Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (66242)	5/18/2006 11:57:12 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"No it's not. You never stated those items as "dimensions". " Your mistake. Here is one such example from among several. Odd that you would make such a claim, since this thread of the discussion has been fairly central to the argument about ‘self evidence’. Message 22455817 You: Our ability to "observe" has it's limits in technology, distance, time, and the speed of light. Does that suggest the possibility that there is an end beyond what we can observe?” Me: We have agreed that dimensional properties such as time and distance do not have end points observable by our rules of measurement. Me: <<<Do ideas have value as form and dimension? I see no reason why the same rules would not apply. So common recognition of concepts such as generousity as a 'good' value and 'corruption' as a bad value is not surprising and should be valid as proof unto itself. Proof that is confirmed by nearly universal acceptence among rational self-aware persons. The validity of self-evidence springs from this. Hat tip to Jefferson.>>>… Me: However, there are idea forms and associated value forms that are separate from any circumstantial and limited applications, or the judgements of people being affected by those applications; placing them in the dimensional context just as you have placed other concepts such as 'time' and 'distance'. So, idea forms do exist as we can universally recognize the form (as in your example of 'up') while finding practical and observable applications of the concept that are unique and/or circumstantial … correct? If you are going to allow for concepts, such as ‘time’ in our discussion, a discussion that started with an attempt to qualify the observable as it relates to self evident proofs, then you must allow other dimensional forms that can also be universally recognized by rational sentient beings. Generosity is a universally understood idea that is not bounded in extent, as is corruption unbounded. In addition we can place a dimensional value associated with each idea, a value of good or bad. For example: Is truth good? Is truth better than charity, or justice, health, cleanliness, or generosity? We can’t say because it would depend on the form and how we are applying it to some circumstantial situation, followed by applying a relative judgment. We can’t use the term far and farther unless we know the distances for application. The concept of far, however, is universally understandable regardless of application. Ideas with value associations are no different.