What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[chaz wyman]

In 107 pages of bumf, there has not been given a single example of an absolute truth for which one cannot offer an alternative view which is equally valid except the most banal facts; facts I ought to add that do not amount to the vaulted heights claimed for the notion of Truth. eg. the sun shines.
But even with a little imagination even those basic facts are not without their subjective specificity. The sun shines is not even absolute when you are on the dark side of the planet.

[lancek4]

Interesting take. And again I differ in my take.

Are you saying that those who see the truth as 'actual', as you, are not selfish? I would point to the evidence of our world to rebut. Ethics is what allows for people to do what thhey want, that is why ethics was is not sifficient and need law to enforce a particular ethics.

Discourse is not subjective. The interpretation of meaning may be said to be subjective, but not discourse: it is right in front of us all. The only difference is whether one is in denial of how it manifests and functions or not.

The 'truth is' you yourself has advocated so I think you would change your opinions here. And besides, those who do see a oneness of the world usually see that they are included in that oneness and so are obliged to do no violence because they are thus doing violence unto themselves.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Interesting take. And again I differ in my take.

Are you saying that those who see the truth as 'actual', as you, are not selfish? I would point to the evidence of our world to rebut. Ethics is what allows for people to do what thhey want, that is why ethics was is not sifficient and need law to enforce a particular ethics.
You seem to always be trying to find the selfishness in my thoughts, self projection, maybe? I am for the we, the us.

Everyone is selfish so some extent, because we start off that way, but one needs to be able to keep them selves in check as they grow older, wiser and become adults. If you look to the relative there is no discernible universal answer, so anything can be said to be good. If you look to the absolute, there is where a discernible universal answer resides, that is absolutely true for everyone, regardless of their acceptance. This is where mans laws should originate as this is the realm of physics, 'origin of species,' universal truth, etc.

I would say that for the most part, that 'all' people tend to want to live and not be murdered, is an absolute truth, except as I mention below. But even then, I'd say that it's due to distortion of the absolute, that they don't.

I would go so far as to say that those ethics that are really sound, originate from the absolute truths.


Discourse is not subjective. The interpretation of meaning may be said to be subjective, but not discourse: it is right in front of us all. The only difference is whether one is in denial of how it manifests and functions or not.
Yes it is, you're trying to split hairs as usual! Interpretation of meaning is a part of discourse. FIRST DEF: "communication of thought by words; talk; conversation," because it is born of this relative individual perspective to which you believe, such that the words mean different things to different people. You yourself mentioned how Chaz and I may have been referring to the same thing using different wording, such that we thought we were on opposite sides of the argument. There's your example of how discourse is subjective.

By the way, I see that this "Interpretation of meaning" can be a flaw in both the words of the sender and the receiver, in discourse.

The 'truth is' you yourself has advocated so I think you would change your opinions here. And besides, those who do see a oneness of the world usually see that they are included in that oneness and so are obliged to do no violence because they are thus doing violence unto themselves.
You're only speaking of those that are primarily good people, you fail to consider sadomasochists, those with a death wish, that want to end their lives along with others. And most of the time the reason for this is psychological trauma they received as children, that is prevalent in a society of relative truths.

If we stressed the absolutes that are the precursors of life then I believe the populace as a whole could be healed. Well actually it would take a lot more to do the job, like the end of inequality. Education is the key!

[lancek4]

Interesting take. And again I differ in my take.

Are you saying that those who see the truth as 'actual', as you, are not selfish? I would point to the evidence of our world to rebut. Ethics is what allows for people to do what thhey want, that is why ethics was is not sifficient and need law to enforce a particular ethics.
You seem to always be trying to find the selfishness in my thoughts, self projection, maybe? I am for the we, the us.

Everyone is selfish so some extent, because we start off that way, but one needs to be able to keep them selves in check as they grow older, wiser and become adults. If you look to the relative there is no discernible universal answer, so anything can be said to be good. If you look to the absolute, there is where a discernible universal answer resides, that is absolutely true for everyone, regardless of their acceptance. This is where mans laws should originate as this is the realm of physics, 'origin of species,' universal truth, etc.

I would say that for the most part, that 'all' people tend to want to live and not be murdered, is an absolute truth, except as I mention below. But even then, I'd say that it's due to distortion of the absolute, that they don't.

I would go so far as to say that those ethics that are really sound, originate from the absolute truths.


