What is the best definition of "unreal" you can come up with?

[Mole]

Please will you explain your philosophy

I am a member of Western Civilization and I am a Subject in a country that is part of the West.

Western Civilization is based on Ancient Greek philosophy, Judaism, Christianity and the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment has given us evidence and inductive reasoning, as well as giving us freedom and equality.

The Enlightenment has also given us modern medicine, modern economics, liberal democracy, science and technology.

In particular the Enlightement abolished institutional slavery for the first time in history in the House of Commons in 1833.

And under the Enlightenment, women gained their emancipation for the first time in history in Austalia and New Zealand in 1900.

And in Ireland in 2009 and in Australia in 2014, independent Judicial Enquiries have exposed the extent of institutional child sexual abuse for the first time in history.

So the Enlightenment has the runs on the board.

And at a more abstract level, the Enlightenment gave us a habit of mind called counter-intuitive.

And I am fortunate to have been born a Subject in a country based on the Scottish and English Enlightenment.

 

[Zangetshumody]

I am a member of Western Civilization and I am a Subject in a country that is part of the West.

Western Civilization is based on Ancient Greek philosophy, Judaism, Christianity and the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment has given us evidence and inductive reasoning, as well as giving us freedom and equality.

The Enlightenment has also given us modern medicine, modern economics, liberal democracy, science and technology.

In particular the Enlightement abolished institutional slavery for the first time in history in the House of Commons in 1833.

And under the Enlightenment, women gained their emancipation for the first time in history in Austalia and New Zealand in 1900.

And in Ireland in 2009 and in Australia in 2014, independent Judicial Enquiries have exposed the extent of institutional child sexual abuse for the first time in history.

So the Enlightenment has the runs on the board.

And at a more abstract level, the Enlightenment gave us a habit of mind called counter-intuitive.

And I am fortunate to have been born a Subject in a country based on the Scottish and English Enlightenment.

Pretty descriptions are not explanation. How did the enlightenment produce those things? If your response can be called an explanation, it is an explanation that hides the key to the knowledge you allegedly profess (as you provide no recourse to any substantiation).

I'm not averse to you making claims that the enlightenment gave us certain things... but you must be able to explain the philosophical means by which it operates; OR again I say: how can anyone truly know you have any real understanding beneath the banner of "Enlightenment" you proclaim for yourself.

Anyone can use pretty words, but if you can't share your understanding, how can you be so sure you are not acting out of ignorance (covered over by the vanity of relying on pretty sounding words like "Enlightenment").

I am prepared to leave this point of discussion, as you have repeatedly ignored this point of contention, not even talking on it in your responses, and I'd rather not continue to harp on this issue any longer when you seem unable to distinguish between explanation and description.

There is an important distinction to be understood about description and actual explanation:
Description presupposes I have already bought into your model of thought to some extent, or that I at least wish to sample the nature of the fruit from your model's construction, because when reading descriptions I'm learning the terminology and perspective on things according to the system of that specific model. Description does not prove your system of belief is superior or that it should be preferred; only explanation can allow you to compare schema's. In short, describing your system in terms of how it HAS operated, does not explain to me why it should be preferred; you do actually need tell me how it currently operates:- tell how it will work in my mind in the now (you'll realize this excludes attempts to appeal to any external loci of understanding)!

You have made every effort to describe 'the Enlightenment', and no effort to explain its philosophy. A historical account is not explanation, in philosophy it can be said to equivalate to appealing to the authority of a report; and I will not accept you moving away from the authority of reasoned explanation. Because without reasoned explanation as a basis of preferring tenants and premises (which every system is predicated on [which requires a way of appraising a priori]), dishonest reliance on outside authority will be used to supplement the fact that individuals are kept from actual understanding for him/herself.

