Objective truth/Truth deals with relationships
-
Peace upon you idolfree1, all
Concerning your example of eating raw meat, and its implications as that we are not meat-eaters because we need to cook our meat, and fire came lately in human history...
If we go by analogy, every implication of any of human invetions should be left, ignored, because, as you suggest, it came "lately" in human history, even speach or more precisely ABSTRACTION.
Abstraction is the faculty to refer to/to understand something without it being present, at hand. Like if I say I like apples, each one of us has its own abstract concept for what an apple is, what does it taste like, colors...
We would return to jungles to be able to find fruits and vegetables, not being able to farm.
So this is the dillemma We are at a certain stage in human evolution able to generate "non-truths" and "truths", while before, we had no choice but to follow "the truth". By your understanding, we should renounce to all human knowledge.
Do you think it is the purpose of our existance? I don't KNOW. I have trust that it isn't.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion.
--
-
Peace Kyle,
Am I correct in asserting that "truth' is not necessarily a "fact", but "fact" is always the "truth"? Either way please explain, if I am incorrect. Thanks.
-
Peace be upon you Someone,
Concerning your example of eating raw meat, and its implications as that we are not meat-eaters because we need to cook our meat, and fire came lately in human history...
There are several other factors as well, however if you have no choice, then by all means eat some cooked meat.
If we go by analogy, every implication of any of human invetions should be left, ignored, because, as you suggest, it came "lately" in human history, even speach
You are singling out one piece of evidence and disregarding the rest. Lets reason it out. Both cooking food and speech did not start from the beginning (although I would think speech came before cooking food), but the SURROUNDING EVIDENCE suggests that we were created for speech. The FORM/FUNCTION is what we are dealing with to clarify the truth. We have vocal cords, mouths, etc. But with eating raw meat, we dont have fangs, claws, strong enough digestive acids to eat a filthy pig covered in feces as a lion does, etc. The signs point us in the right direction.
or more precisely ABSTRACTION.
Abstraction is the faculty to refer to/to understand something without it being present, at hand. Like if I say I like apples, each one of us has its own abstract concept for what an apple is, what does it taste like, colors...
We would return to jungles to be able to find fruits and vegetables, not being able to farm.
The term abstract refers to the expression of a quality apart from an object. For example, you have dogs, then the abstract group Canine. One is an EXTERNAL grouping (dogs), the other is an INTERNALLY grouping (canine). Regarding apples, they are not abstract, "Fruit" would be the abstract group. Everyone who has knowledge of an apple agrees to its basic characteristics.
So this is the dillemma We are at a certain stage in human evolution able to generate "non-truths" and "truths", while before, we had no choice but to follow "the truth". By your understanding, we should renounce to all human knowledge.
Do you think it is the purpose of our existance? I don't KNOW. I have trust that it isn't.
I am not following the dilemma, I think you are not exactly clear as to what I am saying just yet, please let me know if the above responses have not clarified my position.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion.
Always! Thatw what we are here for.
-
Peace be upon you Danish,
Am I correct in asserting that "truth' is not necessarily a "fact", but "fact" is always the "truth"? Either way please explain, if I am incorrect. Thanks.
A truth is based on abstract relativity, it relies on the interconnectedness of all things which gives us a means to MEASURE truth, not just guess at it. A fact does not have to have anything else with it, it can stand alone.
-
Peace upon you idolfree1,
I think we are discussing about fact vs truth, although my previous post was somehow off-topic.
Let's take the law of gravitation as an example. Can you please tell, as per your understanding, some facts and truth(s) related to such a law? This could clarify the subject a little more.
--
-
Peace be upon you Someone,
I think we are discussing about fact vs truth, although my previous post was somehow off-topic.
Let's take the law of gravitation as an example. Can you please tell, as per your understanding, some facts and truth(s) related to such a law? This could clarify the subject a little more.
Well if it is Divine Law, then it doesnt deal with facts, but relationships. Since we are dealing with relationships, we need more than one thing.
-
Paz,
...Divine Law is what we call TRUTH. ..It's the form/function, the relationship between form and function that tells us what the truth about something is. ..
I see. Then, in order, to observe the reality - to understand the correspondence between form and function in that reality --> truth -; to follow that truth since truth is right, to follow right. That is to submit to the divine law, said in religious terms, or following what is safe, clear,manifest and doesn't cause further problems.
