On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:22:59AM -0700, rusi wrote: > On Sep 30, 8:58 pm, Neil Cerutti <ne...@norwich.edu> wrote: > > On 2011-09-30, DevPlayer <devpla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I still assert that contradiction is caused by narrow perspective. > > > > > By that I mean: just because an objects scope may not see a certain > > > condition, doesn't mean that condition is non-existant. > > > > > I also propose that just because something seems to contradict doesn't > > > mean it is false. Take for instance: > > > > > Look out your window. Is it daylight or night time? You may say > > > it is daylight or you may say it is night time. I would > > > disagree that only one of those conditions are true. Both > > > conditions are true. Always. It is only day (or night) for YOU. > > > But the opposite DOES in fact exist on the other side of the > > > world at the same time. > > > > > I call this Duality of Nature (and I believe there was some > > > religion somewhere in some time that has the same notion, > > > Budism I think but I could be mistaken). I see such > > > "contradictions" in what appears to be most truths. > > > > You are not alone. Many ancient philosophers, fathers of > > religious and scientific thought, thought the same. > > > > They thought that contradictory qualities could exist in objects > > simultaneously. For example, they thought that a cat was both big > > and small, because it was big compared to a mouse and small > > compared to a house. They didn't notice that big and small were > > not poperties of the cat, at all but were instead statements > > about how a cat relates to another object. > > > > When you say, "It is night," you are making an assertion about a > > position on the surface of the earth and its relationship to the > > sun. > > > > If you are not discussing a specific a position on the Earth, > > then you cannot make a meaningful assertion about night or day at > > all. Night and Day are not qualities of the entire Earth, but > > only of positions on the Earth. > > But just imagine that we were all pre-galiliean savages -- knowing > nothing about the roundness of the earth, the earth going round and so > on and somehow you and I get on the phone and we start arguing: > Rusi: Its 9:30 pm > Neil: No its 12 noon > > How many cases are there? > We both may be right, I may be wrong (my watch may have stopped) or we > both etc > > ie conflicting data may get resolved within a larger world view (which > is what devplayer is probably saying). > > Until then it is wiser to assume that that larger world view exists > (and I dont yet know it) > than to assume that since I dont know it it does not exist. > > For me (admittedly an oriental) such agnosticism (literally "I-do-not- > know-ness") is as much a foundation for true religiosity as effective > science
I.e. humility? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
