True. In the episode on Star Trec where Que becomes human, he suddenly feels a funny growling in his stomach and is told that he must eat food.

He did not know that the feeling in his stomach was a message for food, it was just uncomfortable for him.

He also discovered that he had to use the toilet. He thought the drawbacks to being human was very disgusting.

Truth in fiction is meaningless.

It certainly is not. I was using that story as an example. Why do you think stories have morals? Why do you think people give examples? Loosen up a little creative. geeeeeze. Some of the things you come up with are meaningless.

Fiction is not of this world. Therefore, truth in fiction is true in that world only. It is meaningless, because one must infer from actual circumstances in this world in order to apply meaning. So without those references, which are actual, truth in fiction is meaningless. That makes it truth on fiction.

Without the distinction imagination becomes actuality instead of just a component of it.

I did not call it truth. I was using the story for an example of knowing.

How does one know that the feeling in their stomach is hunger? They learn through experience.

The story I used was fiction, but it was about a person who had never experienced the feeling before so he did not know what it meant. He had to learn.

Hence knowing is a matter of learning from experience.

I am surprised I have to spell everything out for you Creative.

I am surprised that you believe that you do. Fiction does not lend support to reality. If knowledge requires truth, and I most certainly believe it does, then we cannot rely upon fiction. Afterall, there is no make-believe truth.

Yeah, I am lost.

It is much more fruitful for one to address the topic by addressing the words and not the person behind them.

I suppose that I am wondering if knowledge is reducible, moreover, how reducible?

If knowledge requires learning through experience, then intuition and innate knowns are not knowledge. Does this make them less reliable or untrue?

Some argue the possibility of intuitive knowns...

I have read an example regarding morality which claims that one does not have to see someone's arm being cut off to know that it is wrong. This however, does not make sense to me. It places morality above experience, which cannot be done. That is an example of local knowledge which, in fact, is not knowledge at all. It is a moral ideology. It directly reflects a sense og ought. Being far removed from that set of local circumstances, one could be in another set which, in fact, holds no morality issues concerning killing another...

There are two sets of morals which do provide different definitions of wrong in a moral sense. This is one reason that I believe that morality has no business being involved in pure knowledge. This is frequently displayed in religion with Truth and Knowledge as opposed to truth and knowledge...

This is one reason why fables and such provide a feel good sense of building morality, which is ok, but does does not provide anything other than a local framework which reflects the collective conscience... the collective sense of ought.

Knowledge is different.

Morality and emotion have no role in knowledge.

I am quite dreary and tired of you accusing me of addressing 'the person' and not the subject. Its always the same old complaint.

I don't know 'the person' (you) nor do I understand 'the person' so I do not address 'the person.'

It is YOU taking everything I say 'personal' --that is the problem.

You are still being reactive. (I do understand though, that you ARE a person, so I understand you being reactive.)

But please stop taking everything I say so personal. It is not. (But you make it so.)

I say something in good spirit and good intention and you somehow twist it into something personal directed at YOU.

There are some who believe that we have a subconscious mind that knows more than our conscious minds. I am one of those who believe this and I believe this from my own experience.

In my opinion "Knowledge" is not "knowing."

Fiction is of this world. You see it everyday. Movies reflect this world.

If you are one who must "infer from actual circumstances in this world in order to apply meaning" then I guess that is just you.

Within fiction, there are actual references to truth that are borrowed from this world. Truth about probabilities, about human nature, ideas, situations, etc.

Sometimes only the names are changed and a few things are altered to make it interesting. What would be the point to depict actuality in movies and fiction to precise perfection? We live in actuality, we don't need it for entertainment.

For entertainment, we need imagination, possibilities, probabilities, ideas, interesting stories that depict meaning in life. To say that they are meaningless is shallow and a totally personal opinion. It only means that they are meaningless to you.

On the other hand, nothing really has any meaning except what the observer GIVES IT. MEANING IS APPLIED by the observer. It is not decided by one single individual for all people.

That 'fiction' can have no meaning, is just your single personal opinion.

You do not decide what has meaning for others. You can only decide what has meaning for you personally.

Thankyou


Knowledge is experiential...knowing is organically and intrinsically inherant.

There must also be an abyss between the experiential and the innate that can be comprehended as perhaps insight?

I have been learning so much lately and in many ways I feel sad that I have no one to share it with.

The main reason being that it's difficult to express in words alone, yet it can be expressed through the art of story-telling. But those stories would be far more effective if told in an entertaining and engaging way. There is no reason that truth needs to be lost to the dry deserts of pragmatism.

Recently I've been studying four topics that may seem to be somewhat unrelated yet they are all interconnected in surprising ways.

The topics are:

Faery Folklore
This is a very serious world view to some people and it contains many truths yet many view it as fiction.

The Toeraths of Being
A concept of the Toeraths, or Toradhs, or the flow of life giving flame (or energy) that flows through all living beings. I'm learning of this through Faery lore yet at the same time I see precisely the same concepts at work in the idea of Chakras used in many mystical spiritualities of the Far East.

