What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

Sob you mentioned 'lost in the word maze'. Is not everything you claim to know come by through words? And so I say to you, express to me some knowledge without using words.

And indeed I thus say, you have faith in a particular scheme of knowledge that grant you the truth of your reality.

There is little that you say that I disagree with, but I disagree with your claim that it is grounded in an Ab Truth.

Everytime you tell me how it is grounded so, I pull the ground away, but because it is the truth of your faith which supplies for you your reality, that is, your justification for being, you come back and restablish your ground. Sometimes you use science, sometimes you use relativity, sometimes ethical grounds.

You cannot see the shifting of you absolute truths at every assertion rebuttal of a ground because the object is your ground, but there is not actual object, only the true object of your faith which 'makes sense' to you.

This is the car. Your argument is about driving.

[chaz wyman]

Mans words don't disprove the absolute truth, the absolute truth disproves mans words!


You only have man's words, so how would the AT disprove anything?

He just has to remain patient enough, walking softly, until such time that his brain is capable of their assimilation, otherwise in his ignorance of false understanding and thus action, chaos shall ensue.

As usual, in their arrogance, some men place themselves before the very laws of nature, in order to assert their selfish desires and wants, and sometimes in this process, they deny their very needs, those that ensure their very survival.

The ozone layer and global warming has brought this to light for me, and I'd bet my bottom dollar that there are a plethora of other instances whereby man has made the wrong choices, which are detrimental to his very existence, that have as yet not been uncovered, that shall one day catch up to us.

We are at an age where we should proceed with extreme caution, and immediately cut out anything that can be seen as, even ever so slightly, not contributing to life as we know it, as we are seven billion strong, and like a simple machine are capable of applying much leverage to the balances of life on this little blue marble. [/color]

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sob you mentioned 'lost in the word maze'. Is not everything you claim to know come by through words?
No!
And so I say to you, express to me some knowledge without using words.
Lance, I have this thing that I've asserted since the early 70's when recreational drug usage was in it's heyday. It was the philosophy I used to ensure I kept myself straight: 'always control the drug, never allow the drug to control you.' I submit that unlike some, I never allow the words to control me, I always control the words. At least one of my professors at university asserted the fact that education is not always about what you should subscribe to, but also what you shouldn't. This comes into play, especially in philosophy, as there are so many schools of thought that you have to 'choose' from, as they can be contradictory. So your black and white word usage point above, is in fact gray, with more than 256 shades, I'd say billions. Words do not necessitate any particular, it's more to do with their wielder. One can 'choose' any words there are, so tell me what's in the 'choosing?' Faith? It's true for us all! Is it faith? Is it some unseen power? Is it greed? Is it selfishness? Is it honesty? Is it compassion? Is it humility, Is it arrogance? Is it good or is it evil? It's not about using words, it's about getting caught up in words. What drives my words is feelings, emotional content, true freedom, fairness for all, PEACE and LOVE, the miraculousness that is life on planet earth! So what's driving yours? What is that thing that drives? For all we know, for some, it may just be love and miracles out of knowhere (<-the k is on purpose and it's meant both ways). The mind, in this day and age, is still that elusive 'black box.' Could it be that those in power are just born or, shortly thereafter, manipulated into being insanely evil, that they find a need to stand on the bodies of their slaves in all their megalomaniacal glory?

And indeed I thus say, you have faith in a particular scheme of knowledge that grant you the truth of your reality.
See above.

There is little that you say that I disagree with, but I disagree with your claim that it is grounded in an Ab Truth.
The first half I don't necessarily believe, but if true that could be what binds us two together, or so it might seem. The second half I have never asserted.

Everytime you tell me how it is grounded so, I pull the ground away, but because it is the truth of your faith which supplies for you your reality, that is, your justification for being, you come back and restablish your ground. Sometimes you use science, sometimes you use relativity, sometimes ethical grounds.
I believe that this is what you believe, yes!

You cannot see the shifting of you absolute truths at every assertion rebuttal of a ground because the object is your ground, but there is not actual object, only the true object of your faith which 'makes sense' to you.
I believe that this is what you believe, yes!

This is the car. Your argument is about driving.
No, my car is this life and the driving is the choices I make along the way! Unfortunately I've had many collisions, more than some, less than others.

