What values are infact universal?

[Iskatehard]

I've spent the majority of today reading... And I've come across so many different topics that hold such unique points and elements that could be a foundation to a specific form of logic, it's kind of mind boggling.

Anyway.. I've come to find there is great debate over what is universal.

To help you understand what I mean as "universal", I'll quote wiki:

"a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things."

"the noun "universal" contrasts with "individual", while the adjective "universal" contrasts with "particular""




So... I think that if something is going to be universal, it's a solid fact. It cannot be subjective, and it would have to exist even if there were no life around to interact with it. It's consistent. It's a fixed value.

For an example.. I suppose we could say our knowledge of "algebra" is universal. Physic based laws built upon algebra would be universal.. For example, a particular amount of mass is going to have a fixed amount of gravity no matter what. (as long as there were no outside variables applying force, such as magnetism)

We can agree there, can't we? I think so...



BUT this is where things get interesting...

When we develop philosophy, if you will.. I think we need to attribute as much consideration to universal facts as possible. We can't try to live by a set of ethics which are founded upon the contrasting of facts, can we? (I know some think others do, but let's not argue that)


So... That being said...

What do YOU think is universal, outside of the above examples?

Perhaps you think NOTHING is universal. Everything must be interpreted in order to exist, possibly? (But hey.. Does that mean if we're not aware something exists, then it doesn't!?)

I'm really not sure.. But I'm going to spend a lot of time researching in trying to find what I believe has universal properties and/or value.

So, what are your thoughts of universal properties/values? Are there any? If you think so, what are they?

To get some people started, if you're completely unfamiliar, I'd suggest reading into:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics)

And to make it easier to understand.. I suppose we could look at the ideas of some religions. They state that God is completely of good. That would mean there is a defined value/property that makes "good", and it could exist without something else.

I don't know.. I personally think that anything with universal value can be defined purely by numbers.. But I guess ideas like universal ethics or universal aesthetics have deep roots in history of humanity, and a lot of people agree with the concepts.. So maybe I'm missing something..

[Varial_360]

This isn't meant to sound dickish, but you're on a hayday with these threads. Your new nickname is "Oh Wise One"

[Iskatehard]

=\

Sorry for the surge in philosophical threads... Thing is I guess I've had too much free time lately.. I've spent too much time researching into different ideas that have been proposed throughout history..

Mainly because I want to someday be able to propose an idea of my own in text.. And I want it to have meaning. I don't want a repeat. And if there is already a set of ideas that reflect my personal beliefs perfectly.. But some stride of luck.. I want to know about it.. If that even makes sense.

And the more you know about the different ways people look at things.. The more you have to apply to your own decision making processes, thus leading to more sound decisions...

And on topic of which values are universal... Well.. It's something people have to know, I think. If you're making a decision based on something that contrasts a universal law, then it can't be right or just.

[Iskatehard]

Plus, is it possible there are elements/laws that we can't see/comprehend strictly thanks to our brain's limited sense functionality?

[stinkingfish]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

this kinda of reminds me of Taoism. which believes that nothing can be interpreted. That when we try to express things a objectified form they lose their real meaning. Taoism is actual pretty strict with universal properties too. Basically it's idea is dualism. Their is a positive and a negative, a good and a bad, a high and a low, a yin and a yang. the second rule is that both extremes need each other in order to exist. And The last *rule* is that the extremes incline torwards each other.

[Iskatehard]

But how would something have meaning or value if it's not objectified and interpreted?

I would think that rather than that being when something loses its value.. I'd imagine that's when it gains its value.

[Skateselect]

keep up your philosophical threads man, im loving it lol

[CTskater94]

based on q-mechanics, nothing is universal. because for someting to exist it has to be observed by a concious observer. without life, the universe is just a vast probability


even things we generally think of as constant no matter what tend to disapear under certain circumstances. take for example, physical laws. these fall apart at the singularity. and i cant think of anything right now thats more "universal", or as close to it as physical laws

[Iskatehard]

Could to explain the physical laws you speak of a bit more? And could you explain what you mean by saying the fall apart at the singularity?

