Benefit and belief

[Neil Cerutti]

On 2011-09-30, DevPlayer <devplayer at 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.

-- 
Neil Cerutti
"A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man."
  e. e. cummings