[lancek4]

Sob you mentioned 'lost in the word maze'. Is not everything you claim to know come by through words?
No!
And so I say to you, express to me some knowledge without using words.
Lance, I have this thing that I've asserted since the early 70's when recreational drug usage was in it's heyday. It was the philosophy I used to ensure I kept myself straight: 'always control the drug, never allow the drug to control you.' I submit that unlike some, I never allow the words to control me, I always control the words. At least one of my professors at university asserted the fact that education is not always about what you should subscribe to, but also what you shouldn't. This comes into play, especially in philosophy, as there are so many schools of thought that you have to 'choose' from, as they can be contradictory. So your black and white word usage point above, is in fact gray, with more than 256 shades, I'd say billions. Words do not necessitate any particular, it's more to do with their wielder. One can 'choose' any words there are, so tell me what's in the 'choosing?' Faith? It's true for us all! Is it faith? Is it some unseen power? Is it greed? Is it selfishness? Is it honesty? Is it compassion? Is it humility, Is it arrogance? Is it good or is it evil? It's not about using words, it's about getting caught up in words. What drives my words is feelings, emotional content, true freedom, fairness for all, PEACE and LOVE, the miraculousness that is life on planet earth! So what's driving yours? What is that thing that drives? For all we know, for some, it may just be love and miracles out of knowhere (<-the k is on purpose and it's meant both ways). The mind, in this day and age, is still that elusive 'black box.' Could it be that those in power are just born or, shortly thereafter, manipulated into being insanely evil, that they find a need to stand on the bodies of their slaves in all their megalomaniacal glory?

And indeed I thus say, you have faith in a particular scheme of knowledge that grant you the truth of your reality.
See above.

There is little that you say that I disagree with, but I disagree with your claim that it is grounded in an Ab Truth.
The first half I don't necessarily believe, but if true that could be what binds us two together, or so it might seem. The second half I have never asserted.

Everytime you tell me how it is grounded so, I pull the ground away, but because it is the truth of your faith which supplies for you your reality, that is, your justification for being, you come back and restablish your ground. Sometimes you use science, sometimes you use relativity, sometimes ethical grounds.
I believe that this is what you believe, yes!

You cannot see the shifting of you absolute truths at every assertion rebuttal of a ground because the object is your ground, but there is not actual object, only the true object of your faith which 'makes sense' to you.
I believe that this is what you believe, yes!

This is the car. Your argument is about driving.
No, my car is this life and the driving is the choices I make along the way! Unfortunately I've had many collisions, more than some, less than others.

Indeed, you Are the driver: must be in control.

I don't worry, nor have I ever worried about controlling the intoxication I choose to partake in.
It is not an issue. I mean, isn't a Prominent point of taking an intoxicant a releif or momentary repreive from the stress or otherwise 'normal' of life.? To relax? To set aside inhibitions?

People who do not have a problem with intoxicants do not worry about controling them.

In fact, in the retorhic of recovery from alcoholism, in the book that really started it all, the book entitled "Alcoholics Anonymous", posits that the problem of alcoholism is based in an idea of control, of attempting to situate life as the alcoholic sees fit. The person who has a problem with intoxicants is 'self will run riot'. The problem of their alcoholism, but indeed all problems "arise out of themselves", though he usually doesn't think so.

Only the alcoholic obsesses about controling life, and alcohol is a symptom of the problem of self.

The driver in control. Absolute Truth. Ethical maxims.

[lancek4]

So anyways..
So far as control and choosing: again I ask: how do I separate myself from the conditions of reality around me such that I have a free choice?

[SpheresOfBalance]

So anyways..
So far as control and choosing: again I ask: how do I separate myself from the conditions of reality around me such that I have a free choice?

As a human, you are bound within the confines of the freedom, that is attributed to being human. You cannot experience any more freedom than that.

Since human's were born of, are bound to, and have the ability to upset nature's balance while enjoying their freedom, they have the added responsibility of ensuring they maintain its balance, or else they can potentially destroy nature along with themselves. Easter Islands lessons come to mind.

[lancek4]

Perhaps a reapproach to the question of this post:

We have attempted to gain a common understanding of truth and have been moving to find the Absolute Truth, which would be then 'The Truth'

But we have been unable to come to concensus on this.
Yet it would seem that I do have an absolute truth but am unable to communicate it with sufficiency that sob can 'see' it. Likewise, it seems, sob have been unable to convince me that what truth is absolute is actually absolute.

