Skepticism and The Normal

[sinnikal]

What is soley technique?
Is it related to metamorphic technique, can you supply any refrences?
With one bound he found himself at
Theydon Bois

 

[WWHP]

Ahh, well then your loss then. You had an oppurtunity to garnish more understanding about who I am by listening to work that I am proud of. I know y ou are concerned about me because you have already hopped all over the internet finding evidence of who I am in your mind.

 

[Mojo]

It is soley technique that many often assume is what MAKES great musicianship.

Well, you're the one who says (in the context of the statement that "Miles Davis is the best trumpet player of all time") he can objectively assess musicians by reference to tone, pitch and technique. The first two are aspects of the third, by the way.

Take Steely Dan for example (sticks out tongue)

You can keep 'em.

 

[Mojo]

Ahh, well then your loss then. You had an oppurtunity to garnish more understanding about who I am by listening to work that I am proud of.

I've already seen quite enough of work that you're proud of.

I know y ou are concerned about me because you have already hopped all over the internet finding evidence of who I am in your mind.

Well, I did a couple of Google searches. What I was looking for (and found) was evidence of who you are outside of my mind. That's the point of looking for evidence: it means that we're not forced to rely entirely on assumptions.

 

[WWHP]

I introduce the conflict of idea regarding 'beauty' as an example of bivalent thinking producing irrationality by failing to include the third value.

The third value gives us the truth that beauty is BOTH in the eye of the beholder, and a result and existance of objective reality.

Naturally, you bivalent thinkers went to try and choose one over the other, producing philosophically contradictory truths relative to your claim as pragmatists and critical thinkers. It shows that at the heart of your arguments lay pure mysticism.


In Bivalent Thinking, when given the option of two choices, it will always fail by choosing one over the other. Any truth that could be considered both is thus lost to them.

Since our meta environment, universe, is an example of an object that is not an object, a environment where all contradictions co exist peacefully, then bivalent thinkers will never be able to map universe without producing contradictions that it cannot account for.


BF

 

[WWHP]

I've already seen quite enough of work that you're proud of.

ahhh, so you have seen the google video of my son? Aint he the most precious thing?

 

[Mojo]

I introduce the conflict of idea regarding 'beauty' as an example of bivalent thinking producing irrationality by failing to include the third value.

The third value gives us the truth that beauty is BOTH in the eye of the beholder, and a result and existance of objective reality.

Please provide a definition of beauty that allows it to be measured objectively.

 

[karener]

The third value gives us the truth that beauty is BOTH in the eye of the beholder, and a result and existance of objective reality.

BF

So you now seem to be saying that your third value (mystery) = truth?

I have to say that my husband also thinks Angelina Jolie is weird-looking and not beautiful. His OPINION is just as valid as your OPINION that she is beautiful.

But, I don't see how you are saying that bivalent logic isn't working here. For this subjective statement, your value = true; my husband's value = false. There is no mystery.

 

[wwitzke]

So you now seem to be saying that your third value (mystery) = truth?

I have to say that my husband also thinks Angelina Jolie is weird-looking and not beautiful. His OPINION is just as valid as your OPINION that she is beautiful.

But, I don't see how you are saying that bivalent logic isn't working here. For this subjective statement, your value = true; my husband's value = false. There is no mystery.

Welcome to the forum karener

 

[WWHP]

Please provide a definition of beauty that allows it to be measured objectively.

Objective Beauty can be defined as 'symmetry', Beauty is harmonious and balanced.

We have a shared tendency to find symmetry beautiful. Women, or men, with naturally symmetrical features are always considered beautiful to a significant number of people.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." (Albert Einstein)


Notice the irony, einstein defines the 'mysterious' as beautiful. The mysterious is the third value, and it is the third value which relates the beauty is both objectively and subjectively defined, it is both objective, and subjective, at once, and therefore beautifully mysterious and elusive, especially to bivalent thinkers (old brains)

Here are some links which deal with objective constants in subjective points of view.