So far, I feel your explanation is currently in the following state:
The Enlightenment model of thought did lots of morally good/right things the world could never have managed to accomplish without the Enlightenment.
Without recourse to how the Enlightenment is understood through reasoning from the ground up:
We should all just be devotees of the Enlightenment.
Consequently if people want to make deductive arguments, we should tell them about what the Enlightenment has accomplished so they might stop being so deductive and become fellow devotees of the Enlightenment.

I was not the person who first brought up the point on intellectual exploitation... but I have good sense of where it fits into this discussion.

 

[Mole]

Pretty descriptions are not explanation. How did the enlightenment produce those things? If your response can be called an explanation, it is an explanation that hides the key to the knowledge you allegedly profess (as you provide no recourse to any substantiation).

I'm not averse to you making claims that the enlightenment gave us certain things... but you must be able to explain the philosophical means by which it operates; OR again I say: how can anyone truly know you have any real understanding beneath the banner of "Enlightenment" you proclaim for yourself.

Anyone can use pretty words, but if you can't share your understanding, how can you be so sure you are not acting out of ignorance (covered over by the vanity of relying on pretty sounding words like "Enlightenment").

I am prepared to leave this point of discussion, as you have repeatedly ignored this point of contention, not even talking on it in your responses, and I'd rather not continue to harp on this issue any longer when you seem unable to distinguish between explanation and description.

There is an important distinction to be understood about description and actual explanation:
Description presupposes I have already bought into your model of thought to some extent, or that I at least wish to sample the nature of the fruit from your model's construction, because when reading descriptions I'm learning the terminology and perspective on things according to the system of that specific model. Description does not prove your system of belief is superior or that it should be preferred; only explanation can allow you to compare schema's. In short, describing your system in terms of how it HAS operated, does not explain to me why it should be preferred; you do actually need tell me how it currently operates:- tell how it will work in my mind in the now (you'll realize this excludes attempts to appeal to any external loci of understanding)!

You have made every effort to describe 'the Enlightenment', and no effort to explain its philosophy. A historical account is not explanation, in philosophy it can be said to equivalate to appealing to the authority of a report; and I will not accept you moving away from the authority of reasoned explanation. Because without reasoned explanation as a basis of preferring tenants and premises (which every system is predicated on [which requires a way of appraising a priori]), dishonest reliance on outside authority will be used to supplement the fact that individuals are kept from actual understanding for him/herself.

So far, I feel your explanation is currently in the following state:
The Enlightenment model of thought did lots of morally good/right things the world could never have managed to accomplish without the Enlightenment.
Without recourse to how the Enlightenment is understood through reasoning from the ground up:
We should all just be devotees of the Enlightenment.
Consequently if people want to make deductive arguments, we should tell them about what the Enlightenment has accomplished so they might stop being so deductive and become fellow devotees of the Enlightenment.

I was not the person who first brought up the point on intellectual exploitation... but I have good sense of where it fits into this discussion.

Plainly there is no satisfying you because you want me to argue on your grounds of deductive reasoning. It's like suggesting we continue to fight with you in Afganistan against a socially backward enemy whose main armament is the Improvised Explosive Device (IED). But in this case the IED is the a priori presumptions of any deductive argument.

However I am not prepared to fight on your socially backward grounds of deductive reasoning, so I have no interest in defending the a priori.

However there are many philosophers of the Enlightenment. In fact the street near me is named after a philosopher of the Enlightenment. He is called Jeremy Bentham. And he is philosopher of Utilitarianism which we can say is a philosophy of Oz.

But rather than trying to convince you Utilitarianism is better than medieval Catholic theology, I simply quote the Bible and say, By their fruits shall ye know them.

 

[Mole]

Let us analyse medieval catholic theology -

The medieval scholastics said that as deductive logic is used to prove a mathematical theorem, so deductive logic can be used to prove the existence of God.

The logical problem is that the second part of this sentence does not follow logically from the first part.

The advantage is that the whole sentence is plausible and is perfect for the use in propaganda de fidei, because propaganda isn't true or false, rather propaganda is plausible.

The same faulty logic was used by the medieval scholastics in saying that as a watch has a watch maker, the world has a world maker. And this is also plausible propaganda de fidei.