So, I further seems, that both of us, if not more also of us, have been unable to 'see' 'The' truth.

So what is stopping both of us or all of us? If it is fear, as we have suggested earlier, then both/all parties here are in fear, but at least one feels that he is not and has the clear Ab Truth at his position.

So what is occurring here then ?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Perhaps a reapproach to the question of this post:

We have attempted to gain a common understanding of truth and have been moving to find the Absolute Truth, which would be then 'The Truth'

But we have been unable to come to concensus on this.
Yet it would seem that I do have an absolute truth but am unable to communicate it with sufficiency that sob can 'see' it. Likewise, it seems, sob have been unable to convince me that what truth is absolute is actually absolute.
Could be you have a hard head, I know I do, what say you? We are all head strong, as that's where we live, we fear giving in to the alternative view, because we feel it diminishes us. The reason I know that my philosophy is correct, you may wonder, is because I see that everything is part of the puzzle or else it wouldn't be here. The job is for us to put all the pieces where they belong. I'm not saying it's easy. My theories are about the we not the me, the we as in symbiosis. Those of the me are the megalo's that I've often referred to.

So, I further seems, that both of us, if not more also of us, have been unable to 'see' 'The' truth.
The truth is that we shall one day see the truth of all, if we can balance the truth of now.

So what is stopping both of us or all of us? If it is fear, as we have suggested earlier, then both/all parties here are in fear, but at least one feels that he is not and has the clear Ab Truth at his position.
Fear, ignorance, time, time, and time. Did I mention time? But time will only allow if we allow it to, through a balanced state of symbiosis.

So what is occurring here then ?
OK, like I said before, neither you, I, nor anyone else can see the absolute truth of our existence, the knowledge of everything, because we are not of the time of it's understanding, we are too young. All we have now is theory's, i.e., big bang, string, creator, multiverse's, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc. But we do know some of it. We know the parts that are local, because that's easy, a part of the first steps.

We shall know this absolute truth, the knowledge of everything once we can circumnavigate the entire universe, and that's a long way off. For now, we have to be content with the knowledge at the stage we're at.

The problem I see, is that we may never get there because we seem to be incapable of balancing our hemispheres and thus the sphere of our birth; Earth! This life is a symbiosis and thus balance is the key to our survival, there is no room for selfishness and the quest for, and coveting of, a pretty silver, gold, platinum, or crystallized carbon rock or it's wood pulp equivalents. These are merely tools that can help us get there, if we stop the petty selfish behavior and work as the team that we actually are.

We have allowed the megalomaniacs to run the show for far too long. We must learn how to balance our hemispheres, or we shall surely kill off our species long before we ever get the chance to understand the absolute truth.

Only through the balance and equality of all life on our planet, shall the absolute truth reveal itself.

[lancek4]

Ok; you mentioned the 'me' and 'we'. And proposed that you try your best to think of others before yourself - or to that effect.

I agree with this sentiment; it is a good way to approach life.

I would then ask, setting aside for the moment, as a thought experiment, how I ethically proceed into life: how do I know of 'we', that is, of others ?

Are they separate from my knowing of them? If there is a part of an other person that is beyond my knowing, what part is it?

I would say it is exactly 'that part I do not know'. And as I find out some part of that part, still the part of them that I don't know is exactly 'that part I don't know'. There is no knowledge of them that I do not know which informs how I am except that of them it is I do not know, and this (that part I do not know) figures Me exactly how I am. Though I may think 'I wonder about Bob' concerning so and so of him, it is not witheld from me as I am, it is witheld from me in that to my knowledge 'it is witheld from me'.

The totality of my knowledge is absolutely conditioned by knowledge, nothing else. If I have an opinion, say, 'I think people who go clubbing all the time are stupid', I innately cannot remove the fact of such people from my knowledge. Exactly that I have such an opionion is an element of my self. Personally, I do not wish to have that negative opinion; I wish that everyone was not stupid, but, nevertheless I still have that opinion.
It is the same with people who, say, throw trash wherever or throw cigarette butts on the ground; I have an opinion of them I do not wish to have because I would rather not have negative opinions about people, but for me it comes down to this: I wish everyone to be intelligent.