Now the task would be to identify the correct relationships in every field we are interested in.
-
ElenaNow the task would be to identify the correct relationships in every field we are interested in.
This is exactly what al-quraan concerns itself with. While Al-kitaab , the writ of humanity if you will can be observed in reality, al-quraan is the detailling, the telling of what's what in the book (in quranic tafseelul kitaab , 10/37). If you think of al-kitaab as the pie of human reality, al-quraan is the best way to slice that pie.
-
Peace be upon you Elena,
Now the task would be to identify the correct relationships in every field we are interested in.
Correct. ) Even those we are not "interested" in. Our interests come from our likes and dislikes, some things we have to do even when we dont like it. Many people are not interested in being vegetarian, so thier interest might not be "food choices".
-
Peace brother Kyle,
Thank you for the interesting discussion. I have to say that brother Someone made some very good comments that point to some of shortcomings of Kemetic philosophy. As with any human philosophy there are going to be good points but it will still be limited. So we shouldn't get hung up on following any philosophy too strictly and we should just take the best ideas out of anything we come across.
You are singling out one piece of evidence and disregarding the rest. Lets reason it out. Both cooking food and speech did not start from the beginning (although I would think speech came before cooking food), but the SURROUNDING EVIDENCE suggests that we were created for speech. The FORM/FUNCTION is what we are dealing with to clarify the truth. We have vocal cords, mouths, etc. But with eating raw meat, we dont have fangs, claws, strong enough digestive acids to eat a filthy pig covered in feces as a lion does, etc. The signs point us in the right direction.
As with most animalistic religions (such as the Ancient Egyptian religions) the piece that you quoted from alleged Ra Un Nefer Amen writings are too concerned with superficial forms/functions. Perhaps other animalistic religions such as Hinduism originally got their ideas about not eating meat based on similar observations.
In the great reading, we are told that livestock is one of the things that makes us aware of The God (2236-37). When you think about livestock, it epitomizes the opposite of what the philosophy that you presented proposes. Livestock itself is essentially "domesticated" animals. So those are animals that humans have transformed their nature from wild to domestic animals. At the same time, The God ALLOWED their nature to be this way as evident from our inability to domesticate other types of animals. So the livestock is an example of using our God-given mind and imagination to TRANSform other creatures within the restrictions set by The God. Similarly, we have used cooking process to tranform the raw meat from bad to nutritious.
Let's take another example. According to Kemitic philosophy the relationship between the spider and its home given in 2941-44 would be false. The spider's home is an amazing structure in terms of its physical form strongly fitting its function. The fibers of the spider's web are actually very strong relative to their width and this is why caught insects cannot break out from them. If you were to weave enough filaments into a fabric, it would be a very strong fabric. So in the same way that lions have sharp fangs and claws to hunt and eat animal prey, spiders have strong webs to hunt and eat insect prey. However, we see again Kemitic philosophy failing to explain or provide any guidance as to the TRUE relationship that we are concerned about.
- It is The God who made your homes tranquility for you...
The main purpose of our homes is that they are tranquility for us. The spider uses its home not for tranquility and rest but instead uses it for hunting.
Like our homes, the nighttime is described as tranquility for us (696 and 1067). On the other hand, spiders are night hunters.
Like our homes, our mates are also described as tranquility for us (7189 and 3021). The spider's mating habits are far from tranquil. For example, the female desert spider often eats her mate as a result of erroneous communication.
Using Kemitic philosophy in the above examples we would only be able to understand the superficial relationships between forms and functions and we won't be guided to the true deep relationship that concerns us.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace be upon you Ayman,
Thank you for the interesting discussion.
Your welcome, glad to see you join in.
I have to say that brother Someone made some very good comments that point to some of shortcomings of Kemetic philosophy.
I have responded to Someone's post, I dont see any shortcomings as of yet.
As with any human philosophy there are going to be good points but it will still be limited. So we shouldn't get hung up on following any philosophy too strictly and we should just take the best ideas out of anything we come across.
I certainly agree, but I have not seen any contradiction yet. I dont see how any philosophy can be greater that objective verification.
