Files
Isn’t it odd that events don’t really happen if there’s no official record of them, no paperwork? I know this concept might sound crazy to most people: "What do you mean they don’t really happen? Of course they do, I remember them, I was there!" But, no, they don’t. If there is no record, no solid proof, it did not happen. Other’s witnesses will disagree in what they think happened, and if all there is is testimony and it conflicts then no one knows what, if anything, really happened at any given time.
It’s the same principle upon which courts and organizations operate:
"I have a witness saying Mr. Dion killed this man!"
"Is there a body?"
"No"
"Is there a murder weapon?"
"No"
"Is there any evidence of any kind besides the witness?"
"Only circumstantial evidence"
"Then the accused shall walk free"
Example 2:
"Hi, I called you two weeks ago about an insurance claim and you still haven’t gotten back to me"
"Okay, and what is your name sir?
"Jim Davis"
"I”m sorry sir but we have no record of your claim in our system"
"But I did call in two weeks ago, I spoke to Mr. Duncan"
"Yes I’m sure you may have sir, but your claim is not in our system, there’s nothing we can do but start all over again"
And thus is life. There are no records of it, it didn’t happen.
It’s a weird concept to think about. It makes you wonder how much of our history we’re unaware of, and how much of it is fiction.
9 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Interesting idea….I also wonder about what we do and don’t know from history. Everything written is subjective. Are we missing some important moments in our history? All this Deep Throat stuff is making me wonder about Watergate and if there was even more that we are not aware. Guess we’ll never know….oh, and I can relate to the insurance claim issue.
Comment by Melinda — On 06-20-05 at 8:12 am
I automatically connect that to individual perceptions, and that it’s hard to gauge absolutes using more than one perception
Comment by Nathan — On 06-20-05 at 5:31 pm
Yes indeed it does have everything to do with individual perceptions, but if you think about it there aren’t really any absolutes. Once something has occurred it can exist only in records(records being actual physical evidence, or memories) and since no record ever contains everything that happened at a particular moment from every perspective there is never any way to objectively determine an absolute. There is no objectivity, only subjectivity.
Comment by Prof. Snafu Halitosis — On 06-21-05 at 5:39 pm
You can define objectvity by the moment, as I view things only in the sense of present. I follow linear time & schedules, etc., for convienence. In any given present moment I can tell you what I see. To me, that is objective. I know it happened. Whether or not anyone else saw it happen doesn’t matter to me. I have a hard time understanding why gauging objectivity must be from every perspective. I’m rarely every perspective (and when I am, I’ll be enlightened!
) but even in that state you still retain individuality in a certain way.
Stating that there are no absolutes is a contradiction, because that is an absolute. Contradictions cannot exist in actual life – they are warped perceptions, begging you to check your premises to see that. There is a logic and order to the universe. Nothing would function without it.
Comment by Nathan — On 06-23-05 at 12:26 pm
I think we’re getting lost in semantics here. Gauging objectivity must be from every perspective because that’s what objectivity means:
“not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective fact”
what you’re calling objective is what subjectivity is:
“dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence.”
But this renders the word objectivity meaningless since everything is dependent on the mind for existence. Perhaps that’s not true but I have yet to hear a convincing argument to the contrary.
I think we acutally agree on this point. It’s just that since you’re aware that nothing exists beyond the mind you call your perceptions objective, and you may be right to do so. It’s a curious point.
As for your second point, stating that there are no absolutes is indeed a contradiction. But I for one believe in contradictions, in paradoxes. There seems to be a lot of things out there that appear to contradict themselves, and I sort of think that paradox is the basis of all reality in a weird way that I can’t really explain. There may be a logic and order to the universe, I’m sure there is in some sense. And maybe that logic actually shows that all things that appear to be paradoxes do in fact make sense. Unfortunately, whatever that logic may be it currently eludes my mental grasp.
Comment by Prof. Snafu Halitosis — On 06-24-05 at 12:29 am
To me, that is a particularily odd definition. The definition of objectivity was made assuming subjectivity is dependant on one’s mind, and objectivity determined by not using your own perceptions, which is all we have. So far as I know, only (a) God would be able to do that, and I haven’t met any recently. As one cannot not be dependent on their mind for existence, based on that definition, I would declare that either objectivity does not exist or I am not real.
The definition says I cannot make a logical argument because nothing is for certain; that is nihilistic. I know what I see is what I see. Whether or not other minds see it or not doesn’t matter, because it’s my mind.
The “to me” at the beginning of this comment is what defines everyone’s existence. That “to me” is what allowed someone to declare objectivity not being based on the “to me”.
I view objectivity from context as “solid and unchangeable”, while subjectivity is just that: liquid, moving, changing, not always solid.
I’ve found contradictions and paradoxes existing in reality are normally caused by the perceiver to be on drugs (of any type) and/or hallucinating. That’s illogistic. Try functioning on it in every day life
.
Comment by Nathan — On 06-25-05 at 11:02 pm
Eh, I think I typed what I was seeing rather than what I was thinking in the first section of my last comment. I think I meant to say, “*That* definition of objectivity was made *using* subjectivity” and delete up to the comma. Or something like that.
God, I need to get Focus Factor or something.
Comment by Nathan — On 06-25-05 at 11:05 pm
Yes I agree that only a god could be truly objective, and thus it is really a nonsense word (but one that is used constantly by people). As for paradoxes, I think they exist when I’m not on drugs. I’m not going to get into that right now but expect a post on it in the future.
Comment by Prof. Snafu Halitosis — On 06-27-05 at 6:49 pm
Viagra…
Online pharmacies gruesome online pharmacies….
Trackback by Viagra — On 11-02-06 at 4:21 pm