| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Iceheart |
Posted - 06 May 2004 : 3:06:00 PM
Open Discussion - please contribute your thoughts, I am much interested in what you think about Relavitism.  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh be still my beating heart......ok, not THAT still!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Iceheart |
Posted - 17 May 2004 : 3:55:43 PM
Im not going to encourage your last post Mazeppa any further.............*cheekily raises an eyebrow*
However, I am not possessive of that many creative talents (my last oil painting was the last peice of creative art I did and after sitting back and watching what it looked like, decided to leave creativity alone for awhile), could one commission you, Mazeppa, to create me a binder 
Heaven bent to take my hand, and lead me through the fire.
Be the long awaited answer, to a long and painful fight. |
| Mazeppa |
Posted - 15 May 2004 : 06:33:15 AM
I looked into book-binding, have a 3 inch thick.....uh, 1870's Medicology Encyclopedia to re-bind, as well as an equally huge 1865 bible....I scored some Moose leather from Canada, that stuff is sooooooooooo fine and soooooooo soft, when the time comes, I am going to produce fine, awesome, Gothic re-binding and portfolio covers. I wish to integrate metal castings onto the leather. As well as emboss designs into the leather. I feel that if you have a special book worthy to treat this way, it should perhaps be done by yourself, as having someone else do it might depersonalize. Of course, If Iceheart wished to come here, and have me delve deeply into her sexuality, immense brain and personality, spirit and raison d' etre', I would be very happy to bind her.......book. I would open it at the center...... None o' me mates are up for taking Sidney nor Brisbane Harbour this year, no matter how I prattle on about the treasure........
mazeppa |
| Iceheart |
Posted - 13 May 2004 : 3:28:05 PM
*blushes*  aww shucks Robbo! Unfortunately I do not think I still have copy of it
quote:
nice ornate leather binding, with ancient and modern symbols embossed
sounds nice, where does one track a display folder of this nature?
We touched on the Theory of Relativity, lightly, in Christian Perspectives one day (a subject I miss the least but had some great arguements in) and I decided to turn it into a debate on how better off Christianity would be if they followed the guidelines of this theory.
Nothing is absolute; - therefore nothing can be "forever" and the therefore whatever was forever is only for just now...because tomorrow something better will come along to take its place.
*confused*
Once I refresh my mind of the theories involved in Relative Thinking and Viewing, and have written my personal speil aout it all - my next quest will be to compliment it with dicussions on Theories of Objectivity..... quote:
Uh-oh.....you said "objectivity."
- *mad scientist style* MWAHAHAHAHAHA ok no, that didnt work Im over it
Heaven bent to take my hand, and lead me through the fire.
Be the long awaited answer, to a long and painful fight. |
| Mazeppa |
Posted - 13 May 2004 : 3:06:29 PM
Uh-oh.....you said "objectivity." My fingers and brain are still healing from "relavitism....."
Rerhaps we will have moron this later?
I think Iceheart is quite brilliant, and that her school paper should be bound in a nice ornate leather binding, with ancient and modern symbols embossed. I bet she taught her teachers more than they learned!
mazeppa |
| Iceheart |
Posted - 12 May 2004 : 2:07:46 PM
An idea that truth, including religious truth, is not absolute or certain, varying from people to people and time to time.
What is right depends on the situation.
I think the Christian religion could learn a lot from this Relative point of view.
But then again, I guess tahts where Atheism came from........
I wrote an essay years ago on relavitism to shit stir my religion teacher in high school, and read the study of this philosophy defined as this:
'Relativism' is a philosophical theory asserting that there is no absolute truth, only truth relative to the individual, or to a particular time or culture, or both. To put it another way, relativism may be defined as the radical denial of objectivity. |
| Mazeppa |
Posted - 12 May 2004 : 12:50:20 PM
Oh gee....uh.....
"In spite of its claims, science offers us little in the way of methods or universal explanation of reality adequate for all time. The search for the truth, the 'discovery of natures secrets', as Descartes put it, is an idioosyncratic search for the temporary truth. One truth is replaced by another. The fact that over time science has provided a more complex picture of nature is not in itself final proof that we live by the best, most accurate model so far.
This knowledge acquired through the use of any structure is selective. There are no standards or beliefs guiding the search for knowledge, which are not dependant upon the structure, even regarding witchcraft and ephemeral insight.Scientific knowledge, in sum, is not necessarily the clearest representation of what reality is, it is the artifact of each structure and its tool. Discovery is invention, knowledge is man made.
If this is so then all views at all time are equally valid. There is no metaphysical, super-ordinary, final, absolute reality. There is no special direction to events. The universe is what we say it is. When theories change the universe changes. The truth is relative.
This relative view is generally shunned. It is supposed by the left to dilute commitment and by the right to leave society defenceless. In fact it renders everybody equally responsible for the structures adopted by the group. If there is no priviledged source of truth, all structures are equally worth assesment and equally worth intoleration. Relativism neutralises the views of extremists of all kinds. It urges care in judgement through awareness of the contextual nature of the judgement values themselves.
A Realativist approach might well use the new electronic data systems to provide a structure unlike any which has gone before. If structural change occurs most often through the juxtaposition of so-called 'facts,' in a novel way, then the systems might offer the oportunity to evaluate not the facts that are, at the present rate of change, obsolete by the time they come to public consciousness, but the relationship between facts: the constants in the way they interact to produce change. Knowledge would then properly include the study of the structure itself.
Such a system would permit a type of 'balanced anarchy' in which all interests could be represented in a continuous reappraisal of the social requirements for knowledge, and the value judgements to be applied in directing the search for that knowledge. The view that this would endanger the position of the expert by imposing on his work the judgement of the layman ignores the fact that science has always been the product of social needs, consciously expressed or naught. Science may well be a vital part of human endeavour, but for it to retain the privilege which it has gained over the centuries of being in some measure unaccountable, would be to render both science itself and society a disservice. It is time that knowledge becomes more accessible to those to whom it belongs."
*Dumb as a bag of hammers, and certainly no gentleman,*
mazeppa |
|
|
