Objective Truth?

Mark:

you can tell has a real thirst to get her mind around the issues, and who isn’t looking for a sound bite to take the place of a complicated story

There is no doubt in my mind that KC Coles will play a significant role and is playing a significant role, in helping us to put our heads around things that are extremely interesting.

Award-winning science journalist and author K.C. Cole will join the USC Annenberg faculty as a visiting professor of journalism in January 2006, the School announced Friday, October 28, 2005.

Will she follow what a Lee Smolin does, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity," or what a Brian Greene does in terms of, "the Fabric of the Cosmos," or what anyone for that matter who is engaging the quantum gravity issue. Who gets as close as, Michio Kaku does, in helping people to view hyperdimensional realities, from roads that had been travelled from historical perspectives? Get's as close as possible to what Atlas is doing in terms of Calorimetric perspectives?

This would mean the doors are open wide and that her work, will be guided, by those who are at the front, right?

Doesn't a clear "objective truth" not only increase our awareness, but also lays at the door sill, an invitation to engage the questions of what roads leave off where, and what roads are being left with guiding signs, as a door open to the future?

So I know with the creative impute Clifford seems to have, this could be a interesting proposition, and for Mark, such curators know well to ask what would help the public understand these issues better?


PLato saids,"Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle saids "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth" To Remember: Eskesthai

Ideas, they already exist, we just have to recognize them?:)

Objective truth, should be as discernable, as the roads that lead to future thoughts and ideas. This is really a tuff question to me, and having math and physics holding two features of inductive and deductive processes within our capable minds, would have some oscillatory response to a place, where that plateau is most desirable and can lead to future ideas. It's a place where injection of all that already exists comes to awareness. We just had to get there by standing back and accessing what the picture is in relationto the room. In relation to the what draws the eye, and what peole use of it to further elucidate our understanding of.

Look to the right of Raphael's painting lower right hand corner. Look at the link this picture is connected too?

Plato - holding the Timaeus - Pointing up as a sign of his metaphysical belief in the higher world of the forms, shown with the face of Leonardo.

Aristotle - holding his Ethics with hand palm down, reflecting a more grounded approach to the problem of universals.

Heraclitus - melancholy and alone, shown with the face of Michelangelo

This is a human situation, that would seek to find all in accord with, and raises question towards, that validity and extension of inductive and deductive modes. Can we excell the physics and math approaches with this interconnectivity forward to that open invitation?



Whether physicists and Mathematicians "believe" they belong to a secular view of reality, does not diminish the humanness with which responsiblity can transverse the scope of our thinking. To further invitations of psychological valuations into the meanings of the "hot stove and a pretty girl," as an culmination of good understanding about durations of time. In happiness and sadness, while this is philosophical bent, there is reason to believe that "time" can hold these valuations. That time, can be a measure in our ascertions of human conduct?



So we want this "objectve truth" so clear and concise, that it could permeate all the way down to the generalization of good physicist and mathematicains minds, to help ordinary citizens realize that the basis of objective truth lies at the heart of these words of wisdom shed amongst the populace?

So understanding where this oscillatory feature of inductive and deductive features would serve us all well I think, helps orientate what the picture of Raphael's reality includes. Not just to be taken on the surface, for what we see?

If from a "langangrian perspective" we understood where this resonantial feature could invite human awareness of this deeper hidden valution of the unseen, then the point on the chaldni plate makes it readily discernable, where injection and place one could invite these ideas into?

Our perspective and views, can go much deeper then what we had first realized, now that we know that this "arche" oversees all roads leading to the investigations of the maths and physics simultaneously. Opens such a doorway to objectivity, and extensions of human thought about what should extend into the realms of the bulk perspective. It all arose from soem consistent geometrical modelling that none were the wiser takes place, until you look at what Einstein had to incorporate. To bring such a conclusion to the idea of seeing this world from a greater perspective then the one we are held to following lines on a sphere.

"Sailing ships" now become men(?)photons who see for the first time, a view of a globe, that we had been so long held too, that we understand a greater relationship now between clocks, and it's influence on that same photon. Influence of time?

So now for the conclusion of where this picture sits here. That one indeed might wonder about the Room of the Signatore, and the place of power it holds in the Religion of the Roman Catholic. Does it bolster religious dogma, that this article in question would point to ID and it's classification, assigned to religious held views of what science should mean?

Sure, Raphael could have been a very religious man, but artistically, what could all of this science include then? Do we denouce this part of our heritage from a historical sense, or have we progressed? Throw out dogmatic rules, that do not adhere to our scientific understanding then?

Now I think it is a better understanding and clarity of these situations that we recognize each will hold to their "religion" regardless. That if some see what we are doing by let's say holding "string theory" to such high esteem, then it is the insult of "truth," as to what we hold in our investigations?

A relation to particle reductionisms and the deeper reality taken to view the origins of our universe? It would be very insulting would it not seem, had we all agreed on historical perspective, made way for scientific enlightenment?