What singularity, for that matter?

And the q-mechanics idea seems questionable. It's almost like it submits to the problem that some things are seemingly impossible to completely understand/comprehend, and leaves it at that as explination, in a way.

I mean.. We can safely say there is other planets/stars in this universe, even if we can't see them specifically... So.. Do they not exist because of that?

I think things can exist without being noticed and seen.

There's physical evidence to support that claim, also.. So, what would be the deal with that? Or is the noticing of evidence enough to prove it exists? I could understand that claim a bit on it's own.. But then, what about the problem that evidence can be misleading? If we have a piece of 'evidence' that suggests something, such as a specific type of star, exists somewhere.. When in reality, it doesn't, and we've a flaw in our calculations/guesses.. Does it still exist because we believe we observe it?

And if we eventually understand the evidence better, and find we were incorrect in our initial assumptions and we further figure out what is the actual case.. Does that instantly change the existence of the object? So what we initially though it was prior DID exist, but upon figuring it out, it ceases to exist, and is replaced with something else...

And how could a life come to exist without being observed and inferred by that of another life? Shit, wait, no.. That's a different topic.


I think the q-mechanics thing creates unlimited forms of reality. It creates unlimited realms and unlimited forms of existence. It basically seems to say to me that there is no error, and all we think is right by force. If that were the case, how could we ever learn?

[Roboman]

^ I'm getting an Axiom tomorrow.

[spanky_dan]

Was that to me? Haha, I deleted the post because I really wasn't bothered enough to expand on the point and didn't want to get dragged into the conversation.

I don't get what you mean when you say you are getting one haha. In a test?

[i cheat at golf]

Have I not understood the thread properly in saying that CHANGE is universal?

What can you think of that is unchanging?

Everything changes, space, time, and everything in it...


I hate wanting to respond well to these threads, but then only being able to come up with a couple of lines...

[Roboman]

Was that to me? Haha, I deleted the post because I really wasn't bothered enough to expand on the point and didn't want to get dragged into the conversation.

I don't get what you mean when you say you are getting one haha. In a test?

Nah. Much more literal.

http://www.sounddevices.com.au/secureshop/photos/large/1047.jpg

Axiom 49 keyboard haha.

[spanky_dan]

Ohhhh haha, very nice!

[Iskatehard]

I love the way that thing looks!

Funny, too.. As I've spent a lot of time today researching more types of keyboards can I care to list. I just recently said "fuck, I'm done for now.." and came here, and then seen that... Might as well research it a bit.

edit

Shit, it looks pretty good. The addition of the pads really add a lot to it, and the bending knobs are a must for anything I purchase.

This seems like an amazing controller, especially considering it's price.

Only problem I see is that most of the reviews I see on it are based on Reason users.. Not much talk on if it works well with other popular DAWs =\

[UrMomSkatesMongo]

Anything is possible, as far as we know.

The one thing that is impossible, is finding a correct answer.


Like i have said 3 times already, we created the answers and meanings to everything we think we know.

We dont know if we are right or wrong.

[Roboman]

I have the 25 key version, and liked it so much that I'm upgrading. The keys are what make it good though, they feel really solid and have aftertouch so they respond to not just velocity but pressure as well. You can be holding down a note and push harder and assign that pressure value to anything.

The knobs aren't so great, they are very clicky and I haven't been inclined to use them that often, but everything else like mod wheel and pitch bend and drum pads is good.

And its just a midi controller, theres nothing reason-specific about it so it will work with ANYTHING that can take midi in.

I'm actually getting it on thursday now.

[Iskatehard]

Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing it up. And yeah it makes sense that it would work with other things aside from Reason.. Just thought I'd ask as I haven't ever owned or set up a controller myself, so y'know =\..

[Roboman]

^ Thats cool. :)