So from our analysis we can conclude that deductive logic cannot be used to prove the existence of anything, even God; and also that deductive logic cannot be used to disprove the existence of anything, even God.

To establish the existence of anything, to establish the facts, we had to wait for the Enlightenment and inductive logic.

[MENTION=20790]Zangetshumody[/MENTION]

 

[Zangetshumody]

Let us analyse medieval catholic theology -
So from our analysis we can conclude that deductive logic cannot be used to prove the existence of anything, even God; and also that deductive logic cannot be used to disprove the existence of anything, even God.

That is your analysis.
Of course deductive logic can be used to prove things.
Obviously you can't just use deductive logic to prove something, you need to involve an ordered use of a priori in the formulation of one's premises to have any substance for the deductive reasoning to employ. [in my view the highest a priori is God, or love, or light (which is God in creation)].

So my line has been, you must be able to explain things while relying on ordered a priori for your premises:
and you try rope me in with some 'medieval catholic theology'/'medieval scholasticism', the examples of which you provide omit any use of a priori.

I would call you out on your straw man approach, but since you have already awarded yourself immunity from responding in any form that contains deductive reasoning. My time is not well spent in continuing this exchange.

 

[krypton1te]

Often we have a difficult time distinguishing what is real and what isn't. What is unreal is often associated with imaginary and fantasy (due to the traditional definition we have been conditioned to believe), whereas real is what is here, what is occurring now, stretching to natural laws, science, etc. It is what "exists." Yet, even when we "think" of something, it is still real. It is real in the mind, it exists mentally.

Even science has a difficult time fathoming the mental mind. Do human beings have that mental aspect? Is it entirely physical? Can it be explained my science? It is simply unfathomable, and is continuously questioned.

The mind is strange. It has a habit to believe what we think is true, but it doesn't mean that it is. Our rationality is what examines it... all thought has a gate that it must cross and be admitted through. Its passing is what determines whether or not it is real.

We are the origin of every thought and idea that has occurred throughout history. And the beautiful thing? the universe is our origin. And when thought deeply enough, the unreal is real. Everything exists.

Love is love. There is no unreal or real aspect to it. If it seems unreal then it is either a lie or infatuation... not love. Love is what it is.

 

[Mole]

That is your analysis.
Of course deductive logic can be used to prove things.
Obviously you can't just use deductive logic to prove something, you need to involve an ordered use of a priori in the formulation of one's premises to have any substance for the deductive reasoning to employ. [in my view the highest a priori is God, or love, or light (which is God in creation)].

So my line has been, you must be able to explain things while relying on ordered a priori for your premises:
and you try rope me in with some 'medieval catholic theology'/'medieval scholasticism', the examples of which you provide omit any use of a priori.

I would call you out on your straw man approach, but since you have already awarded yourself immunity from responding in any form that contains deductive reasoning. My time is not well spent in continuing this exchange.

Your a priori is God for whom there is no evidence.

So if we apply inferential logic to a lack of evidence, it is unlikely your God exists.

But this makes no difference to you because your a priori is an act of faith. In other words, you take the existence of God for granted. And so you beg the question of God.

I understand your Church teaches the doctrine of Faith and Reason, which seems fine at first blush, but on closer inspection we find that Faith is a priori and Reason is only applied to Faith. This is good propaganda de fidei, but is unfortunately done in bad faith.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Your a priori is God for whom there is no evidence.

So if we apply inferential logic to a lack of evidence, it is unlikely your God exists.

But this makes no difference to you because your a priori is an act of faith. In other words, you take the existence of God for granted. And so you beg the question of God.

I understand your Church teaches the doctrine of Faith and Reason, which seems fine at first blush, but on closer inspection we find that Faith is a priori and Reason is only applied to Faith. This is good propaganda de fidei, but is unfortunately done in bad faith.