So here I am, an intelligent guy, haveing an opinion that I do not wish to have. I compensate by holding an ethical value up to myself: I am the bigger man because I accept all people and what they wish to be and do. But still inevitably there are people I have negative opinions about. Essentially they are 'controlling' me by their being themselves.

But in that I am my self, I accept everything about myself as a natural and integral part of who I am; I can deny nothing which is me at any time without being dishonest.
So then I ask: what if such people did not exist? Who would I be? Am I merely denying what reality is when I have a negative opinion of someone I wish not to have?
I am constituent of all reality as it reaches my ability to know it; all of what I know is the entirety of that which Constitues me, and thus reality. If there is something beyond my knowledge which I do not know, it only effects who and what I am in and at the moment it enters my knowledge. There can be nothing effecting me I do not know about because as soon as I would know about it it is of my knowledge, even if it is 'there is a chemical in my water but I font know what it is'. It is exactly 'I don't know what it is'. If I procede to find out then it is what it is, but it was only effecting me prior to my knowing what it is in that I have knowledge which references for knowledge what 'prior' means.

This is the facts of the case. It has nothing to do with how I go about living or making decisions about whether I should by my daughter a book or a dress at the store today or whether I should vote republican or democrat. It has nothing to do with whether I am interested inb quantum mechanics.

It is simply the fact of the case.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Ok; you mentioned the 'me' and 'we'. And proposed that you try your best to think of others before yourself - or to that effect.
Actually, I try and think of us all at the same time.

I agree with this sentiment; it is a good way to approach life.

I would then ask, setting aside for the moment, as a thought experiment, how I ethically proceed into life: how do I know of 'we', that is, of others ?

Are they separate from my knowing of them? If there is a part of an other person that is beyond my knowing, what part is it?

I would say it is exactly 'that part I do not know'. And as I find out some part of that part, still the part of them that I don't know is exactly 'that part I don't know'. There is no knowledge of them that I do not know which informs how I am except that of them it is I do not know, and this (that part I do not know) figures Me exactly how I am. Though I may think 'I wonder about Bob' concerning so and so of him, it is not witheld from me as I am, it is witheld from me in that to my knowledge 'it is witheld from me'.
I think you tend to over think the problem most of the time.

The totality of my knowledge is absolutely conditioned by knowledge, nothing else. If I have an opinion, say, 'I think people who go clubbing all the time are stupid', I innately cannot remove the fact of such people from my knowledge. Exactly that I have such an opionion is an element of my self. Personally, I do not wish to have that negative opinion; I wish that everyone was not stupid, but, nevertheless I still have that opinion.
It is the same with people who, say, throw trash wherever or throw cigarette butts on the ground; I have an opinion of them I do not wish to have because I would rather not have negative opinions about people, but for me it comes down to this: I wish everyone to be intelligent.
I agree about not liking the litterers, but have no issue with the clubbers. But it doesn't matter, as I have come to understand that everyone does what it is that they are predisposed to do, that we all are in effect programmed and are not fully responsible for the things we do or don't do. Education is the key. In time they shall see the way, shall change, and fix those things that are at odds with others, to the extent that they see it. Education is the key. We all start off at different levels, those that start off on a higher rung of knowledge have less to travel in change, than those less fortunate. Education is the key. We have to revamp the educational system so as to stress those points that are paramount of importance, and ensure that all students are equally given the same chance and are supported to the extent they require. Education is the key. Of course we shall still have individuals with differing abilities and motivations, but Education is the key, if we are to become closer to the we, while departing from the me.I believe that the truth of the symbiosis that is planet earth and our equal responsibility of it's balance should be stressed at every turn, while the quest for riches as monetary value is diminished along with the propaganda engine that is consumption of the material. I wish all students could have field trips in an orbital shuttle of sorts, contrasted by videos such as "Home" and "An Inconvenient Truth," etc, so the truth of the little blue marble shall hit their understanding of truth at the most fundamental level. Education is the key.

So here I am, an intelligent guy, haveing an opinion that I do not wish to have. I compensate by holding an ethical value up to myself: I am the bigger man because I accept all people and what they wish to be and do. But still inevitably there are people I have negative opinions about. Essentially they are 'controlling' me by their being themselves.
All you have to do is make allowances for them, in that they are ignorant of the implications and ramifications of their actions, and help them to see the light of the miracle of their and all life. Thus you give the control back to you, as it was you that gave it to them, they did not take it!

