Is There a Term?

Jump to Last Post 1-20 of 20 discussions (101 posts)

59
emrldphxposted 12 years ago
I am wondering if there is a term for this type of thinking:

That there is a duality in each of us, personal truth, and external truth. The physical world and science apply to external truth, things that can be shown directly to others, and are independent of self. Personal truth applies to belief in God, spirit, powers, or the lack of them.

I consider my external portion to be agnostic. I don't consider that it is possible to prove or disprove, or even prove or disprove the likelihood of God, spirit, or powers. On a scale from -100(doesn't exist) to 100(does exist), everything sits at 0 until evidence is gathered.

However, I don't consider the internal portion any less real. I say 'I believe' because it is convenient, but I consider my internal truths as real as any of my external truths.

Anyway, I'm struggling with terminology here... it seems a kind of agnostic-dualism, but unfortunately there are certain areas where my knowledge of terminology isn't what it once was. Religious-Agnostic dualism?

I appreciate any help.
reply report
1. 60
  kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  there is duality in everyone but not as you described..
  
  The two are polar opposites except that is not readily realized in the way life goes about in separating to clarify each...
  
  One acts as to deceive because it appears as the other while at the same time making the other look as themselves...
  
  but when they are clearly seen you will understand that both works to the same end...even though both retails their original attributes.
  reply report
2. 59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is wishful thinking.
  
  It is also a series of logical fallacies, particularly an appeal to emotion and a red herring.
  
  Do I need to hold your hand and produce all of those definitions and explanations or can you handle that?
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you want to claim something is a fallacy, you know very well you need to show why.
  
  Fallacies only apply to logical arguments. I'm not arguing the veracity of anything. I'm presenting a system of thinking and asking if there is an established term.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And, I answered it based on the criteria of your posts.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, you critiqued the concept, you didn't answer the question.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ii answered this question:
  
  The term is "wishful"
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Troubled, 'wishful' has nothing to do with it. You would be closer to say agnostic.
  
  Wishful: having or showing a wish; desirous; longing.
  
  Can you show how that applies to the original question?
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "I consider my internal truths as real as any of my external truths."
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What does that have to do with wishing? I didn't say 'I wish my internal truths were as real as external truths'.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Another believer who either doesn't own a dictionary, doesn't know how to search out definitions or makes up his own definitions to suit the agenda.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Care to provide a definition and show how my OP demonstrates wishful thinking?
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Again?
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You never defined it. You just called a portion of my OP 'wishful thinking'.
  
  You really seem to have a hard time following arguments, then you just drop off when you are shown to contradict yourself.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Let me get this straight, you want me to provide simple definitions for you, as well as teach you about fallacies?
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You don't understand what logical fallacies are, you've shown that in the past with your refusal to support your claims.
  
  You suggested I didn't know the definition of 'wishful thinking', so I suggested you correct me. Simple as that. I just know from experience that you avoid issues, especially when you start contradicting yourself.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Is the best you can do is repeat what I say?
  
  No, I suggested you take the time to learn a few things, like fallacies and how to use a dictionary before making your posts. You refused. I have no idea how that is my problem.
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I've asked you again and again to do two things if you want to refer to logical fallacies.
  
  1 - State what logical fallacy was used
  
  2 - Back up your claim with proof.
  
  If you can't do that, then your argument is, itself, fallacious. You shift the burden of proof to me, to point out my own fallacies. Your continuance only shows how little you understand about them.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My point exactly.
  report
  49
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think he has no reasonable answer.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! What's wrong Parr? You couldn't form an coherent argument to save your life, so you need to come along and take a stab at me? Is this the moral and ethical virtues of Islam shining through?
  report
  61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Taoism holds that virtue can be found by experiencing the oneness of all things - fulfilling life as one with nature (external truths) and the inner self (internal truths). The Way describes a reality that naturally exists prior to and gives rise to all other things.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, I find Taoism intriguing
  reply report
  60
  LewSethicsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I also like Lao Tzu.
  Going with the flow unless you have a reason to oppose it is a comfortable way live, for those who like to keep the drama in their lives at a minimum.
  reply report
3. 81
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. In reformed epistemology your personal truths would be considered properly basic beliefs. These are beliefs which are not formed on evidence but grounded in experience. According to this school of though, other examples of properly basic beliefs include belief in the past, and belief in other minds.
  reply report
  61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So according to that school of thought, there is a difference between evidence and experience? If I burn my finger in fire it is both my experience and evidence that fire will burn my finger. Please elaborate.
  reply report
78
Ms Deeposted 12 years ago
Is it a help to consider the dichotomy of the seen and unseen?
reply report
77
psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago
There are a great many terms for it. this is one of them: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  don't have time to read that right now, but thanks and I will look at it more in-depth later.
  reply report
  77
  psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you want to familiarize yourself with thought in this area 'non-overlapping magesteria' is pretty much the shortest, simplest and most recent substantive model that exists.
  