The a priori that God is love, and that God is light (in creation) is bad faith?
I can't imagine what you take to be good faith.
You can't convince me that God not existing is an example of a better faith, because such a proposition cannot be explained to be one (as my positive statements can). Not that your in the business of explaining any semantic move you make.
And thus ends the discussion that your not capable of engaging in.

 

[Cygnus]

The a priori that God is love, and that God is light (in creation) is bad faith?
I can't imagine what you take to be good faith.
You can't convince me that God not existing is an example of a better faith, because such a proposition cannot be explained to be one (as my positive statements can). Not that your in the business of explaining any semantic move you make.
And thus ends the discussion that your not capable of engaging in.

Maybe you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Instead of "God is love and light," think "Light and love are God." Then inductively work your way up to understanding what God really is...

 

[Mole]

The a priori that God is love, and that God is light (in creation) is bad faith?
I can't imagine what you take to be good faith.
You can't convince me that God not existing is an example of a better faith, because such a proposition cannot be explained to be one (as my positive statements can). Not that your in the business of explaining any semantic move you make.
And thus ends the discussion that your not capable of engaging in.

An a priori is arbitary. Anything can be an a priori whether it is the Trinity or a teapot in orbit around Mars. And choosing the right a priori and applying deductive logic, we can prove almost anything.

So arguing from a priori with deductive logic is ruse of propaganda. It can be plausible and prove almost anything, and so prove almost nothing.

So rather than arguing from a priori with deductive logic, try arguing from evidence using inductive logic.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Maybe you're approaching it from the wrong angle. Instead of "God is love and light," think "Light and love are God." Then inductively work your way up to understanding what God really is...

To work inductively is to build supposition; living by supposition means to fix your life to an ever changing lens of fashionable shadings. Life is pretty rosy when just viewed with the naked eye, I have no wish to dress it with some manic ideological occupation. Of course supposition can be a useful tool in the scenario when one is forced to make a guess; but if you live your life intelligently enough this need seldom requires one to maintain large vocabularies of invented words which hinge on other words, whose meanings are not fully understood by those using the secondary terms.
This is the problem with scientific language, because the words are fixed to readings of certain measurements;- but measurements are not necessarily facts, and they can never shown to be, because if their subject's extant were fully understood, there would be no reason for it to be measured in the pursuit of any qualitative [intellectual] purpose.

In short; data =/= fact.

Faith is better appraised by the heart of understanding
and reasoning is better served by deduction.

What is the way of induction?
There is no good faith! Lets just follow along with whatever instruments we manage to concoct; as we continuously propound jargon in support of yet a greater reading of something even more subtle and imperceptible: something so subtle in fact- it can never be understood! Which is why we have computers to model it all for us; who knows what the f**k is really going on- but if you want some idea, its got something to do with these super strings [or I'm not quite sure what the latest fad is according to those math geeks]...

 

[Zangetshumody]

An a priori is arbitary. Anything can be an a priori whether it is the Trinity or a teapot in orbit around Mars. And choosing the right a priori and applying deductive logic, we can prove almost anything.

So arguing from a priori with deductive logic is ruse of propaganda. It can be plausible and prove almost anything, and so prove almost nothing.

So rather than arguing from a priori with deductive logic, try arguing from evidence using inductive logic.

a priori, is open for inspection, and requires real integrity; because it is the heart of understanding which holds it, and offers it.
This keeps it simple, pure and clean.
And when people operate under this modus, if they are making a mistake, a better understanding can take its place a lot faster:
because the heart of understanding is putting itself out there, and is therefore on trial.

When you are not operating under the force of a heart of understanding; you will just be a force of vanity (perhaps not even your own)
but you are operating from a place of not understanding. Sure you might believe you understand something (some more important consideration which forces you to meld and work in the darkness of dealing with things that are not understood). But playing with fire in the fashion is just folly. You cannot conquer not understanding with a compromise of not understanding.
Induction is the compromise of choosing to experiment in ignorance, presuming we already know nothing that we don't have an instrument to measure for us.
The heart of understanding is the only true instrument that can tell us about the universe, yes it can't do things alone, experience can inform it with the energy to be able to express and explain an understanding; and what can science do? Does it truly even have the same hope? Is it capable of saying something profound about psychology that will go unchallenged after 50 years, or will the profundity wear off and that discovery just be relegated to some archaic annul, some footnote in history to the never ending quest to measure and describe, but never understand or explain?


my test of profundity includes:
something that is regarded as true.
something that is acted on, yielding good fruit according to the reasonable man.