But in that I am my self, I accept everything about myself as a natural and integral part of who I am; I can deny nothing which is me at any time without being dishonest.
'Life is what you make it.'

So then I ask: what if such people did not exist? Who would I be? Am I merely denying what reality is when I have a negative opinion of someone I wish not to have?
I am constituent of all reality as it reaches my ability to know it; all of what I know is the entirety of that which Constitues me, and thus reality. If there is something beyond my knowledge which I do not know, it only effects who and what I am in and at the moment it enters my knowledge. There can be nothing effecting me I do not know about because as soon as I would know about it it is of my knowledge, even if it is 'there is a chemical in my water but I font know what it is'. It is exactly 'I don't know what it is'. If I procede to find out then it is what it is, but it was only effecting me prior to my knowing what it is in that I have knowledge which references for knowledge what 'prior' means.
You have been, and shall always be, what it is, that you make you! If their is a chemical in your water, you buy a distiller for drinking. There is always solution!

This is the facts of the case. It has nothing to do with how I go about living or making decisions about whether I should by my daughter a book or a dress at the store today or whether I should vote republican or democrat. It has nothing to do with whether I am interested inb quantum mechanics.

It is simply the fact of the case.
The facts of the case are that, you are that, which 'molds' you, you! This is done through the understanding of the dynamics of what it is in being human!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sob you mentioned 'lost in the word maze'. Is not everything you claim to know come by through words?
No!
And so I say to you, express to me some knowledge without using words.
Lance, I have this thing that I've asserted since the early 70's when recreational drug usage was in it's heyday. It was the philosophy I used to ensure I kept myself straight: 'always control the drug, never allow the drug to control you.' I submit that unlike some, I never allow the words to control me, I always control the words. At least one of my professors at university asserted the fact that education is not always about what you should subscribe to, but also what you shouldn't. This comes into play, especially in philosophy, as there are so many schools of thought that you have to 'choose' from, as they can be contradictory. So your black and white word usage point above, is in fact gray, with more than 256 shades, I'd say billions. Words do not necessitate any particular, it's more to do with their wielder. One can 'choose' any words there are, so tell me what's in the 'choosing?' Faith? It's true for us all! Is it faith? Is it some unseen power? Is it greed? Is it selfishness? Is it honesty? Is it compassion? Is it humility, Is it arrogance? Is it good or is it evil? It's not about using words, it's about getting caught up in words. What drives my words is feelings, emotional content, true freedom, fairness for all, PEACE and LOVE, the miraculousness that is life on planet earth! So what's driving yours? What is that thing that drives? For all we know, for some, it may just be love and miracles out of knowhere (<-the k is on purpose and it's meant both ways). The mind, in this day and age, is still that elusive 'black box.' Could it be that those in power are just born or, shortly thereafter, manipulated into being insanely evil, that they find a need to stand on the bodies of their slaves in all their megalomaniacal glory?

And indeed I thus say, you have faith in a particular scheme of knowledge that grant you the truth of your reality.
See above.

There is little that you say that I disagree with, but I disagree with your claim that it is grounded in an Ab Truth.
The first half I don't necessarily believe, but if true that could be what binds us two together, or so it might seem. The second half I have never asserted.

Everytime you tell me how it is grounded so, I pull the ground away, but because it is the truth of your faith which supplies for you your reality, that is, your justification for being, you come back and restablish your ground. Sometimes you use science, sometimes you use relativity, sometimes ethical grounds.
I believe that this is what you believe, yes!

You cannot see the shifting of you absolute truths at every assertion rebuttal of a ground because the object is your ground, but there is not actual object, only the true object of your faith which 'makes sense' to you.
I believe that this is what you believe, yes!

This is the car. Your argument is about driving.
No, my car is this life and the driving is the choices I make along the way! Unfortunately I've had many collisions, more than some, less than others.

Indeed, you Are the driver: must be in control.

I don't worry, nor have I ever worried about controlling the intoxication I choose to partake in.
It is not an issue. I mean, isn't a Prominent point of taking an intoxicant a releif or momentary repreive from the stress or otherwise 'normal' of life.? To relax? To set aside inhibitions?
For me it was about mind expansion, not escapism, I'm sorry!

People who do not have a problem with intoxicants do not worry about controling them.
Again you have the cart before the horse, I'm sorry about this as well!