The Symbology of the Celtic Qabalah
A symbology I found to be quite illuminating and containing many truths is the symbology of the Celtic Tree of Life. This symbology is also highly compatible with the symbology offered by the many different traditions of the Tarot. This should come as no surprise since at their foundation they are both addressing the same concepts of human nature.

Finally I'm also currently taking a 24-lecture video course on the:
History of Mathematics
I find this particular course to be quite interesting because this course recognizes the truth of the mystical origins of mathematics and the fact that up until very recently (about the time of Galileo) all previous mathematicians were actually astrologers in the most serious sense. This course makes it perfectly clear why early philosophers were convinced that all of the planetary motions have a direct influence on the lives of humans. Of course their reasoning was erroneous, but it was sound reasoning in their day none the less.

Ironically, modern physics today gives us new reasons to believe that these ancient insights may very well be valid, yet because of the modern mindset of having already rejected the original reasoning as being erroneous, we've pretty much tossed the baby out with the bath water.

Michael often speaks of actuality in an attempt to avoid the dreaded word reality. But that's just a play on words.

The fact is that modern science doesn't know what is actually going on. They have some good ideas and even proofs of things such as the fact that evolution has occurred, and that the planets really do orbit the Sun and not the Earth. They also have the physical chemistry down pretty well too, however this is no reason to deny the original elements of spirit; Earth, Air, Fire and Water. These spiritual elements are actually symbols for Manifestation, Logos, Creativity, and Emotion. They were never wrong. The Greeks tried to imagine these as being the physical elements of the universe, but that wasn't their original meaning. They ideas of Earth, Air, Fire and Water came well before the Greeks and was a spiritual concept, not a physical concept.

None the less, we would be hard-pressed to deny the Toerath of the Fairy lore as it is completely compatible with everything we know of the modern views of biological and ecological sciences of today. In fact, the conservation laws of science demand that the Toerath must indeed behave precisely as the Faery lore describes, yet this Faery lore was created many centuries before the scientific laws of conservation where discovered.

I think where the real danger comes into play is when we start thinking that we know reality "actuality" simply because we have some understanding of logic and the scientific methods.

We also simultaneously know that Quantum Mechanics has defied both logic and the scientific method and has been reduced to nothing more than abstract mathematical probabilities no less mysterious than ancient astrology.

I need to write a book on this stuff, but I want it to be romantic too.

Why?

Because learning should be FUN!

And since much of it is indeed conveyed through symbology then this gives much artistic license to the writer.

After all, if the mysteries of life can be conveyed through tales of ancient Dragons and Faeries weaving threads of Toerath through the ancient Magical Tree of the Qabalah to meet with the Cherubs of the Astral Plane, then why not describe it as such?

Why reduced it to E = mc² and the dry probabilities of QM when what is truly being conveyed is an energy of life that runs through all of us and is controlled, not by probabilities, but by our very own innate FREE WILL bestowed upon us by the Goddess who plays dice in the Quantum Realm of Potentiality.

This is a very long post... necessarily so. My apologies to those interested in the topic...




Jb stated...



So? You see imaginary and impossible things on tv all the time, that does not make any of these things reflections of this world. They are reflections of an imaginary one...

Fiction is make-believe, NOT actual. NOT of this world.



Everyone does, whether they are aware of it or not. A fictitious story means nothing unless one infers from actuality and gives it meaning. It must bring about memories from actual life or it means nothing.



In and of itself, fiction is meaningless. The viewer applies meaning.



This completely evades the point, while simultaneously making it... again. Read what you write. Individual meaning is just that. I never said otherwise. Truth in fiction is meaningless. As soon as one places meaning upon it it becomes truth on fiction. Truth about fiction is a completely different animal.

There is no truth in fiction. Truth in fiction is meaningless.



Read the above.



Is the term "you" referring to me personally, or just whomever?

Should the language above be changed slightly to incorporate the term "one" or "somebody" instead of you, then I would agree. If this statement is referring to me personally, then read the above...again... then re-think.



I almost agree with the first paragraph, although I would not consider it knowing unless it is brought into the area of conscious thought.

I agree with the second notion, knowledge is not knowing. Knowing describes an awareness of knowledge.





The following off topic completely, but defintitely NEEDS to be addressed.



I find it bold, brazen, self-centered, and quite rude for this claim to even be made.

That should tell you something.

I am left wondering whether or not it is worth it to pursue the above, based on the below. I will do my best to clarify my position in an attempt to settle this issue, but it requires your ability to place yourself in another's shoes... namely, mine.



COMPLETELY FALSE!!!

You may not intend to, but you do... quite directly, I might add!



I disagree completely.

The problem is a lack of understanding, on one or both parts. I read language as it is written. For you to claim that it is I who "make it so" is quite an obtuse claim, I must say, and it displays a level of confidence in your perspective which I intend to clearly show is completely unsubstantiated.