 

[Cygnus]

a priori, is open for inspection, and requires real integrity; because it is the heart of understanding which holds it, and offers it.
This keeps it simple, pure and clean.
And when people operate under this modus, if they are making a mistake, a better understanding can take its place a lot faster:
because the heart of understanding is putting itself out there, and is therefore on trial.

No intuitive truth is so true that all people believe and know it to be true. All things can be questioned.
Therefore, the statement that the a priori truth cannot necessarily be proven is the a priori.
Within this statement, conditional subjective statements that are true or false depending on the situation can still exist, because the application of this truth establishes possibility, an empty "vacuum" if you will.

When applying this a priori, your assertion of what the a priori really is may be as true or false as my interpretation, because possibility is the only truth.
However, when speaking solely of the self and the self's truth, this truth is true no matter what is true of the outside world.
But if you are the only one who is proven to be correct, how can you communicate this truth to people in the outside, who operate under different truths than you?
When speaking of "others" on the outside, how can your a priori be greater if you are speaking of people who may, under the ultimate a priori of possibility, exist under different truths than yours?
Your truths must be explained in a way that corresponds with how they understand theirs.

 

[Zangetshumody]

No intuitive truth is so true that all people believe and know it to be true. All things can be questioned.
Therefore, the statement that the a priori truth cannot necessarily be proven is the a priori.
.

I'm not going to read further than those lines because the rest presumably follows the semantic of these first two lines, which I do not understand.

To help me understand, can please help me overcome the following concerns:

First point:
All things can be questioned, doesn't mean that the question is righteous (in terms of reason, this mean's that the question is not itself a result of internal confusion that is just being labored under by the questioner).

Ergo, although a question can be asked, the basis of the question can be examined and uncovered to be specious; although this is only possible if the interlocutor is open enough to explain his position, so that the particular ordering of the individual's a priori is shown (this doesn't need to be explicitly done through express treatise, merely offering grounding based on certainties--- for if someone is not willing to share what he is being certain about, he is in fact just being certain of the fact that s/he is wasting your time building some tower of babel).

Second point:
A priori cannot be proven through experience, that does not mean it cannot be proven; it just means you cannot compel someone to expressly accept it as being proven;- and this truth is sadly inescapable, because people can knowingly speak a lie even though it offends their own sense of truth- you might even hear it in their voice that they know they don't believe their own words that they are speaking: and what can one do about it? The answer is nothing. This doesn't make a priori unprovable, it just makes truth exclusive: so whose gospel are you prepared to swallow? The neuro-scientists? the anthropologists? which school of pyschology? Some people's gospel is even post-modernism (poor souls).

As a side note:
I would be afraid of any gospel that starts off as: We deny something exists, so we are seeking refuge under this >>>fancy object of intellectual idolization<<<.

 

[Cygnus]

I'm not going to read further than those lines because the rest presumably follows the semantic of these first two lines, which I do not understand.

To help me understand, can please help me overcome the following concerns:

First point:
All things can be questioned, doesn't mean that the question is righteous (in terms of reason, this mean's that the question is not itself a result of internal confusion that is just being labored under by the questioner).

Ergo, although a question can be asked, the basis of the question can be examined and uncovered to be specious; although this is only possible if the interlocutor is open enough to explain his position, so that the particular ordering of the individual's a priori is shown (this doesn't need to be explicitly done through express treatise, merely offering grounding based on certainties--- for if someone is not willing to share what he is being certain about, he is in fact just being certain of the fact that s/he is wasting your time building some tower of babel).

