Benefit and belief

[rantingrick]

On Sep 30, 11:36 am, Westley Martínez <aniko... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:22:59AM -0700, rusi wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 8:58�pm, Neil Cerutti <ne... at norwich.edu> wrote:
> > > On 2011-09-30, DevPlayer <devpla... 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.
>
> > 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?

@DevPlayer, rusi, Neil, Wes, and group

Yes, there are two views of reality; that of the absolute and that of
the relative. Both are true. It is always daytime and nighttime
simultaneously; if you look at things from a global perspective.

However, the true nature of "daytime vs nighttime" is purely a
relative observation. The fact that both exist does not falsify the
validity of the relative view. Recognizing the paradox is important
and proves you are not confined to your own selfish view points and
are in fact an intelligent being.