneously is a contradictory thought." There are no absolutes within the mind. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that we will never know them.

Heyjme:

quote:

---

Is this phrase not contradctory; nonetheless is it true?

---

It is contradictory. Yet I ask, how could it be perceived as 'true' within an individual? Perhaps the statement should be reworded to state- it was the worst of times; it however was beneficial.

quote:

---

As for the idea of relativism an observer will hold relativism if they classiy themeselves as an observer within or sperate to the environment. That does not mean that reality is somehow not an absolute law, but that the idea of a law itself misunderstood; do all laws of physics work at a time period a few hundred nanaoseconds near the big bang?

---

All beliefs are provisional. To deny this is to accept that absolute universal laws exist. Even though myself may accept for example- the laws of physics, I would never claim this as universal. A relativist would never claim universal absolutes, because they are aware that there is productive differences, and that our reality only exists within the individual mind. Perception is all that we got.

quote:

---

Imagine a tangible whole which you might call an equation whose answer is always the same but where the constitution of its parts are always different.

---

Known as the Gestalt theory. Yet I am trying to think what this has got to do with this thread.



Ancient:

quote:

---

There are no absolutes within the mind. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that we will never know them.

---

I disagree. As a relativist, I would say that absolutes exist, yet they are only individually constricted to the mind. This means absolutes are only individual not universal. Anything outside our reality can't exist if it can't be perceived by the individual mind. This is also to say that universal absolutes are merely an empty abstraction because perception/reality differs between individuals.

Summit:

quote:

---

All beliefs are provisional. To deny this is to accept that absolute universal laws exist. Even though myself may accept for example- the laws of physics, I would never claim this as universal. A relativist would never claim universal absolutes, because they are aware that there is productive differences, and that our reality only exists within the individual mind. Perception is all that we got.


quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Imagine a tangible whole which you might call an equation whose answer is always the same but where the constitution of its parts are always different.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------


Known as the Gestalt theory. Yet I am trying to think what this has got to do with this thread.

---

This is true. What I'm trying to say is that everything, in its entirity as one, the whole lot, every belief, every conceiavble thing and all infinity. Is this one whole not a law because the law would be '1'?

quote:

---

everything, in its entirity as one, the whole lot, every belief, every conceiavble thing and all infinity. Is this one whole not a law because the law would be '1'?

---

The term 'law' corresponds to universal absolutes. To me, there is no 'one' law. Of course this is open to perception. I'm still unsure in the relevence of Gestalt Theory to this thread though.

" Anything outside our reality can't exist if it can't be perceived by the individual mind." I don't understand how you can believe something like that. As individual consciousnesses we are bound by perameters and therefore we can only percieve so much of the absolute universe. There has to be a true existence for us to percieve anything, even though what we percieve is relative.

Perceptual reality in biological organisms operates via perception. Our surroundings (or our reality) is our stimulis, for which individuals exist within. Existence is only a concious perception.