Second point:
A priori cannot be proven through experience, that does not mean it cannot be proven; it just means you cannot compel someone to expressly accept it as being proven;- and this truth is sadly inescapable, because people can knowingly speak a lie even though it offends their own sense of truth- you might even hear it in their voice that they know they don't believe their own words that they are speaking: and what can one do about it? The answer is nothing. This doesn't make a priori unprovable, it just makes truth exclusive: so whose gospel are you prepared to swallow? The neuro-scientists? the anthropologists? which school of pyschology? Some people's gospel is even post-modernism (poor souls).

As a side note:
I would be afraid of any gospel that starts off as: We deny something exists, so we are seeking refuge under this >>>fancy object of intellectual idolization<<<.

If you will fully give yourself to an a priori, all other information, even if significant to disprove the priori, can be denied, because if the priori is true, it's true, period.
Even if it is true, the outside can be denied, perhaps as an illusion or fabrication.

The point being, if you accept any priori, you take the internal point of view.
If you seek external objective data to disprove the priori, no prioris exist.
There is no "information" in the environment because information is just a construct of our subjective perception, no matter how "objective" the environs may be.

Your priori may be true to you, however if you can't explain it in a way provable or understandable outside your own understanding of the truth you can't expect anyone else to be able to swallow it.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Your truths must be explained in a way that corresponds with how they understand theirs.

Having read your whole post now; let me add the following---

I'm not so sure I see the need to labor under considerations of possibility;- from what I understand about physics, the basic nature of the universe is probabilistic while mere possibility is not extant (which means it could be said to just exists as some mental construct, much like mathematics).

And now to deal with your last sentence: I do not believe anything "must" be explained... what will be explained will be explained.
I think everything I believe in can be explained, but often people with a certain philosophical or intellectual disposition will not invest the time toward having their own system of thought challenged, which can often only be proven to someone with more energetic exchange than mere forum postings: for these people we can only hope that the Scientologists will come up with a good enough movie for them to watch (to start feeding the worm of doubt enough that they are impelled to sacrifice their old ego's for truth).

 

[Zangetshumody]

If you will fully give yourself to an a priori, all other information, even if significant to disprove the priori, can be denied, because if the priori is true, it's true, period.
Even if it is true, the outside can be denied, perhaps as an illusion or fabrication.

The point being, if you accept any priori, you take the internal point of view.
If you seek external objective data to disprove the priori, no prioris exist.
There is no "information" in the environment because information is just a construct of our subjective perception, no matter how "objective" the environs may be.

Your priori may be true to you, however if you can't explain it in a way provable or understandable outside your own understanding of the truth you can't expect anyone else to be able to swallow it.

External objective data isn't capable of proving or disproving a priori.

I will try find a the youtube video of a professor explaining Plato's divided line as assessed by Jung for you;

In it he explained the difference between opinion and belief (which deals with things in the natural world); and the realm of the intellect (or that of the intelligible).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odK4hnGIRMM


----------------A second crack at your comments:
I think you might be attaching a bit of the wrong weight to certain terms:
information is not fact. It's based on a perspective, which is based on a particular foundation. The FBI I'm sure get information all the time; whether its reliable or not it pretty much always a question worth asking!

So what are the factors that determine the reliability of information?
I could answer in one general rule: how closely that information corresponds to the truth.
which in this world (because it is fallen) is subject to the follow up question of: truth according to who?
which is why I brought up the point: which Gospel are you prepared to swallow (or which have you swallowed already?)

I believe it is healthy to be open about such things.

 

[Cygnus]

Let me rephrase. It does not have to "correspond" with their ways of understanding, however if you want to explain it to people who, to you, exist only in experience as far as you can tell, then your points must be put into the context of experience.

When understanding your prioris yourself, experience is not necessary. But your information of others' existence comes from experience, so to explain your prioris to them you must put it in the context of experience.