  It is a subject that would demand a lot of time to even begin to realize what is already known, let alone add to it.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I really appreciate it, bookmarked
  reply report
96
wildernessposted 12 years ago
Maybe I'm nitpicking about semantic here, but I find "internal truth" to mean less than nothing. Rather the term should be your personal perception of truth.

That perception may or may not have any connection to what you are calling external truth; if may be nothing but imagination. It is necessary to always remember that your perceptions of truth (beliefs, if you will) are not necessarily truth at all, but only what you have decided you want to call truth without need for evidence. They are there only to please you and make you feel better, but do not necessarily correlate with what is actually true.
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's exactly why it's personal. One person can decide it is truth as valid as external, and another person can decide it isn't. They are both right, because internal truth can't be used to prove someone else's internal truth.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My point is that "internal truth" can be, and often is, contradictory. Truth is truth, and is not defined by personal perception.
  
  One may believe (ie a personal truth) that man has not visited the moon (and I've actually met some) but it is not truth at all. It is a belief contrary to fact and thus false instead of true. It may be and is a belief but it has nothing to do with truth.
  
  By using the term "internal truth" you demean and change the entire meaning of the word "truth". That modifier changes the entire meaning of the word and gives it a false authority that it no longer has.
  
  Better that a more descriptive word (one more closely related to "truth" ) be used. "Perception" for instance. "Personal perception" has no connotation that the perception is also "truth" and in fact carries the assumption that it may not be.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I can understand your point of view, although it is different for me. In areas where the two can overlap, I think it best to try and rectify the two as best as possible. I don't encourage living with opposing beliefs.
  reply report
  71
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If so, then you don't have truth and don't know any better. What a shame.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for contributing Cagsil
  reply report
59
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
"Is There a Term?" Excellent point. Think generally thought of as Objective/Subjective
whatever. There is a train of thought that believes that everything is subjective. I personally have never subscribed to it.
reply report
0
Wilfionposted 12 years ago
I think the term you are looking for is confusion.
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not really, but thanks for your input anyway.
  reply report
61
couturepopcafeposted 12 years ago
There are thought streams natural to the mind - right knowledge, wrong knowledge, fancy, sleep and memory. Right knowledge is inference, tradition and genuine cognition. Wrong knowledge is false, illusory, erroneous. Fancy is empty of substance. Sleep is the modification of the mind which has for its substratum nothingness. Memory is not allowing mental impressions to escape. These thought streams are controlled by practice and non-attachment.

Personal or introspective thought/spirit - knowledge of the indweller - is desireless towards the seen.

Clarity is preceded by faith, energy, memory and equalminded contemplation and is nearest to those whose desire is most ardent. What we call God is a universal indweller, untouched by afflictions, actions, impressions and their results.

Shall I go on?
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What I'm asking is, if there is a term to define the kind of thinking I described.
  
  Agnosticism is the idea that the validity of God can't be established one way or another, but that's not the same as what I'm wondering.
  
  Instead, that the validity of God can't be established objectively, but rather subjectively. Also, that the difference between the subjective and objective truth is nonexistent, they are both valid forms.
  reply report
  61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I see. I'll give it some thought. However considering this nonexistent difference, there cannot be two forms. Which leads me to the Mystic Union, where the objective form may be removed and one becomes confirmed in non-possessiveness. The knowledge of the why and how of existence is attained. As a result of contentment there is purity of mind, a sort of fitness for the vision of the self. That which covers the light is destroyed, awareness is maintained but does not mingle with the senses or their impressions. By mastery of the senses comes wisdom. This is deep into the comtemplative/meditative field and I cannot speak from experience but you may consider reading The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali.
  
  Still no term though.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wishful?
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Again troubled, thank you for participating. I see how you are faithfully combating hate speech, in the form of a linguistic/philosophical question.
  reply report
59
emrldphxposted 12 years ago
Maybe... spiritual-agnostic-duality?
reply report
1. 61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why duality? You are not dual minded or indecisive.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  duality because of the importance of keeping subjective and objective separate when there is no need for them to be joined.
  reply report
  61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But you stated that the difference between the subjective and objective truths is non-existent, meaning the difference doesn't exist. A mispeak?
  