I find no truth whatsoever in this explanation. Keep in mind that there is quite a history behind your openly expressed personal judgements about me.

Let us take a look at some of these things that you are claiming were written in good spirit. Hopefully this will clarify your contributions to the matter at hand and place the claim in the proper perspective.

1.)

As if I am confused? Personal.

This statement quite clearly admits your "surprise" about what, about me... personally! It presupposes that the reader cannot or does not comprehend what is being discussed. This makes no sense, because this author constantly attempts to simplify and clarify his personal understanding into a comprehensive, yet more commonly expressed form of language... for the benefit of the reader, who often asks for clarification.

2.)

What do you mean by "loosen up a little", if it is not a comment directed at me personally?

3.)

4.)

5.)

6.)

7.)

8.)

9.)

10.)

11.)

12.)

13.)

14.)

15.)

16.)

17.)

18.)

19.)

20.)

21.)

22.)

23.)

24.)

25.)

26.)

27.)

28.)

29.)

30.)

31.)

32.)

Now realize that I am not angered by this... merely aggravated at the idea of it. I have attempted in every way that I can think, to persuade the situation. The above examples are only from the last two threads that we both were actively involved in at the same time. There are many, many other examples...

Do you still believe the following are true/accurate claims?

Again...





That is clearly not the case.

Can we change this pattern?

LMAO It's like watching baking soda and vinegar being mixed..

Actually James, it is common throughout history when a term no longer has a clear meaning as a result of new understandings. I believe that the QM interpretation of multiple worlds(universes) and the reality/antireality debates have spawned the confusion with the term, and epistemologists came up with actual reality(actuality). Few people have a clear understanding of what it(reality) means as a result. This is compounded by the "perception equals reality" claim.

This actual world is the one we live in, the one where the choices I have made and the circumastances beyond my control have led me to where I am. In the multiple worlds scenario, the other realities(which are claimed to be possible) are only hypothetical. Those worlds would be the ones where the other me is the same me but in a different set of circumstances as a result of the different possible outcomes of every choice I have made. Therfore those possibilities are not of this world... the one we live in.

Good post.

RE: the bold type above: May I suggest that you read a few books on the art of persuasion. What you are doing is not persuasion. It is debate.

The quotes you listed by me: Many were answers to your questions. In an attempt to be brutally honest that is what came forth from me.

My statement: "I say something in good spirit and good intention and you somehow twist it into something personal directed at YOU."===was talking about a post where I used a fictional Star Trec show as an example, and in that post I was actually agreeing with you on your point about knowing. I rarely agree with you. Yet even when I do you jump back in there with a poisonous remark about how fiction is meaningless, which is your personal opinion.

My intentions were good and in good spirit with that post and you poisoned the moment, as you always seem to do.

Now if I had the time I could go back through the threads and dredge up all of your demeaning and condescending remarks to me (and others) but I am through with this war and I am through with trying to make peace with you and I am through with trying to comprehend what your problem and/or purpose/agenda is.

I stand by all of what I have communicated to you as me being as honest and expressive as possible in response to your questions and remarks.

Now you may have the floor Emperor. I find your topics boring anyway.


=====Creative, the Emperor

Yes it is.

Back to my response to Creative:




"This author?" blah blah ... for the benefit of "the reader?"

This is what I'm talking about Creative. Your insistence on remaining a non-person. Your attempts to remain impersonal, your objections to any personal communication.

Why don't you just write a book?

If you want to be "the author" write a book. If you want to talk to people on a discussion forum, talk to PEOPLE. Yes, that's personal. Talking to people is personal. Get over it.

If you want personal feedback and communication then speak to the person, not the unknown non-personal anonymous "reader."


I said:
"You do not decide what has meaning for others. You can only decide what has meaning for you personally."




The answer: BOTH. It refers to YOU (the reader) and YOU (YOU) and anyone else (whoever.)

If you "would agree" that it is true for "whomever" then why would you NOT agree that it is true for YOU?

Is it because you like to consider yourself the ultimate authority who has the power to decide what has meaning and what doesn't?

If it is true for YOU (whomever) why would it not be true for YOU (YOU)? What sets you apart from the crowd Creative?

You said that

"There is no truth in fiction. Truth in fiction is meaningless."

To find truth in that statement you would have to go into detail about how YOU define TRUTH. WHAT IS TRUTH?

Then you would get back into the question WHAT IS REAL? WHAT IS REALITY (AS APPOSED TO ACTUALITY?)

Then the conversation would drag on into who creates reality, etc.

What I am saying is that YOU (you creative) and YOU (whomever) as a single individual viewpoint, does not have the authority to decide what has meaning to everyone or anyone else.

This is why I call you the Emperor. You feel you are the greatest authority on these things that you declare and you seemed stunned when anyone challenges you on them.

I think we can agree that NOTHING has meaning except the meaning that the individual PERSON gives it.

That includes actuality, reality, fiction, etc. In my opinion.

Ignorant... by sheer will alone...