No... you missed MY point: I have made NO claims about my phenomenology being metaphysically valid/substantive; indeed, I have even suggested that you can very well chuck these conventional rules at your leisure...
I don't even see what relevance that is, you accept your phenomenology at the physical level ... if you want to deny that is a metaphysical belief than that is your mistake, because you cannot verify your phenomenology within that phenomenology [men have tried with good reason, and found, proved, it is impossible ] ... so I cannot stop you going back to past dreams [nor particularly want to] , but only point out in passing that others have already rigorously shown that it doesn't work.
trouble is, then you're without even a limited set of verificational criteria to work with, so then what? You're out of luck.
Well,as I said, that is rather inevitably how
you see it from inside your phenomenological 'box' that you made around yourself out of things you found that others had abandoned as scrap... but it is not my problem, since I have an absolute framework to use, I do not need a relative one cos' I have one that is not paradoxical, not dependent upon arbitrary [and disputed, and pardoxical] unverifiable axioms
I don't make metaphysical claims, particularly when it comes to the manner in which I make claims: that ALSO falls under my skepticism.
Like Bertrand Russell pointed out, even skeptics get out of the building when the firebell rings... we all believe in something ... claiming you do not have no metaphysical claims is simply denial, you do assert your phenomenology , and whilst you think it is obvious to do so, others have shown that it is not only not obvious, but is inconsistent , pardoxical , thus it is not only an [implicit] metaphysical claim of belief in axioms, it is also one which has been extensively and thoroughly disproven within itself, within its own axioms [yet many like yourself still cling to it , like grasping at straws as one drowns inside one's imagined relative box , instead of leaving it by the unlocked door and searching for and climbing aboard the life-raft of the absolute..
I have no reason to believe that you have "seen" anything, it is NOT "obvious" by any means,
On that one must meditate to escape the box created by thoughts acquired from the world ... simply stop thinking, and after a week or so of practice the mind naturally meditates and expands its consciousness through all the gates that restrict it, including relative beliefs about phenomenologies ... else take the slower [I think much harder] route that I first took of going through the formal disproofs of all relative phenomenologies ... that is harder because it is perhaps harder to open the mind that way...
I do NOT take things on metaphysical faith (rather I assume things on a conventional, provisional basis only)
Again , conventions do change slowly , showing the fallacy of relying completely on them to be true ... rather that wait for them to fail [as all untruths will eventually for everyone] , check out their disproofs [which are written down formally for anyone to read], or just learn to meditate [by prectising ceasing from thought for say ten minutes twice a day for a week] , in which case the barriers tumble naturally and more quickly and easily.
the presence of witnesses does not make for absolute validation (argument from plurality)...
Agreed, but your argument for conventionality is an argument from plurality, [as well as having been disproven already within its own framework]
but indeed, there isn't any necessity here. At all.
I know , I just added the point to show you that I am not alone , since you thought that your beliefs were sound just because others say the same things [ignoring or never reading the formal disproofs of their, often implicitly accepted, position.]
You have not shown you possess any means, you have failed to understand my position regarding adequateness,
As I said , there is no way to show you anything at present except that you do implicitly accept [metaphysically, unverifiably] your own phenomenology and it is disproven , it does have paradoxes at its roots, contradictions upon which it is built ... once you see the flaws you may decide to open the scary door and look for the absolute outside this 'box' of falsified relative beliefs [unverifiable paradoxical 'axioms'] which you sort-of live in , determine your beliefs by ...
and you have yet to show what these so-called "independent witnesses" have to do with absolute truth.
Only that there are others who gave up the relative belief treadmill and saw the ship was not only sinking ,but never had any chance of floating because of contradictions within its structure, holes in its logic ...paradoxes, which are contradictions that people are loathe to admit, but which invalidate relative phenomenologies of all varieties... yet most people work ever harder building ships to the old conventions and they keep sinking inevitably ... there is a design flaw that invalidates building ships that way at all... they always have holes in them that cannot be covered up and still leak even if one ignores them by calling them 'merely' paradoxes ... they are logical contradictions and if one believes a contradiction [by denial] then one cannot hope for any truth to come of it [one can prove what ever one likes from a contradiction but the result is still not necessarily true !]