  IMO they can never be separated completely. Our objectivity will always be informed by our subjectivity. The converse may not necessarily be true at the higher levels of awareness.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I might have misspoken. I meant the difference in importance... neither kind of truth is greater than the other.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not quite. You may be subjectively certain that your tires have enough air in them, mostly because its cold and rainy outside and you want to keep your nice hairdo but also because the baby is crying and you want to get her home, feed her and put her to bed.
  
  The object truth is that one tire is very low and it overheats, shreds itself and causes a 3 car pileup. However much you believed your subjective truth, it won't mean much and won't be very important as the coroner attaches the toe tag to your daughter.
  
  Believing in a subjective truth can keep you fat, happy and dumb until the objective truth intrudes, ruining everything. It is the way of life; beliefs don't mean much when reality raises its ugly head and speaks.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right, but the air in the tires isn't part of the subjective realm.. it can be easily measured objectively. That's the whole point of separating the two, to keep you from subjectively believing in what can be measured, and vice versa.
  
  The whole point isn't whether or not this mode of thinking is right, just if there's a specific term for it.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I see. I took it as subject because, although you could have measured the pressure, you didn't and therefore the belief was subjective. My mistake.
  
  That seems to leave the subject truth to be a belief in anything that we can't detect. We can't see it, hear it, smell it, etc. We can't even detect any results or causal activity from it. To me, that means imagination, nothing else.
  
  Even insubstantial concepts like love we can detect the results of, and even measure those effects with a large enough population sample. We cannot, however detect God or anything He does which would make that concept one of subjective truth. We can't find a ghost or any action or thing one might have caused to happen or exist. We have never found Bigfoot or anything a Bigfoot might have caused to happen or might have created. Belief in these things, then, is subjective.
  
  Am I getting there? If so, it's still just imagination to me.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're correct about the definition of subjective truth. If we can't detect it, then that's what it is. Whether or not that is only imagination or can be truth, is in and of itself a subjective idea. That means it's personal, otherwise we could measure it
  
  There are energy forces and matter that we can detect the effect of on gravity, but can't actually see or detect or explain them directly. Being able to explain things just relies on technology, not truth. It wasn't too long ago that we couldn't explain the chemical process related to emotions, but that didn't make them any less real.
  
  The point is, truth can be found subjectively... not all subjective ideas are false. Most of our scientific facts started out as subjective ideas.
  
  I think we're on the same page, with just some slight difference in terminology.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Partially. Subjective truth as you define it actually can be found, but when it is found that discovery is by accident only.
  
  Truth is found when belief correlates with and agrees with the reality around us. Whether or not we can detect that reality or even see the results of any particular bit of reality is immaterial - it either correlates and agrees or it does not.
  
  Our belief in something (Bigfoot, maybe) does not make bigfoot exist. If we believe and he does exist, whether we can find him or not, whether we see the footprints he left or not, then the perception that he exists is truth. If we believe and he does not exist then that "subjective truth" is not truth at all; it is completely false to reality.
  
  Which is why I insist that a more correct terminology is "personal perception". This term does not have any indication that there is any truth necessary in that perception. Indeed, it conveys the message to the listener the idea that it is, indeed, only a belief with nothing to back it. It tells the listener that any correlation to reality is accidental and that it cannot be relied upon to express truth.
  
  While it is quite true that science discovery very often starts as a perception that something might be true it is always recognized that it is only a "might" and it is treated as such until thoroughly examined. When people express a "subjective reality" it is very seldom as a "might", rather it is presented as "truth" that needs no examination. No one will declare "I believe bigfoot is real even though we can't find evidence and it is therefore probably just imagination but I still believe with all my heart". It only makes the speaker look foolish to declare a belief strong enough to be declared "truth" while at the same time declaring that they have no reason for that belief.
  
  I might also add that being able to explain something not only relies on technology, but on truth as well. We can't explain, for instance, why gravity pushes two masses apart and never will be able to. Why? Because it isn't truth at all - it is the antithesis of truth. To explain something that something must be truth; anything else and the explanation is as false as the belief and "truth" are.
  reply report
  61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know this is completely simplistic, but if a tree falls in the woods and no one discovers that it fell, did it really fall?
  