IF1
You are singling out one piece of evidence and disregarding the rest. Lets reason it out. Both cooking food and speech did not start from the beginning (although I would think speech came before cooking food), but the SURROUNDING EVIDENCE suggests that we were created for speech. The FORM/FUNCTION is what we are dealing with to clarify the truth. We have vocal cords, mouths, etc. But with eating raw meat, we dont have fangs, claws, strong enough digestive acids to eat a filthy pig covered in feces as a lion does, etc. The signs point us in the right direction.Ayman
As with most animalistic religions (such as the Ancient Egyptian religions) the piece that you quoted from alleged Ra Un Nefer Amen writings are too concerned with superficial forms/functions. Perhaps other animalistic religions such as Hinduism originally got their ideas about not eating meat based on similar observations.In the great reading, we are told that livestock is one of the things that makes us aware of The God (2236-37). When you think about livestock, it epitomizes the opposite of what the philosophy that you presented proposes. Livestock itself is essentially "domesticated" animals. So those are animals that humans have transformed their nature from wild to domestic animals. At the same time, The God ALLOWED their nature to be this way as evident from our inability to domesticate other types of animals. So the livestock is an example of using our God-given mind and imagination to TRANSform other creatures within the restrictions set by The God. Similarly, we have used cooking process to tranform the raw meat from bad to nutritious.
I am not following the similitude. How are you applying the form/function to the domestication of animals? I have shown the interconnected web of signs regarding food consumption (no fangs, no claws, shape of teeth, digestive acids, no thirst for blood, ect). What are the interconnected web of signs in relation to domesticating or not domesticating those animals?
Let's take another example. According to Kemitic philosophy the relationship between the spider and its home given in 2941-44 would be false. The spider's home is an amazing structure in terms of its physical form strongly fitting its function. The fibers of the spider's web are actually very strong relative to their width and this is why caught insects cannot break out from them. If you were to weave enough filaments into a fabric, it would be a very strong fabric. So in the same way that lions have sharp fangs and claws to hunt and eat animal prey, spiders have strong webs to hunt and eat insect prey. However, we see again Kemitic philosophy failing to explain or provide any guidance as to the TRUE relationship that we are concerned about.
- It is The God who made your homes tranquility for you...
The main purpose of our homes is that they are tranquility for us. The spider uses its home not for tranquility and rest but instead uses it for hunting.
Like our homes, the nighttime is described as tranquility for us (696 and 1067). On the other hand, spiders are night hunters.
Like our homes, our mates are also described as tranquility for us (7189 and 3021). The spider's mating habits are far from tranquil. For example, the female desert spider often eats her mate as a result of erroneous communication.
Using Kemitic philosophy in the above examples we would only be able to understand the superficial relationships between forms and functions and we won't be guided to the true deep relationship that concerns us.
You are mixing different topics. The story of the spider is an allegory bringing us deeper wisdom. The subject I am talking about is not allegories, but understanding LAW through abstract relatives(relationships). Regarding Kemetic Philosophy, there are metaphoric stories which relate DEEP spiritual wisdom, but that I not what I have provided here.
-
Peace brother Kyle,
I am not following the similitude. How are you applying the form/function to the domestication of animals? I have shown the interconnected web of signs regarding food consumption (no fangs, no claws, shape of teeth, digestive acids, no thirst for blood, ect). What are the interconnected web of signs in relation to domesticating or not domesticating those animals?
I apologise if I wasn't clear. In the same way that we can TRANSform animals from wild to domesticated, we can also TRANSform meat from bad raw meat into cooked good meat. Kemitic philosophy by concerning itself with only the superficial forms and functions (at least in this one case) has not provided us with much guidance and has failed to point to humans' purpose.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace be upon you Ayman,
I apologise if I wasn't clear. In the same way that we can TRANSform animals from wild to domesticated, we can also TRANSform meat from bad raw meat into cooked good meat.
But in regards to purpose, we still would have to address why meat stays so long in your colon ) As oppossed to veggies and fruits that are easily digested.
Also, please show the interconnecting reasons why domesticated animals should remain wild, in the same way that it was shown that raw meat is not for the human. This discussion is not aligned properly.
Kemitic philosophy by concerning itself with only the superficial forms and functions (at least in this one case) has not provided us with much guidance and has failed to point to humans' purpose.