In fact, in the retorhic of recovery from alcoholism, in the book that really started it all, the book entitled "Alcoholics Anonymous", posits that the problem of alcoholism is based in an idea of control, of attempting to situate life as the alcoholic sees fit. The person who has a problem with intoxicants is 'self will run riot'. The problem of their alcoholism, but indeed all problems "arise out of themselves", though he usually doesn't think so.
While this is true, you forgot about the snowball.

Only the alcoholic obsesses about controling life, and alcohol is a symptom of the problem of self.
Only those that can see the truth of what it is in being human take the time to attempt to further the development of humanity through education. All the rest are usually part of the problem.

The driver in control. Absolute Truth. Ethical maxims.
An individual sees only what they want to see.

[lancek4]

So Bill, it seems we have again reached a juncture in this post.
From my estimation we have come upon 3, but at least 2, Truths:

The ' zennnnnnnn, all Issssssss One, ohhhhmmmmm' truth;

The 'discourse reduces being to nothingness' truth;and

The 'actual, ethically informed' truth.

And each cannot admit to the other because fear is preventing us all.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Or it could be that they are all equally true, with no adversity between them other than the language that their wielders afford, and that the language is the barrier that must be breached, because you left mine out, so either you exclude me on purpose or fail to understand my meaning. I prefer to believe that you've failed to understand, because I would hate to think you'd discount me. We seem to be so friendly, you and I.

[lancek4]

Or it could be that they are all equally true, with no adversity between them other than the language that their wielders afford, and that the language is the barrier that must be breached, because you left mine out, so either you exclude me on purpose or fail to understand my meaning. I prefer to believe that you've failed to understand, because I would hate to think you'd discount me. We seem to be so friendly, you and I.

I thought I included yours in the 'actual' truth?
How would you summarize yours in brief?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Or it could be that they are all equally true, with no adversity between them other than the language that their wielders afford, and that the language is the barrier that must be breached, because you left mine out, so either you exclude me on purpose or fail to understand my meaning. I prefer to believe that you've failed to understand, because I would hate to think you'd discount me. We seem to be so friendly, you and I.

I thought I included yours in the 'actual' truth?
How would you summarize yours in brief?

Oh this one was mine: "The 'actual, ethically informed' truth," I see!
When I initially read it, I saw that your use of "ethically informed" was your means of reducing that one as so much BS, so I thought it couldn't be mine. I noticed that it was the only one that has it's motivation or qualifier mentioned. So I decided to attach the other two's qualifiers, and attach the proper one to mine, so they would be equal in content:

The ' zennnnnnnn, all Issssssss One, ohhhhmmmmm' truth, faith informed;

The 'discourse reduces being to nothingness' truth, subjectively informed;

and

The 'actual, objectively informed' truth.

Then I noticed that the first two were somewhat similar in that they allow, and thus encourage, anything, including murdering, raping, pillaging, chaos, and thus species annihilation; genocide. The first one through indifference as all is one; a singular all is allowed because it's all the same thing, thus allowing a little selfishness to sneak in. The second one through apathy and futility such that all is allowed again, thus with a little selfishness as a potential. I thought that from what I know about the human animal, there is a very good chance that, even though I have selfishness playing the part of caboose in the list above, in fact it's probably the hell bent engine in disguise.

I also noticed that the last one gives up the selfishness to that of a higher calling, one could call it ethics, but it goes way beyond that to simply the model of all that actually is, in that it only allows parallel behavior to that which is the father and mother of all. Call it the universal lesson, if you will. It looks at the absolute truths as a guide as to what is and is not acceptable. For instance one of the absolute truths of the human animal is that it has 32 teeth and that all except two are designed for grains and vegetables, gnawing and grinding, and that in fact the two left that are considered canines are not fully comparable to those of the wolf or other such carnivores. It's not a matter of relative consideration, it's a fact as proven with the examination of all animals teeth, it is an absolute truth of design by function; the scientific method. There are many other absolute truths or facts that we know from the scientific method, for instance the balance of plant and animal, in that the first requirement, that of greatest urgency, is air, or more appropriately O2, that is inhaled by animals, that exhale Co2, that plants inhale, and then exhale O2. A symbiosis. This balance, if disturbed, causes life to end for both. It's not up for relative consideration, it is an absolute truth (fact). And there are plenty more absolute truths tied to our needs for existence.