Serious question here, have you ever seen a compilation of absolute truths?

@Supra_Librix

Ignoring tautologies and abstractions such as mathematics anyone can create a nearly unlimited list of absolute truths. The important qualification is non-trivial. By non-trivial I mean truths that are interchangeable with facts. By facts I mean those representations of reality that have been established by empirically testing. Those facts however are always estimations. Some are very accurate estimates such as the speed of light but they are still estimates.

The point of this apparently silly exercise is to establish the limitations of reason. Additionally the limitations of faith. For example even if you accept divine revelation as real those revelations are limited by the limitations of the mind that received said revelations not to mention interpretation. It is an attack on philosophy in the tradition of Plato and claims of religion to truth in any objective sense.

@wolfhnd That's one of the most brilliant answers I've ever heard.

I've been on the McDonald's wasteland of facebook thought for a while.

I'm happy to meet a deep thinker.

What's your background? There's no need to have that information in your brain

@Supra_Librix

Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens and their crusade against faith. I'm more comfortable with Peterson's approach to religious tradition. I would be the first to admit I'm not as deep a thinker as they are and I actually like Dennett's work.

What makes me comfortable with Peterson is one of the traditional virtues, humility. The kind of humility that oddly enough comes from one of the most arrogant men who ever lived. That would be Stephen Wolfram. If you haven't read his book "A New Kind of Science" take a peak at it. What Wolfram is on to is that traditional reductionist science has proven terrible at dealing with complex chaotic systems. His proposal is to forget reason and use brute computing power to bottom up solve questions about complex chaotic system. In other words to use evolutionary principles to solve questions about evolved systems.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use top down reductionist empiricism. That has been my life's work. What I'm saying is that thousands of theoretical physicists and billions of dollars have made very little progress over the last 50 years in defining reality. You can't sit in a room and figure the universe out. Nor can you make models and expect realistic results if you don't have the right data to input. For example climate models. Every researcher wants to be a rock star in the tradition of Einstein which as it turns out is a very bad model for how we should approach our problems.

As it applies to the culture wars people are ignoring that societies are complex chaotic systems that have evolved over time. Tracing that evolution is an important part of arriving at reasonable solutions. Part of that evolution involves the swarm intelligence of multiple generations. Monkeying around with traditions and inserting untested theories is unlikely to yield the desired effect. The way Peterson puts it is it is like giving the average college student a box of tools and expecting them to repair a combat helicopter. It's about humility and patience.

@wolfhnd You may find this very hard to believe, I did myself, but I promise it's true and a bit mind bending. While on facebook for about a year I took notes to try to figure out why two intelligent, educated people could come to exactly opposite opinions about a single fact.

I broke down thought process into first principles.

Life is binary.
Thought is analog.

What double slit experiment goes on in our mind to determine the photon of to do or not?

I've been working with some very high IQ folk, a psychologist with a side degree from Harvard Divinity and a viola playing, sumo wrestling Physicist who's on this site: @jaymaron

We've been hammering out the details, from what we can tell, this is a unique analysis of behavior.

Here is the algorithm of:

Happiness:
Ix+ → Ip+

Sacrifice:
Ix- → Ip+

Lots packed into that, but we are on an interesting adventure with it.

I'd love to have you along to watch the quantum ripples in the Universe we create with it. Contribute as much or as little as you like.

All good stuff, lots to it.

@Supra_Librix

I don't think I would be of much use to you. It sounds like a project above my pay grade.

@wolfhnd The audience is more important than the orchestra.

basically anti-art art, it's pretty vague for most, I think.

a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.”

I think art might be the least of it. To me it's more about overall effort to point out flaws in previous conventions in order to show how current ones might also be flawed. The project is to cast doubt on convention, wisdom, and common sense as legitimate manners of knowing.

@dd54 Art that leads to happiness is better than art that leads to suicide.

Is that a good comparison?

@dd54 Ultimately You are the arbitrator for your life, right?

@dd54 Eagles are carnivores.
Doves are vegetarian. Until the vegetables are gone.

@dd54 sorry, no offense, that's what came to mind.

I thought you were very eloquent.

You are right, it's impossible to define everything in our head. Art and words are are approximate and then are imperfectly interpreted.

My point is that even the most peaceful will become a cannibal if there is no other way to sustain life.

Alive! Was a book about that if you are familiar.