The portion I am discussing on this thread is only about Divine Law, which is one of 11 parts of the Spirit according to that philosophy. And even with that , the law of MAAT deals much deeper that what we have discussed thus far, but my intention is no to teach Kamitic philosophy, I am just using it to shed light on our discussion here regarding "truth". This is by no means extensive discussion of Khamitic Philosophy )
-
Peace brother Kyle,
I apologise if I wasn't clear. In the same way that we can TRANSform animals from wild to domesticated, we can also TRANSform meat from bad raw meat into cooked good meat.
But in regards to purpose, we still would have to address why meat stays so long in your colon ) As oppossed to veggies and fruits that are easily digested.
That has nothing to do with the purpose. Some fruits are not even edible. This is why we sometimes hear of ornamental fruits. I am sure that you would have a hard time digesting many edible fruits and veggies. Try to chew on raw corn, raw eggplant or raw pumpkin and you will have a very hard time chewing and if you eat a good size serving you will probably get indigestion. This is why we need to use our knowledge to judge and differentiate between food items and how to or not to process it.
This is not just the case for food and drink but it is also the case for other necessities such as clothing. You have to process the skin or the hair from the animal and the fibers from plants to make them suitable for clothing.
So although the idea of the small part of the Kemitic philosophy that you presented may sound appealing as a "going back to nature" movement, it is actually going against human nature. This is because it is our nature to process things and to try to transform something bad into something good (unfortunately we sometimes do the opposite too). If you apply the same logic accross the board then we wouldn't process anything or transform anything and we would be still living in the trees.
Also, please show the interconnecting reasons why domesticated animals should remain wild, in the same way that it was shown that raw meat is not for the human. This discussion is not aligned properly.
I think that the discussion is not aligned properly because from the above you think that I am talking about raw meat. As far as raw meat, everyone agrees that we shouldn't eat it, so there is no issue there.
On the other hand, as far as I can tell, your philosophy was advocating not eating properly cooked meat. What I was comparing are two processes. The process of transforming wild animals into domesticated ones for our benefit and the process of transforming their raw meat to cooked meat for our benefit. In both cases we used our God-given mind and imagination to transform natural forms into forms that can produce some more benefits for us. This ability makes humans unique on this planet so it must be related to our purpose.
Now we are told in the great reading that those processes make us aware of The God. Those very same processes according to the philosophy that you presented are presented as conter-productive. So there is a disconnect between your philosophy and the great reading as well as what we can observe about human purpose.
Kemitic philosophy by concerning itself with only the superficial forms and functions (at least in this one case) has not provided us with much guidance and has failed to point to humans' purpose.
The portion I am discussing on this thread is only about Divine Law, which is one of 11 parts of the Spirit according to that philosophy. And even with that , the law of MAAT deals much deeper that what we have discussed thus far, but my intention is no to teach Kamitic philosophy, I am just using it to shed light on our discussion here regarding "truth". This is by no means extensive discussion of Khamitic Philosophy )
I am sure that there are some very good portions to Kemetic philosophy. This just doesn't happen to be one of them. This is especially the case because as you said we are discussing "truth". The one example that you brought was concerned with superficial physical relationships (fangs - meat eater). I don't think that this is the right approach when it comes to looking for deeper truths.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace,
Good discussion going on here, excellent points by someone and bro Ayman. I don't understand why the word transform is written as TRANSform? It's no matter, carry on though.
-
Kyle No, thats a fact, a truth would be what is the relationship between the green table and 4 chairs that came with the table
Would you mind showing me how the relationship between the green table and 4 chair is a truth please?
I guess you need the chairs to sit around the table, well, how about the table is the mother of 4 young chairs?, would that make any sense to anyone?, i'm really cool with it, but we may need a DNA test to prove it scietifically though, the question will stay though, who is the father of the 4 young chairs?
-
Peace be upon you Lote Tree,
You verify just what the article I shared stated, that Man is totally confused on a simple subject
Peace bro
I promised you that I will not discuss any subject with you due to a possible biasim, but I can't let this go, sorry
i can see that you are calling someone "CONFUSED" would that be contradicting your religion of peace concept or would it be contraidcting the forum rules or both?, if it is not contradicting the forum rules then yahoo, i can call others confused
please calrify
My many thanks to you
and Peace be with you
-
-
Peace be upon you Ahmed,
would that be contradicting your religion of peace concept
Your "religion" I take it is not centered around Peace?
Elena has given you the right context in regards to my response, so you can now continue your "response fast" with me and continue to refrain from being rude to others )