I have the following true. Some may disagree...
Feb. 8 quote:
“I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others”
― Jiddu Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti: 100 Years
I agree with this almost entirely, I contend that he see a pathless because no single path is distinguishable for all the others. So rather than being a pathless land, it is path-full, that being said, no single path can approach the truth. The truth can only be described more fully by all of them together.
"If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others"
This speaks to my avoidance of the written word (to include recorded voice and video to a large degree). It is impossible to use words that retain their meaning across time, or in every perspective. So the meaning of what I say dies when made permanent in any way. it is only the living words (person to person) that the meaning stands any chance of surviving (three cheers for the oral traditions of old).
>>>> It is impossible to use words that retain their meaning across time, or in every perspective
the way truth is usually written is through words with allegories using individual imagination. or so it seems.
My apologies, omit one little word and it changed the meaning.
it is impossible to use written words...
I do have to wonder, did I miss it, or was it that truth within me trying to tell me something?
Do you believe that there is absolute certainty in the interpretation of meaning of a spoken word that is heard?
Any person's interpretation of what they heard needs dialog with and confirmation from the speaker to be even relatively certain.
Such dialog may or may not be an option.
For example, how would you apply your statement to speech that is heard via a medium like film or audio recording?
I would content that any intelligible exchange via sensually apprehendable forms of language, including written forms, is a two way interpretive process and that the best one can hope for is a relative transmission/reception of meaning.
Each participants's individual perspectives conditionally play a part in relativizing the exchange.
>>>>> Any person's interpretation of what they heard needs dialog with and confirmation from the speaker to be even relatively certain.
I agree with Mark. The meaning the person reading/hearing the words is a personal experience to the reader/listener. Personal experience may be accurate or inaccurate. In any case, a personal experience can never be transmitted without "luck" in the transmission. Same is true with the transmitter's experience.
I agree with what you are saying as well.
Communication is only possible through common areas of experience. Each of us, having unique perspectives, experience things differently, or, each of us having unique experiences, perceive things differently.
We depend on commonalities to be able to communicate at all. It is because of the uniqueness of experience/perspective, we all speak our own language, even the meaning of words we think we share, are questionable at best.
We all think we know what the color red is, we all had someone hold up something red and tell us, this is red. What we tend to overlook is that there is no guarantee any of us actually see's red. What you see as red may differ (and probably does) , but because this is a repeatable thing, because each of us was told whatever we saw was red, and because anytime we see it we say red, does not mean we see the same thing. It only means we call whatever we see as red consistently.
The point I have been trying to make, is that within all of us is the same truth. It is only through this singular commonality that we can communicate without error. If we would get out of it's way, quit trying to control it, or guide it, or even translate it. Just let it speak to and through us, then everything will change, instantaneously.
It just occurred to me that Math and Physics might be different. It is impossible to function in those fields without the depth of knowledge needed to communicate. I may have to think about it more. Those languages are very specific.
I would agree that math is specific. Physics dependency of math indicates to me that it is subordinate to math (a child of math if you will), and as such, could just as easily be call "observational" math.
Just a thought
you are right that physics is dependent on math. Math is also a subset of philosophy (some branch, similar to logic). Or rather - that is usually how I look at it. Also religion can be a subset of religious philosophy. Hmmm...
All things are philosophy maybe.