Discourse is not subjective. The interpretation of meaning may be said to be subjective, but not discourse: it is right in front of us all. The only difference is whether one is in denial of how it manifests and functions or not.
Yes it is, you're trying to split hairs as usual! Interpretation of meaning is a part of discourse. FIRST DEF: "communication of thought by words; talk; conversation," because it is born of this relative individual perspective to which you believe, such that the words mean different things to different people. You yourself mentioned how Chaz and I may have been referring to the same thing using different wording, such that we thought we were on opposite sides of the argument. There's your example of how discourse is subjective.

By the way, I see that this "Interpretation of meaning" can be a flaw in both the words of the sender and the receiver, in discourse.

The 'truth is' you yourself has advocated so I think you would change your opinions here. And besides, those who do see a oneness of the world usually see that they are included in that oneness and so are obliged to do no violence because they are thus doing violence unto themselves.
You're only speaking of those that are primarily good people, you fail to consider sadomasochists, those with a death wish, that want to end their lives along with others. And most of the time the reason for this is psychological trauma they received as children, that is prevalent in a society of relative truths.

If we stressed the absolutes that are the precursors of life then I believe the populace as a whole could be healed. Well actually it would take a lot more to do the job, like the end of inequality. Education is the key!

I am suggesting that the arena of ethics allows for dishonesty; I am not singling sob out as being necessarily dishonest. In that there is ethics there must be something against which ethics is needed, else everyone would 'ethical' and there would be no need to argue what is right and good. An Ethics of Truth, a 'truth-value', thereby, is necessarily an ideological power play. But so far as we have comeupon other routes which assert an Ab truth, in this thread, ethics is but one route. Not so much here 'ethics' as indicating an absolute good and bad - such is an assertion of a type or particular ethics within the category 'ethics'.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Interesting take. And again I differ in my take.

Are you saying that those who see the truth as 'actual', as you, are not selfish? I would point to the evidence of our world to rebut. Ethics is what allows for people to do what thhey want, that is why ethics was is not sifficient and need law to enforce a particular ethics.
You seem to always be trying to find the selfishness in my thoughts, self projection, maybe? I am for the we, the us.

Everyone is selfish so some extent, because we start off that way, but one needs to be able to keep them selves in check as they grow older, wiser and become adults. If you look to the relative there is no discernible universal answer, so anything can be said to be good. If you look to the absolute, there is where a discernible universal answer resides, that is absolutely true for everyone, regardless of their acceptance. This is where mans laws should originate as this is the realm of physics, 'origin of species,' universal truth, etc.

I would say that for the most part, that 'all' people tend to want to live and not be murdered, is an absolute truth, except as I mention below. But even then, I'd say that it's due to distortion of the absolute, that they don't.

I would go so far as to say that those ethics that are really sound, originate from the absolute truths.


Discourse is not subjective. The interpretation of meaning may be said to be subjective, but not discourse: it is right in front of us all. The only difference is whether one is in denial of how it manifests and functions or not.
Yes it is, you're trying to split hairs as usual! Interpretation of meaning is a part of discourse. FIRST DEF: "communication of thought by words; talk; conversation," because it is born of this relative individual perspective to which you believe, such that the words mean different things to different people. You yourself mentioned how Chaz and I may have been referring to the same thing using different wording, such that we thought we were on opposite sides of the argument. There's your example of how discourse is subjective.

By the way, I see that this "Interpretation of meaning" can be a flaw in both the words of the sender and the receiver, in discourse.

The 'truth is' you yourself has advocated so I think you would change your opinions here. And besides, those who do see a oneness of the world usually see that they are included in that oneness and so are obliged to do no violence because they are thus doing violence unto themselves.
You're only speaking of those that are primarily good people, you fail to consider sadomasochists, those with a death wish, that want to end their lives along with others. And most of the time the reason for this is psychological trauma they received as children, that is prevalent in a society of relative truths.

If we stressed the absolutes that are the precursors of life then I believe the populace as a whole could be healed. Well actually it would take a lot more to do the job, like the end of inequality. Education is the key!

I am suggesting that the arena of ethics allows for dishonesty; I am not singling sob out as being necessarily dishonest. In that there is ethics there must be something against which ethics is needed, else everyone would 'ethical' and there would be no need to argue what is right and good. An Ethics of Truth, a 'truth-value', thereby, is necessarily an ideological power play. But so far as we have comeupon other routes which assert an Ab truth, in this thread, ethics is but one route. Not so much here 'ethics' as indicating an absolute good and bad - such is an assertion of a type or particular ethics within the category 'ethics'.

This reminds me of my wife's comment when I read my "Fundamental Social Axiom" (updated "Golden Rule") to her. She said, 'that's not going to stop people from doing wrong.' I said it's not about stopping them, anyone can do anything they want in life, it's about providing a rule of equality for everyone to live by. They have to want to follow it, because they see it's truth.