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1291

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_59a.html

http://www.mirrorofnature.org/BBookProIntro.htm

OS 012 is also beautiful, it holds symmetry perfectly, and elegantly. Anyone who says this is not so, is merely lying, to others or to themselves.

The idea of world peace is also a beautiful idea. the ideal for rational win win discussions is also beautiful. Ideals for honesty, integrity, order, harmony, expression, art, and science are also beautiful.

I have stated over and over my ideals regarding global problem solving, pure 'win win'. Those are beautiful ideas, and you all are unable to frame them other than in ugliness and spite, vitriol and contempt, and indeed, for all of you, beauty is thus in the eye of the beholder, eh?

Any idea which proposes solutions or frameworks to achieve win win should be greeted by the rational mind and embraced, seeking to refine it, apply it, test it, refine it again. Not degrade it, put it in contempt, for if you do so, what does that tell us about your world view, and what does that say about your own sense of beauty?

Thus, in the bivalent logic world, beauty becomes ugly, war becomes peace, irrational becomes rational.

Not once do you consider that your reaction to a win win suggestion completly defines your values in the world, and thus, your entire argument is already founded on an irrational and disgusting value, whose sole essence is resignation.

[EDIT: Resignation is not considered to be beautiful, and thus any philosophy which was based on resignation could not be considered a beautiful philosophy.]


BF

 

[WWHP]

So you now seem to be saying that your third value (mystery) = truth?

no, mystery is mystery, true is true. it is true that there is mystery, and thus mystery is a value for truth.

They recapitulate.

I have to say that my husband also thinks Angelina Jolie is weird-looking and not beautiful. His OPINION is just as valid as your OPINION that she is beautiful.

Then let's hear his objective arguments to her weirdness, and let's not assume your husband is saying she looks wierd so as not to get his wife jealous, that would be unfathomable.

But, I don't see how you are saying that bivalent logic isn't working here. For this subjective statement, your value = true; my husband's value = false. There is no mystery.

agreed, the value that beauty is both objective and subjective is indeed true, and your husband's statement that AJ is weird looking is indeed false.


BF

 

[WWHP]

Consider then if beauty is HARMONY and SYMMETRY, then what is the meta value of beauty when it is considered to be BOTH OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE, a true harmony?

 

[WWHP]

Is there anyone here who is willing to argue that beauty is not both objective and subjective?

If not, then we can carry on with the rest of the discussion, for another argument against the third value has just poofed into nothingness, as is consistant with every argument thus far.

Unless zaay, flim, mojo or wayne are willing to argue that beauty is not both objective and subjective, but rather it is only subjective, or only objective.

Arguments? anyone?

 

[karener]

Thanks wwitzke! I have to say that I found the game the rest of you are playing quite interesting.

Bubblefish, there are an awful lot of symmetric things in the world that are not considered beautiful.

But, your own answer provides the subjective argument - you say that "Women, or men, with naturally symmetrical features are always considered beautiful to a significant number of people."

Doesn't the word "considered" make this subjective?

I also agree that the idea of world peace is a beautiful idea. While I admit to skimming a lot of the discussion, I don't remember seeing anyone argue that it wasn't. Or that win-win solutions aren't a good idea. But what does that have to do with logic?

I'm not even sure that anyone has argued for a strictly bivalent system of logic - quite a few people of suggested much more complicated systems which specifically include known and unknown, subjective and objective and then true and false. Bubblefish, you seem to be the one claiming that others are framing everything into bivalent logic which you then claim is ugly and spiteful.

 

[WWHP]

my arguments are still advancing past all critical arguments thus far, with the exception of wayne's, which I simply have not attended to yet.

I can predict that they will most likely contain the same irrational errors as the others, or i will be honestly refuted.


and if so, then I will accept my delusion on this forum at wayne's hands.....


Not.

 

[pv+]

Beauty is harmonious and balanced

A universal law according to whom?

 

[WWHP]

Thanks wwitzke! I have to say that I found the game the rest of you are playing quite interesting.

their game is but a subset of a higher game being played on this forum that defies their comprehension.

