Benefit and belief

[Westley Martínez]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:08:16AM -0700, rantingrick wrote:
> 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

What paradox?.