It's not that the arena allows, it's that people shall do what they want, despite the self defeatism, because they, at least at that time, are incapable of understanding the concept of equality. They, like all of us, have been born within the tunnel vision of self as seen from 'inside' their minds viewing the 'outside,' trying to make sense of it all. To understand equality, ethics and the absolute truth you have to view everything from outside the mind looking back towards yourself, first from the perspective of yourself, as in a mirror, then from that of others, and finally from the perspective of the universe. Only then can one see the truth of my Fundamental Social Axiom, equality, ethics and the absolute truth. For those that remain in the childlike state of only seeing from inside to the outside, all is lost on them, and they often end up ether dead, in prison, or on the run for the rest of their lives, in one way or another, I guess some may get away from others, but they'll never get away from themselves, especially if one day they get an inkling of the outside in perspective.

[lancek4]

The category of 'ethics' attempts to account for good and evil.

To say something is ethical,we can be using your meaning: what is good or right, but I am using it in the sense that the ethical is that which accounts for good and evil, right and wrong.
There is and will only be a utopia through enforcement of a particular ethics ( what is good and what is bad/wrong). There cannot be a humanity that is only good, unless the bad humanity is excluded or denied, which occurs through policeing.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The category of 'ethics' attempts to account for good and evil.

To say something is ethical,we can be using your meaning: what is good or right, but I am using it in the sense that the ethical is that which accounts for good and evil, right and wrong.
There is and will only be a utopia through enforcement of a particular ethics ( what is good and what is bad/wrong). There cannot be a humanity that is only good, unless the bad humanity is excluded or denied, which occurs through policeing.

I understand ethics, lance. Though it would seem many corporations/business's are unaware! And I believe that you're wrong about what can be. It only seems, that there cannot be "humanity that is only good," but that is merely an assumption based upon the past, and the past started from nothingness. I also understand that you speak of a dichotomy, but one has to remember relativity, such that the disparity between them is continously variable, let's narrow the margin!

The lack of education is the key to there being bad, except of course for those born with physical abnormalities, the former of course is a product of those that only wish to profit from sharing knowledge, (selfish people). These people that only wish to sell knowledge are a part of the pool of bad/evil people, though they are not policed, and manifest the others that have been policed as bad/evil. In the days of old, as in the days of Socrates, they did not sell knowledge, that's a modern day capitalist venture, which is bad/evil.

So should the people that actually commit the crimes be policed, or those that manifest them via their selfish greed? Hopefully the Internet can fix all that, that is if we can keep governments from controlling it's content. To hell with capitalist ventures, the promise of a pretty gold rock, that started in the days of cavemen, with the sole purpose to dominate! When shall we actually realize equality and oneness? When shall the human populace finally understand the implications and ramifications of their spheres (circles) of influence on each other and on this singular blue marble? When shall we finally see what we are, in absolute truth?

Remember that history teaches us that the church used the control of knowledge to control it's subjects, need I really say more? OK, same tactic, different controllers.


"The whole wide world, an endless universe, Yet we keep looking through the eyeglass in reverse.
Don't feed the people, but we feed the machines, Can't really feel what international means.
In different circles we keep holding our ground, Indifferent circles we keep spinning round and round and round." --Peart--

I love how he used, "in different" and "indifferent," Perfect!

[lancek4]

It sounds like your category of ethics is aligned with Ab Truth; it sound like you are saying that there is an Actual unniverse (our def) that is True. Then we have human knowledge, some of which is actually true, and some distortion of the truth. And then that this actual universal truth that we are learning of conincides with what is good for humanity, and thus the actual truth is found through education which will lead to a harmonious, ethically good and right, humanity.

Is this an accurate synopsis of your (sob) assertion?

[chaz wyman]

It sounds like your category of ethics is aligned with Ab Truth; it sound like you are saying that there is an Actual unniverse (our def) that is True. Then we have human knowledge, some of which is actually true, and some distortion of the truth. And then that this actual universal truth that we are learning of conincides with what is good for humanity, and thus the actual truth is found through education which will lead to a harmonious, ethically good and right, humanity.

Is this an accurate synopsis of your (sob) assertion?

For SoB, it seems from my own observations of his offerings, is that it si a case of 'my way or the wrong way'. SoB seems to assert that his own choices of AbTruth is the collection of ideas that most represent the real - out there- sort of truth.

When I challenged him in this position some time ago, I ended up on his ignore list.
Obviously my suggestions as to what alternatives to AbTruth might pertain did not align with his own.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It sounds like your category of ethics is aligned with Ab Truth; it sound like you are saying that there is an Actual unniverse (our def) that is True. Then we have human knowledge, some of which is actually true, and some distortion of the truth. And then that this actual universal truth that we are learning of conincides with what is good for humanity, and thus the actual truth is found through education which will lead to a harmonious, ethically good and right, humanity.

