There is, after reflection on this point, a reason to extend freedom; but by the same token it does nobody any good if the truth has only one side.

Sep 13, 2012 -- 8:43PM, Streen wrote:

I'm sorry, I guess I don't know what you mean by truth having only one side.  I personally believe there are infinite "sides", infinite truths, etc.

For a while I've been reading material about Zen.  Of course, one cannot really talk "about" Zen without misunderstanding.  My point is to explain my previous post.  To me, ultimately, there are two kinds of spiritual people in the world: those seeking peace and those who have found it.  That's why I say there is no argument or discussion to be had, because we can't lose a game that we're not playing.

That might sound jumbled or cryptic, but it's the best I can do when it comes to Zen.

I also believe there are infinite sides.

When only one of those is expressed as the "sole fact" it demands contrast. When multiple points of view are present, there is balance.

A single-sided truth is not a truth; it is a dogma.

Sep 15, 2012 -- 5:35PM, Redheron wrote:

I also don't believe in absolutism.

I believe in absolutes ... but only to a degree.

Sep 15, 2012 -- 5:35PM, Redheron wrote:

Upon reflection, I reject that there are only 2 kinds of spiritual people... there are those seeking peace, those who have found it, and those who have found it and forgotten. There are also those who don't care about peace, but who are instead looking for love and joy, happiness, or other states of being which may come as a result of spiritual seeking.

Peace is a worthy goal.  It is less than Justice though, and a different thing than Honor or Compassion, which are also worth the effort.

Sep 15, 2012 -- 5:35PM, Redheron wrote:

While I don't even imply that either of us might be right or wrong, my viewpoint differs.

With billions of humans just on this one known world, I think it might be worth keeping in mind that we are meant to have a variety of opinions.

Sep 15, 2012 -- 5:35PM, Redheron wrote:

The real question is: do these semantic details matter as much as the fact that we can peacefully disagree?

It depends on the details, and on the consequence of disagreement.

D'jnieh

Nov 7, 2012 -- 9:07PM, Streen wrote:

I believe in absolutes ... but only to a degree.

Your statement contradicts itself.  There cannot be absolutes AND degrees.  Degrees imply varying levels of truth, while an absolute is either true or not.

IMO, there is no so such thing as absolutism.  Everyone experiences relativism throughout their lives, and though they may deny it, it exists none the less.

Your argument defeats itself, because you did not even try to understand what I meant.

Nov 8, 2012 -- 11:46AM, Streen wrote:

Fair enough.  What did you mean?

The world exists in two modes of Nature:  Calculus and Fibonacci.  That is, clear absolutes can exist within certain ranges, and odd little indicators like how the Fibonacci numbers exactly describe cellular development in plants and marine life indicate patterns are, somehow, both adamant and flexible.  

When these observations are applied to human behavior, we see that any person is capable of a range of moral choice, up to and including absolute good or evil, but limited in effect to their opportunity.  Hitler and Ghandi, for example, were each able to act in world-changing ways, but this was due as much to their opportunity as their character.