That was worded wrong. Their beliefs are irrelevant.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Let me rephrase. It does not have to "correspond" with their ways of understanding, however if you want to explain it to people who, to you, exist only in experience as far as you can tell, then your points must be put into the context of experience.

When understanding your prioris yourself, experience is not necessary. But your information of others' existence comes from experience, so to explain your prioris to them you must put it in the context of experience.


That was worded wrong. Their beliefs are irrelevant.

Other people's a priori can never be believed IN (only your own can be believed in). The evidence of the a priori of another as manifest by their actions (deeds) in reality can be believed ON (and seen as reflective of your own).

As to the specifics of explanation: I can explain something to you through language, I can word the a priori plainly: and you can show you apriori through illustration (through someone's words or actions (my own even)). In this way, a priori doesn't have to be put into the context of experience, although after there is express agreement over the contextual illustration of the a priori there is proof of a shared belief on another person. This type of proof is often not constructive in the long term: because experience will often only preserve the a priori while illustrations don't weather the passage of time so well---

that is to say: certain things that are done righteously will not always seem so, unless the full context is fully appraised (i.e. cultural practices of various people's (or particular persons), social climate and habits specific to kinds of groupings (or particular persons)--- awareness of certain historical tendencies (which play a big role in certain political decisions)). I'm not prepared to discuss or defend certain historical events in the bible (because I have not studied the morality of these events)- but certain stories can often sound horrendous when you only hear the blunt recounting of the bare facts (without the context of the all the factors that explain the decisions of the side your reviewing: I do believe Jehova's Witnessnes are quite useful in exploring such topics).

To restate my last point more plainly:

when you turn a priori into what it "seems" like. That idol you have manifested should not be lived under, it must only be lived ON. stand on it and let it hold you in a higher place; but don't live underneath it tending to its support; for: as all illustrations, it is of the world: and laboring for it, will diminish your true spirit (which will only be burdened by strict adherence that is not coupled with the understanding of your a priori [because this unchanging understanding might be forced to endorse action that doesn't correspond to the illustration that one formed at some prior point]).

In this way, illustration of an a priori is just a platform, a structure that can be useful with regard to social order and regulation- I don't know about where you live, but in my system there is very little strict liability (except with the law regarding certain professional duties). My point is that, there is no fixed wrong or right. Descriptions of actions cannot themselves amount to a wrong, or equate to lawfulness: the other side will always need to be heard.

All these points I have raised and stated, I see clearly in scripture, I wonder if you can discern them the same as I can:
1Jn 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1Jn 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
1Jn 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

 

[Cygnus]

External objective data isn't capable of proving or disproving a priori.

I will try find a the youtube video of a professor explaining Plato's divided line as assessed by Jung for you;

In it he explained the difference between opinion and belief (which deals with things in the natural world); and the realm of the intellect (or that of the intelligible).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odK4hnGIRMM


----------------A second crack at your comments:
I think you might be attaching a bit of the wrong weight to certain terms:
information is not fact. It's based on a perspective, which is based on a particular foundation. The FBI I'm sure get information all the time; whether its reliable or not it pretty much always a question worth asking!

So what are the factors that determine the reliability of information?
I could answer in one general rule: how closely that information corresponds to the truth.
which in this world (because it is fallen) is subject to the follow up question of: truth according to who?
which is why I brought up the point: which Gospel are you prepared to swallow (or which have you swallowed already?)

I believe it is healthy to be open about such things.

Perhaps, but it would stand to reason then that an unproven priori would be even less reliable than unproven information.

Working on an unproven priori is like working on an assumption, an internalized assumption with greater complexity than information around us.

If a priori turns out to be false, it is a complex set of beliefs that pertains to oneself and not the environment, making it hard to analyze exactly what went wrong.

Though information is not fact, it is easier to connect to the environment than internalized prioris. Information may be false, but there is a greater likelihood that people will understand how certain information, however false, was extracted from the environment.

More diverse facts, while taking the changing environments into account, give more opportunity for understanding how to get truer information from the environment more effectively.