Is this an accurate synopsis of your (sob) assertion?

Hey Lance , I've noticed you've had more pressing matters in your life or are getting bored here, as your posts have become fewer. As always thanks for giving me your time, I really do appreciate it; sincerely!

I'm currently composing an answer to this, and shall get back to you within a couple days, and as usual, I look forward to your counter. In essence you've got it, but I feel that a few things 'must' be expanded upon, so I'm in the process.

[lancek4]

It sounds like your category of ethics is aligned with Ab Truth; it sound like you are saying that there is an Actual unniverse (our def) that is True. Then we have human knowledge, some of which is actually true, and some distortion of the truth. And then that this actual universal truth that we are learning of conincides with what is good for humanity, and thus the actual truth is found through education which will lead to a harmonious, ethically good and right, humanity.

Is this an accurate synopsis of your (sob) assertion?

For SoB, it seems from my own observations of his offerings, is that it si a case of 'my way or the wrong way'. SoB seems to assert that his own choices of AbTruth is the collection of ideas that most represent the real - out there- sort of truth.

When I challenged him in this position some time ago, I ended up on his ignore list.
Obviously my suggestions as to what alternatives to AbTruth might pertain did not align with his own.

An argument that bases its truth in faith, ultimately can only defend itself through blatant denial.

And you know, chaz, I thought it sigfniificant a while ago when you and I were debating/discussing, that our discussion ended (then) with no further addressing response - significant to me, at my end, for where we had gotten, for at that point we 'passed over in silence' that final issue. (Which, I feel, is a deep acceptance rather than denial).

[chaz wyman]

It sounds like your category of ethics is aligned with Ab Truth; it sound like you are saying that there is an Actual unniverse (our def) that is True. Then we have human knowledge, some of which is actually true, and some distortion of the truth. And then that this actual universal truth that we are learning of conincides with what is good for humanity, and thus the actual truth is found through education which will lead to a harmonious, ethically good and right, humanity.

Is this an accurate synopsis of your (sob) assertion?

For SoB, it seems from my own observations of his offerings, is that it si a case of 'my way or the wrong way'. SoB seems to assert that his own choices of AbTruth is the collection of ideas that most represent the real - out there- sort of truth.

When I challenged him in this position some time ago, I ended up on his ignore list.
Obviously my suggestions as to what alternatives to AbTruth might pertain did not align with his own.

An argument that bases its truth in faith, ultimately can only defend itself through blatant denial.

And you know, chaz, I thought it sigfniificant a while ago when you and I were debating/discussing, that our discussion ended (then) with no further addressing response - significant to me, at my end, for where we had gotten, for at that point we 'passed over in silence' that final issue. (Which, I feel, is a deep acceptance rather than denial).

Yes, I enjoyed our discussions and although they might have got rather um... passionate at times, we did indeed find much common ground.
I think this common ground was found without either of us trying to pretend that we had reached absolute truth, objective reality or any other such frippery. We found our agreement in a inter-subjective correlation - such is truth in the only meaningful actuality of truth.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It sounds like your category of ethics is aligned with Ab Truth; it sound like you are saying that there is an Actual unniverse (our def) that is True. Then we have human knowledge, some of which is actually true, and some distortion of the truth. And then that this actual universal truth that we are learning of conincides with what is good for humanity, and thus the actual truth is found through education which will lead to a harmonious, ethically good and right, humanity.

Is this an accurate synopsis of your (sob) assertion?

I believe that proper ethics is aligned with the absolute truth, of course!

The absolute truth is what has transpired since the dawn of time and has given birth to humanity (life; all life). This birth of life was subject to the balancing of many things; it happened within a particular window of opportunity composed of specific conditions. Where 'chance?' has given way to these specific conditions that allow for life, enter human kind, the only life form to challenge this absolute truth of our existence, and therein lays the danger. We must remain within the laws of the balance, the absolute truth of our existence; otherwise we run the risk of killing ourselves off by this upsetting of the balance. It’s easy to see the importance of the balance as you look to other lifeless worlds, and the ramifications as seen in the human body after experiencing the space beyond our atmosphere (biosphere). Why have we strayed and can no longer sense this absolute truth? Because during our course we have allowed selfish and meaningless, from a universal perspective, wants, desires, and lusts to dominate our legacy built in time on the actions of generation after generation, which today, forms the current construct. You can see it as a fork in the road that we passed thousands of years ago, and mankind has unfortunately chosen the wrong path, it was the one of golden idols, of power and greed, the wants of some to dominate others so as to live a life of luxury at the others expense. This following of the wrong path is responsible for ‘all’ our socio- psychological as well as economic problems and effects our civilizations very infrastructure as seen in starvation, murder, global warming, and the list goes on and on. As far as I’m concerned the use of the word civilization, is a far cry from what we have.