More telling, still no showing... that ship's done sunk.
Well you could look at the world and see that it is sinking fast, that is directly due to failure to observe the absolute and belief in lies ... I do not say that they are all lies at the root of relative phenomenologies, only that these lies support the structure of lies above them by which a few men run our world onto the Rock and it sinks with no relative-believing survivors [that is billions of deaths] ... so you may wait for the physical evidence to bite home ,or if you prefer then you can seek the absolute sooner [through logic, by observing the contradictions proven instead of ignoring them through faith in convention/tradition... or by 'radically' and bravely expanding consciousness by allowing your mind to meditate , by stopping thinking occasionally]
Which is not what proof is needed to establish absolute claims... or can I play that game too, and claim that I have all the proof that I need that you're imagining all of this?
I don't recommend playing games at all, you will end up as confused as all people who dabble in dishonesty to themselves ... and I did not come here to 'play games' my friend, this is a serious discussion about the depth of T-Truth and the shallowness of t-truth.
Whilst I sympathise that you cannot see what I am talking about from withing your chosen/acquired beliefs [phenomenology] , that does not excuse your unverifiable implicit innuendo against my personal veracity... that is truly to retreat into your denial of anything outside the box and the gaping holes in it which must eventually claim your life [and many billions of others ] as these boxes do not float and cannot be sealed within your beliefs ... thus you will continue sinking until you notice that you are , and then perhaps you will seek to verify your axioms and find they are flawed, or more bravely open the door and abandon ship by meditation , and find the absolute that way.
You have proven no such thing.
I cannot prove anything to you that is outside your box,because you live within it and believe it is closed and safe ... yet its incompleteness was formally proven ,the holes revealed in conventions and their axioms e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice
www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9375
It is for you to see the holes ,open the door and climb out , nit me, else you will drown inside still denying the holes and the rising water level inside ... I cannot do that because you will refuse to acknowledge that can see outside and see the holes that you cannot, even though I tried living in a similar box myself once and got out and tell you that the absolute is far better , incomparably better, than the paradoxical relative ... it just takes a little bravery to doubt one's long-held beliefs test them by themselves and see the holes , then realise there is no future inside the box, the sooner one leaves the more time to explore the absolute
No. I reject it due to the demonstrable lack of valid verificational schemas for such projects.
Yeah, again I sympathise, but you failed to notice that your beliefs are not verified either, in fact they are proven contradictory at root, without foundations... by refusing to look outside them and refusing to look at their roots, there is no way out until they fail you [as paradoxical beliefs must eventually fail anyone and thus will fail everyone who doesn't abandon them in time before they fail]
Or, you're just making this up as you go along as to falsely disqualify opposing arguments.
Again I sympathise, but it isn't so ... I have no desire to waste my time and yours by making anything up.
yes, denial is the problem , I know that , it doesn't help any ...
My determination is that absolute truth is inaccessible by non-absolute means.
Well I understand how you got there, but you forgot that how you got there is unverifiable and that that statement is unverifiable , you forgot your own unverifia ble and inconsistent 'principle' , so how do you believe it ????
Yes, I sympathise , from your position it
looks impossible... but that is why you should examine how you look at things, because that itself is not only unverifiable, but proven inadequate ... simply apply your scepticism to your own belief system, because it can prove itself inadequate... then you might look outside it and find the absolute, which is incomparably better... the mistake was to stop looking and settle for the relative by means of a proven-unsatisfactory [but common, conventional phenomenology [belief system]
even if it were staring you and I in the face, who is to say we would know an absolute from non-absolutes?
We have within us that ability, you will recognise the absolute . you need nothing more than an open mind [which means abandoning disproven relative phenomenologies - by examining then=m to see what rubbish they are, or more simply by meditating to get in touch with the witness to the absolute by expanding your awareness quite naturally and automatically to include it, in other word simply stopping denying it , cos' part f you already knows it and is being shut out by false beliefs in inconsistent and useless relative ideas , 'false t-truths' ! ]