  There's a newly discovered tribe living somewhere out in the middle of some jungle. Anthropologists have chosen to observe them from the air so as not to disturb their way of life. (HaHa) Did they exist before they were 'discovered' or were they just someone's subjective idea? (This is true, by the way)
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. Because truth is truth even if we don't know it.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I totally agree with you. Everything that is subjective is personal and open to interpretation. To you, it's a perception, and not as strong as objective truth...
  I'm not trying to argue which is the correct way to think of it, because it's personal
  reply report
  61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I never suspected you or arguing. You are a true debater.
  reply report
59
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
"By mastery of the senses comes wisdom." Would not that be subjective?
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It gets difficult to discuss subjectivity with others, sometimes... if you are philosophical enough everything is subjective, but the view of being that philosophical is also a subjective subject...
  reply report
2. 61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  knoly - if you're referring to wisdom, then absolutely, at least up to the point where we reach the legendary Nirvana. This is the much talked about heaven. The indweller in pure consciousness only, which, though pure, sees through the mind. It is identified by ego as being only the mind. The very existence of the seen is for the sake of the seer (us). You're personal wisdom will come when you no longer associate with ignorance and affliction. The continuous practice of this discrimination is the means of attaining liberation.
  
  According to Patanjali, we must practice discrimination to attain this including self-restraint in actions, fixed observance, posture, regulation of energy, mind control in sensory engagements, concentration, meditation, and realization.
  reply report
59
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
US troops in Afghanistan - subjective or objective? Shared subjectivity?
The 'Objective/Subjective Dichotomy', as someone may have already suggested.
reply report
59
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
"self-restraint in actions, fixed observance, posture, regulation of energy, mind control in sensory engagements, concentration, meditation, and realization" When is recess?
reply report
1. 61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No really. You have to be a monk, no kidding. This stuff is not for the weekend warrior.
  reply report
59
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
"You have to be a monk". I am a monk, but of such informality, that no one would recognize it. Formality is acting as opposed to being.
reply report
1. 61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No kidding? Then perhaps you would be willing to share some of your observations. Really.
  reply report
59
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
"Our objectivity will always be informed by our subjectivity." The so-called enlightenment transcends subjectivity as the absence of association.
reply report
1. 61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That is how I understand it. Also agree with the pretense of formality to some degree, though could get into semantics.
  reply report
59
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
"perhaps you would be willing to share"
I have 3,348 posts.
reply report
59
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
Semantics is where all the fun is.
reply report
1. 61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok. So if we are urban monks, living on the low down, going about our business, we have our rituals, our formalities. For me, it might be spending several hours on Sunday with my aging mother. It's also the way I make up my bed. Each corner needs to be the same. It's sort of a ritual that sets the tone for the rest of the day. A fastidiousness that reminds me of my rules.
  
  I am not acting, I am living this. Using monks as the example, I do get your POV about formalities, however, that they may be someone just going through the motions of looking like or behaving like a monk in public and not in private.
  reply report
75
Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago
I call it the duality of God. The Yin and Yang, the God Particle-Wave.
reply report
1. 61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I like this. It probably comes closest to the core of this forum.
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, If you're interested I have a hub about it somewhere...
  
  (and I believe you're correct ("core of this Forum"), I mentioned I didn't have a term for this concept in another thread and then magically this thread appeared... )
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I appreciate the suggestion that I copied you Mikel, but I didn't. I would be interested in seeing your post though
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your jump to the conclusion that I am somehow accusing you of copying me must be the result of a guilty conscious. I merely stated my post was possibly part of the inspiration that lead to the creation of this forum topic.
  
  As requested: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/86049#post1845291
  
  Mikel
  
  ***I will say this You will arrive at a point where God won't be something you can wrap your head around. At some point God becomes something you can only experience emotionally. The best analogy I can come up with is the physics theories having to do with Particle-Wave duality (as I know you're familiar with that). God is kinda like that too, when God has mass you can wrap your brain around it. When God goes to light speed, and loses the mass, only emotionally can we understand it (or feel or through intuition...). For me it is almost like God becomes emotions... I don't know how else to explain it. (and this isn't a very good explanation sorry). I hope that helps.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Considering the sarcastic tone I read into your post, I assumed that was what you were saying. If I was wrong, I apologize. It just seemed what you were saying when you said ' I mentioned I didn't have a term for this concept in another thread and then magically this thread appeared... '.
  
  Either way, no, I didn't get the inspiration from your post. Especially since it came 8 hours after I created the thread, nor is it describing the same thing. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your assumption of it being sarcastic and your jumping to conclusions based on the assumed sarcastic nature of it has nothing to do with what I actually posted, as I stated.
  
  My response would have been, "No, I actually posted this thread 8 hours before your post."
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I said 'I read it in your post', not that it was there, and I apologized Mikel.
  reply report
2. 59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's interesting to call it the duality of God... even though half of it has nothing to do with God.
  
