Response to the Logician: 070706: Part I of IV

July 6, 2007

Logician:

Daniel. J. Shepard

The World Embracing Hope Foundation

Dear Sir 

Your method of replying is tedious and defeats any form of rapport so I have chosen to change my method only, yours undoubtedly will still be the same. Do not take this as a negative aspect of communication; I just believe I can state things in a better way if I change.

Djs: Do whatever is best for you. I use a particular approach because there is extensive multiplicity of concepts involved with your replies. The approach I use allows me to address each concept directly.

Logician: The second mail was not extensive, there were two attachments; one called DJShepard2.doc and one called A Respect For All Life. The first was a normal reply, such as this one and the second one was for your perusal to be taken up in a discussion outside of your blog. I am sorry that you misinterpreted this but then again I never explained myself, so the fault was mine alone and not yours.

Djs: No problem.

Logician:  You state a truth must be the truth, and in a narrow minded way you are correct. Open you mind Sir. When I say truths are time related I am talking about ALL the time humans have ever existed. Today we use two base ten without the use of logarithms to achieve four when squared, but this was not always the case, ….

Djs: But two plus two is still four. This has nothing to do with personal perception. The variants are simply based upon variations of mathematical techniques.

Logician: …therefore it is easy to understand that two plus two can be four and then again not. Your version of the truth is tainted by a small era of history and so when you decide to tell the world of a change in their personal attachment to a deity and faith and understanding of our collective existence, you cannot start at the end of human history. All truths and understandings of truths are time related, always have been and always will be. Truths are flexible and open to interpretation.

Djs: Time related truths are in essence ‘personal truths’. Perhaps it would help if we distinguished personal truths from universal truths. Personal truths are relative in nature, relative to one’s personal perception and thus time related.

Universal truths are not based upon the physical universe but rather are based upon the whole of reality and thus not necessarily time related.

Logician: What we believe to be true today will change tomorrow, proof of this is found throughout human history. We as a species have always changed our understanding of our surroundings as our perceptions became wider. An example; when latter day humans moved out of the Euro-Afro-Asian area and re-discovered the Americas, all previous texts had to be re-understood. When they were written there was no understanding of nations across the vast oceans, Columbus was heading for the East Indies as their knowledge of the globe was pitiful, they thought they were opening a new route to Asia to speed up the import of Asian spices and materials. When the “New World” was found it shook the foundations of European understanding, they thought they were the be-all and end-all and had built up a following of all nations throughout Europe built upon this misunderstanding.

If your premise of truths being static and have always been i.e. a truth is a truth no matter what then your understanding of the universe should have been the truth since modern humans moved out of the African peninsula into Europe approx. one hundred thousand years ago, if present day understanding is to be believed. Humans at this time had no, I repeat NO, understanding of mathematics and science in comparison to today’s modern humans, so your interpretation of truths and their static nature is well and truly flawed.

Djs: Perceptions of the physical universe are not what I am referring to when I speak of ‘truths’. When I speak of ‘truths’ I speak of ‘first truths’ and the rational conclusion they bring to questions regarding morality and ethics.

Logician: You state that there is no room for literary discretion, and so you mean if what you write is interpreted in a manner which you believe to be incorrect then the person involved must be wrong.

Djs: In terms of their interpreting my intents, that is correct.

Logician: Open your mind Sir. ALL writings are open to discussion and interpretation. If a person feels that what you have written is to be understood in a manner that does not reach your expectations they are not necessarily wrong. That’s the beauty of “The Word”, it’s not something you have control over.

Djs: If they misinterpret what it is I am attempting to say then they are wrong in interpreting what it is I am attempting to say. Simple.