April 13. 2008 21:03

This guy might be my new hero.

Donny

April 18. 2008 15:20

Known as the Social Truth by Approximation . basicly it's a general statement one/society would hold to be true due to a held belief which has no factual background, but the consensus hold it to be true, thus, varifying the "truthiness". Ex: "Democracy is the best form of government."

Also of note, Eastern Philosphophy has a similiar conceptual view refered to as the MU Construction. Roughly it means, "Only by not asking such a question can one know the answer. The Literal translation - by asking, one defines the boundaries and usages associated with words, thus creating a "reality" involved with the question. The outcome of this is twofold: 1) now that the person asked the question, it's definition, and thus it's reality is defined by the terms of the words and their def. and realities, thus, not truly answering a question to any degree of what one (under a higher plain of understanding) would recognize to be the true reality of the thing. 2) By unasking the question (essentially I take this to mean nOT asking), the reality, and thus the truth of the issue is revealed to the one who did ask the question. This is basically our approach shown above. The literal explanation would be similiar to a well known conception in modern American Philosophy: "Truth is in the eye of the beholder". Whitch, Ironically, it the trust trutiness one could aquire without higher enlightment. Ex (This is actually the story, I beleive it's Budhist philosophy?): "A student kneels in front of his teacher, holding out a stick. The student then asks "Teacher, is this a stick or a staff?" The teacher will not answer. The student comes back, and repeats the process a few times. Upon the third time, the teacher, deciding to help, says, "Unask the question." The student is perplexed, and leaves to meditate. A few weeks or so later the student comes back to address the teacher, using the staff to support his weight." (there method of philosophy is soooo much better... but is it philosphy or religion? MU.

Likewise, you have the opposite view approach, that of Bullean Construct (Yes, same thing in programing). I'm not going to explain it, because your well versed on the subject already. This is often considered to be the downfall of the western mind, because there is only two options avaliable. 1 or 0.

Then there is the Universal approach, also known as the Universal language. It's contention is one must define the outer limits, (1 or 0), thus setting a outer limitiation, but likewise, there is an infinite possibilties ranging between.

Then there's a approach I find to be accseptable, yet I have no heard of it's use before. (I tihnk I made it, but normally when I tihnk something is my creaton, I'm indefintily wrong). I call it big bang approach. (orignal huh). - basic point is that the intial setting of limits on the issue of relaity must be set, and following the universal view, between the limitis lies infifnte possibilities. But the next part is diffrent: Once the outer limits are set, The answer (1 or 0) creates additional expansion past the set limit, which must again be defined and set, thus creating more explansion. Essentially, I consider this to be explainable through history in the best context. Consider the ever changing society we live in, and constant progressional increases made after definition. At some point, human nature requires a catagorization analyis, procliaming the biggest, best, newest, etc. option as the truth. Likewise, this is adopted... Only to be replaced, and the process repeated.

Alright. I'm done. God I needed that after studying Federal Procedure for the last 5 days straight.

politcalimplosion