  Thanks for your input Mikel.
  reply report
75
Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago
Then I could have replied, "Dang it! I'm trying so hard to be an inspiration...."
reply report
1. 77
  psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I wonder why anyone could think you are being sarcastic.
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have no idea. You would have to ask them. Evidently that is what you believe... So why would you think I am being sarcastic?
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I admit I have a bias towards you thinking you are more likely to be sarcastic with me, due to what happened between us. You used sarcasm when you pointed out something you thought I had done which was wrong, and never responded to my reply, so that left my image of you as more likely to do so.
  
  Again, I apologize for assuming such of you.
  reply report
  61
  john-doe7posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for playing?
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You for participating, Thank You for being a part of the conversation. Thank You for making a contribution. Thanks for sharing.
  
  I do tend to use it dismissively when someone is being extremely repetitive, (I know you are but what am I) without providing data to reinforce thier position.
  
  An attempt at a polite exit from an interaction that is un-productive.
  
  Thank You for asking.
  reply report
  61
  john-doe7posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ummmm - sarcasm? K then
  
  Thought you aksed a kwe4stion - parrantly not - u were just being sarcastic.
  
  Thanks for playing.
  
  Facts?
  reply report
75
Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago
For the record, 99% of the time I respond to what is being written, not who is doing the writing. In fact I rarely look at who is saying it, just what they are saying. I just look at the data, not the supplier of the data.
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I hope we can move forward and have good discussion from here on out.
  reply report
  75
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  For me (on here) it is all about the data.
  
  Just the facts please, just the facts.
  reply report
73
jacharlessposted 12 years ago
Duality: The knowledge of left/right, good/not good.

The internal/external is the same, save one thing: manifestation or illumination.
Darkness is simply a thing lacking luster or illumination, therefore it produces or shimmers -lures us. It is our thoughts. The are intrinsically light elements, glistening i the scope called mind. Sparkling with each synapse.

There is no personal truth v external truth. that would create a paradox which would destroy the spirit/body simultaneously.

The 'physic' world IS everything (and it is sentient).

Science is an action of applying a mechanism or mechanic --even a theory or what-have-you, without observing the universe from the universes perspective of itself. Science is not independent of the self -it is dependent on the self, same as sensation. Personal 'beliefs' are simply sensationalist lusts, indulgences and also lack the fullness of truth.

Hence, the duality.

James
reply report
1. 61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nice interpretation, jac. The sentient world is there for the sake of the seer. It is the nature of cognition and is for the purpose of experience. I agree there is no differentiation between internal and external knowledge or truth. Creation may be discerned as not real for the one who has achieved the goal, as that one becomes one with the Creator. But this association with Creation has been said to be for the distinct recognition of the objective world as well as for the recognition of the distinct nature of the seer, hence the Creation. But in disassociating from the seen, the ignorance disappears and the veil is lifted.
  reply report
2. 59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you james. Again, I'm not trying to debate the validity of the mode of thinking, just if there is a term for it.
  reply report
  73
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ah,
  You should read the Critique of Pure Reason -unabridged version, Immanual Kant, as well as his Critique of Understanding. { link }
  
  &
  
  A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume (Part III, Section VII -of Knowledge and Probability -the Nature of Idea or Belief). In fact, here is the Gutenberg Website to either download the ePub/Kindle or HTML version at no charge. { link }
  
  After both, you get a clearer view of the Platonic Problem/Socratic Picture -an issue still unresolved today - the issue of justification via knowledge.
  
  James.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, I'll give it a look.
  reply report
  61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Kant's assertions were based on the assumption that humans can be rational beings. His theory of 'duty vs inclination' smacks of subjective thinking. Ironically, Kant found himself so radically bound by his 'duty', he is said to have had no time for any subjective 'pleasures' in life. He was so hung up on duty and the motives people have for doing what they do that he never gave in to what came naturally. He believed we should resist what comes naturally.
  
  In a way, he is right. In a civilized society, we must 'always imagine ourselves on the receiving end of other people's decisions'. Once again, though, this assumes rationality in humans.
  reply report
  61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hume believed we can't use logic or reason to prove the truth of moral beliefs. Using morality as the comparison, these two were at opposite ends. Hume believed that morality was completely subjective.
  reply report
  61
  couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps existentialism is the term which might fit. It implies that we are what we are or believe what we believe because we have chosen to be that, not because god of nature made us that way. We can choose to be or not be a certain way. Existentialism allows us to be wholly and intuitively responsible for making our own fundamental choices.
  
  Socrates may have been the original existentialist (at least that history has recorded) for he is credited with the saying 'know thyself'.
  reply report
77
psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago
Philosophically it is reinventing the wheel as an oval. There is a lot of well-developed thinking on this subject dating back many centuries.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Is There a Term?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Is There a Term?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies