When Your Sweetest Memory is Sinful

Kiranga said:
J.K Nyerere

I thought you were about to defile relativism. Instead you uphold it.

How do you get universal principles if you have any serious objections regarding universal standards?
Click to expand...

referring to someone text is not tantamount to upholding what he/she says.

as i told you, there comes a point when relativism give way to universalism

think, for example, about the probability of practicing cannibalism or incest.
 
Companero said:
referring to someone text is not tantamount to upholding what he/she says.

as i told you, there comes a point when relativism give way to universalism

think, for example, about the probability of practicing cannibalism or incest.
Click to expand...

I understand all that, you still haven't furnished neither your method nor cosmogony.

A mere assertion boasting the top of the curve won't do, it could very well prove to be the curve of mediocrity.
 
Kiranga said:
I understand all that, you still haven't furnished neither your method nor cosmogony.A mere assertion boasting the top of the curve won't do, it could very well prove to be the curve of mediocrity.
Click to expand...
all you need is to apply the central limit theorem and the conjecture of infinitesimal coupled with the sandwich rule to see how relativity easily give way to universality in a highly globalizing world (e.g. in regard to female genital mutilation, incest, infanticide, and cannibalism)
 
Companero said:
all you need is to apply the central limit theorem and the conjecture of infinitesimal coupled with the sandwich rule to see how relativity easily give way to universality in a highly globalizing world (e.g. in regard to female genital mutilation, incest, infanticide, and cannibalism)
Click to expand...

You are just telling me your universality is relative, and not of sound grounding to the extent of needing cherry picking examples that would easily uphold it.

I could easily indict the same universality with regards to the death penalty, abortion, fair trade, individualism etc.

So relativism triumphs, even when you uphold universality, your universality is neither absolute nor fundamental - to the extent that you cannot transcribe a coherently charted and argued method and you have to resort to extreme examples) and it is subject to a deeper relativity.

How could you tout a universality based on the central limit theorem while the central limit theorem itself is subject to certain relative conditions? What if you are counting on an absent benevolence and "relatively" (again that word) high level of education to arrive at a sufficiently licensing normal distribution that will warrant a universality towards FGM?

The conjecture of infinitesimal seems so merely due to the poverty of our minds, how could you let it trick you merely due to the scale we are afforded and the existing brainpower? Whither your formerly attested rugged rigor?
 
Kiranga said:
You are just telling me your universality is relative, and not of sound grounding to the extent of needing cherry picking examples that would easily uphold it.

I could easily indict the same universality with regards to the death penalty, abortion, fair trade, individualism etc.

So relativism triumphs, even when you uphold universality, your universality is neither absolute nor fundamental - to the extent that you cannot transcribe a coherently charted and argued method and you have to resort to extreme examples) and it is subject to a deeper relativity.

How could you tout a universality based on the central limit theorem while the central limit theorem itself is subject to certain relative conditions? What if you are counting on an absent benevolence and "relatively" (again that word) high level of education to arrive at a sufficiently licensing normal distribution that will warrant a universality towards FGM?

The conjecture of infinitesimal seems so merely due to the poverty of our minds, how could you let it trick you merely due to the scale we are afforded and the existing brainpower? Whither your formerly attested rugged rigor?
Click to expand...

now you are trying the impossible - to fit a square peg perfectly in a round hole; there is no such thing as a relative universality, nor is there a universal relativity

here i am simply talking of a relativity that moves towards a limit (dare i say absolute limit) thus giving way to a universality, something akin to what we do when we find derivates (differentiate) by first principles i.e. the key is the approach to zero hence my invocation of the prematurely discredited infinitesimal

to make matters simple to laymen and women, at a certain point there is relativism in regard to cannibalism but then as we move, globally, towards convergence, we get universalism in regard to it hence the current universal abhorrence for such a moral/unethical/sinful/evil act

what is so paradoxical about all this?
 
Companero said:
now you are trying the impossible - to fit a square peg perfectly in a round hole; there is no such thing as a relative universality, nor is there a universal relativity

here i am simply talking of a relativity that moves towards a limit (dare i say absolute limit) thus giving way to a universality, something akin to what we do when we find derivates (differentiate) by first principles i.e. the key is the approach to zero hence my invocation of the prematurely discredited infinitesimal

to make matters simple to laymen and women, at a certain point there is relativism in regard to cannibalism but then as we move, globally, towards convergence, we get universalism in regard to it hence the current universal abhorrence for such a moral/unethical/sinful/evil act

what is so paradoxical about all this?
Click to expand...

So you are talking about a relativity, albeit one that moves towards a limit, after all.
 
Companero said:
as a past tense of the universalism it has metamorphosed into
Click to expand...

The same universalism that is bound to be outdated relative to time.

Just as the use of latin in liturgical ceremonies was considered a universal given, or "civilizing the savage" was considered not only an en vogue universal trait among educated "civilized men", but also a noble one. Not to mention geocentrism to sentimentalists.

The only thing that is universal is the lack of universalism. And even that universalism is not absolutely unimpeachable, due to the cone of time we are afforded.
 
Companero said:
what matters at this point in time is that it is universalism
Click to expand...

The very idea that there is a universal "this point in time" is ridiculously antiquated and so pre 1905. Time itself - not in it's cultural or geographical aspect, the very flow and nature of time - is relative, so anything that exists in time is subject to time's relativity.

I understand the minutiae exacting rigors are your forte so that's the only reason I am using this well discerning prism.

On the other hand, if you choose to discard the painstakingly detailed observation and cling to the large scale illusion, you can choose any arbitrary point (say, throw some bell curve mumbo jumbo) as a cutoff for margins of errors, asymptotic limits and practically usable convergences.

Look, I am not disputing adopting a practical approach to matters we don't have clear answers to but we know enough judging from a clear convergence. If some principles are more helpful than others to disallow cannibalism and mayhem, so be it. More power to them. I am an atheist but I see why the church can be useful in filling a vacuum for some people, positively. But I don't buy the bs that the gospel is universal, and Jesus is the only way to god, or even god exists. While Christianity may embody some good methods to live rightly by some standards devised by the highbrows who sit on top of the bell curve (the opposite is also true), I find it laughable to tout the universalism of Christianity. So knocking the bonafide of your universalism in no way indicate my embracing anarchy.

But don't call them universalism for atoms sake.

That's the next thing to invoking god, the ultimate converging point of any universalism.
 
Kiranga said:
The very idea that there is a universal "this point in time" is ridiculously antiquated and so pre 1905. Time itself - not in it's cultural or geographical aspect, the very flow and nature of time - is relative, so anything that exists in time is subject to time's relativity.

I understand the minutiae exacting rigors are your forte so that's the only reason I am using this well discerning prism.

On the other hand, if you choose to discard the painstakingly detailed observation and cling to the large scale illusion, you can choose any arbitrary point (say, throw some bell curve mumbo jumbo) as a cutoff for margins of errors, asymptotic limits and practically usable convergences.

Look, I am not disputing adopting a practical approach to matters we don't have clear answers to but we know enough judging from a clear convergence. If some principles are more helpful than others to disallow cannibalism and mayhem, so be it. More power to them. I am an atheist but I see why the church can be useful in filling a vacuum for some people, positively. But I don't buy the bs that the gospel is universal, and Jesus is the only way to god, or even god exists. While Christianity may embody some good methods to live rightly by some standards devised by the highbrows who sit on top of the bell curve (the opposite is also true), I find it laughable to tout the universalism of Christianity. So knocking the bonafide of your universalism in no way indicate my embracing anarchy.

But don't call them universalism for atoms sake.

That's the next thing to invoking god, the ultimate converging point of any universalism.
Click to expand...

This is not about the universalism of Christianity, the dilemma of a sweet memory I am struggling with is also universal to Islam - as well as Atheism, the use of the term sinful notwithstanding.
 
Companero said:
This is not about the universalism of Christianity, the dilemma of a sweet memory I am struggling with is also universal to Islam - as well as Atheism, the use of the term sinful notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

The ambivalent factor stems from a void in universalism.
 
Kiranga said:
The very idea that there is a universal "this point in time" is ridiculously antiquated and so pre 1905. Time itself - not in it's cultural or geographical aspect, the very flow and nature of time - is relative, so anything that exists in time is subject to time's relativity.
[...]

That's the next thing to invoking god, the ultimate converging point of any universalism.
Click to expand...

Why not if God indeed exist outside of time as per your initial postulate?
 
Companero said:
Why not if God indeed exist outside of time as per your initial postulate?
Click to expand...

Because outside of time necessarily invoke inside of "no-time", and you will be sidesteping one bound only to step into another, not kosher for a supposedly unbounded godhead.

You are so Augustine, didn't anyone ever told you the "outside of time" bandwagon was debunked centuries ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Discussions

Back
Top Bottom
Forums
New posts
Post thread
Back