Chaz made light of my point about the absolute truth of our teeth earlier, but it’s only because he failed to understand its significance. And that is, that the so called most intelligent animal on the planet, the one that is supposed to be most capable, happens to primarily have the teeth of a herbivore. I didn’t mention the implications as with its correlation with cholesterol, saturated fats and heart disease as I thought it was self evident. I like the fact that my vagueness has allowed for the uncovering of one incapable of working the problem, anyone can remember facts as that of a parrot. But this is not meant to beat him up, really. It’s really more about the point of seeing how the puzzle pieces of absolute truth come together to paint a picture of how human life should be, a blueprint, if you will.

So yes, the Absolute Truth of our birth, which is that of the entire universe, lends to the understanding of what we are, and how we should precede (live), once all the pieces are in place. And I submit that through its understanding, we shall eliminate our problems. We are in fact one as the Buddhist claims, which to me is the only established religion that makes any sense, primarily because it has more balance than the rest.

But I’m not here to push a religion either. I guess I’m really only here to find some truth. And I thank you for the opportunity to exercise my mind a little, as it was overdue.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It sounds like your category of ethics is aligned with Ab Truth; it sound like you are saying that there is an Actual unniverse (our def) that is True. Then we have human knowledge, some of which is actually true, and some distortion of the truth. And then that this actual universal truth that we are learning of conincides with what is good for humanity, and thus the actual truth is found through education which will lead to a harmonious, ethically good and right, humanity.

Is this an accurate synopsis of your (sob) assertion?

For SoB, it seems from my own observations of his offerings, is that it si a case of 'my way or the wrong way'. SoB seems to assert that his own choices of AbTruth is the collection of ideas that most represent the real - out there- sort of truth.

When I challenged him in this position some time ago, I ended up on his ignore list.
Obviously my suggestions as to what alternatives to AbTruth might pertain did not align with his own.

An argument that bases its truth in faith, ultimately can only defend itself through blatant denial.
I know you're not talking about me, because I only deny what is incorrect, and I assert that as to where we 'all' decide to proceed, it's a matter of faith, so to speak, in that no one knows for sure. What you guys fail to realize, is that your reel, in fear of my position is unfounded, because it is as if in standing my ground, as the absolute truth being the answer, you believe that I have realized it all, and that's absurd. You fear that, in that case, you'll have no leg to stand on, how could you possibly fight with the absolute truth after all. But what you fail to realize is that I'm not saying that I know 'all' the absolute truth, only that it's the only way to be a seeker of anything, as it's the only path with absolute solution, and that every other mode of pursuit yields a pipe dream. Anyone that sees it differently, is that of arrogance, and are afraid of being accountable.

In addition, they are also the ones responsible for our problems.

And you know, chaz, I thought it sigfniificant a while ago when you and I were debating/discussing, that our discussion ended (then) with no further addressing response - significant to me, at my end, for where we had gotten, for at that point we 'passed over in silence' that final issue. (Which, I feel, is a deep acceptance rather than denial).

[Mark Question]

You sound like a fanatic, so what does that make you? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Sounds are in the ears of the beholder and say more about them than it does the object, or in other words we hear what we want to hear, nothing more.

maybe its me, if you sound like preacher to me. sorry. maybe i have heard too much preachers.

I'm sorry but you've failed to understand my point, you seem to be full of sarcasm, fueled by your lack of understanding of my meaning, I can't help you! Reread if you care to, that's the best I can do for you.[/color]

maybe "full of sarcasm" is "in the ears of the beholder and say more about them than it does the object, or in other words we hear what we want to hear, nothing more"?
maybe i failed to understand your point. maybe its me again.
but if you say that you only know that you know nothing, then is your knowledge how big in scale 0-100%? 0.000..%? if "nothing" is endlessly big number and "only know" one is one? do you see my point here?
by the way, are you some kind of believer of realism if you believe there is something out there, whole world, universe or something, with or without humans or human thinking? is realistic thinking your point? sorry my poor english again.

ps. notice that your newest golden rule hangs in your absolute truth and your realism or what you call it, your assumption, no, your strong belief theres universe, with or without human thinking. jesus with his old golden rule believed god as a creator of all. your golden rules creator is universe, so you think? whats the big difference if comparing jesus and you? do you have long hair, beard?