Bubblefish, there are an awful lot of symmetric things in the world that are not considered beautiful.

such as?

But, your own answer provides the subjective argument - you say that "Women, or men, with naturally symmetrical features are always considered beautiful to a significant number of people."

Doesn't the word "considered" make this subjective?

yes, it makes 'symmetry' to be subjectively considered to be beautiful, regardless if the inability or knowledge that what is found beautiful is symmetry.

I also agree that the idea of world peace is a beautiful idea.

Me too! Nice to have fellow company. Most people here are disgusted by the idea and are vehemently opposed to it

While I admit to skimming a lot of the discussion, I don't remember seeing anyone argue that it wasn't.

I have been defining the applications of a win win dialectic in the light of conflict resolution, and everyone here wants it to fail so they can be right about thier philosophy.

Instead, consider. When given a possibility, why not seek to strive it be what it wishes and make the corrections neccesary to achieve it's goals?

In over four years of this work, I have found that the most inflammatory idea one can introduce into an argument is the idea of world peace. Nothing could produce more violent reaction that this phrase.

So therefore I like to up the ante, and declare that there will be COMPLETE AND UTTER WORLD PEACE_once we have_WORD_peace.

Or that win-win solutions aren't a good idea. But what does that have to do with logic?

Because in ternary logic, a 'win win' is a logical outcome.

I'm not even sure that anyone has argued for a strictly bivalent system of logic - quite a few people of suggested much more complicated systems which specifically include known and unknown, subjective and objective and then true and false.

those are zaay's arguments, which are an intuited subset of bivalent logic, as in those logical bivalent pairings refute the third value in logic and nature.

Bubblefish, you seem to be the one claiming that others are framing everything into bivalent logic which you then claim is ugly and spiteful.

This entire discussion is outlined in my O/P, which is the bivalent arguments crumble into nothingness in light of the third value. This discussion is entirely about the value of three values as opposed to two values. If there was no disagreement, then this thread would not be 46 pages long of arguments to the contrary.

Also, OS 012 is a metalogic, or uses a metalogic that is consistant with reality, and the arguments here are suggesting that bivalent logic is the metalogical value, not ternary, and OS 012 should not be considered.

 

[pv+]

New Zealand rules allow drain routes to be followed.
Waterloo

 

[jimbob]

Is there anyone here who is willing to argue that beauty is not both objective and subjective?

If not, then we can carry on with the rest of the discussion, for another argument against the third value has just poofed into nothingness, as is consistant with every argument thus far.

Unless zaay, flim, mojo or wayne are willing to argue that beauty is not both objective and subjective, but rather it is only subjective, or only objective.

Arguments? anyone?

It is subjective, because people have different experiences of it.

"I have 56 chairs in my kitchen" is an objective statement.

The veracity or otherwise of this statement does not affect whether the statement is objective or not. Note the correct use of "affect" as opposed to "effect".

Features that make up beauty might be objectively defined, but the concept of beauty is puerly subjective.

Statements can be true or false or meaningless (amongst other things)

They can be subjective or objective.

There are four options : (the initials are obvious)


TO, FO
TS, FS

Only the person making the subjective statements can *definitely* assign TS or FS to a particular statement.

If I understand your nearly coherent posts BS123 is limited to TO, FS, and unknown. It also confuses true with objective and false with subjective. This gets you nowhere, talking of which:

Liverpool Lime Street

 

[WWHP]

Oh my god, ladies and gentlemen, we have evidence of transformation in behavior in this thread from OS 012!

My dear old friend PV has FINALLY asked a question instead of the numerous ad hom arguments regarding myself

A universal law according to whom?

Beauty is "the harmony of contrasts" (Whitehead 1933)

Objective beauty can be measured.For example, when men see a beautiful woman, their testosterone hormone level increases.

The delicate balance between the mathematical-objective and mystical-subjective leads to the complementary beauty of science and spirit.

http://www.mirrorofnature.org/BBookProIntro.htm