What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

I think you should ask the originator of this post to answer that question.

What's stopping us from seeing the truth? He/she implies by this statement they have the knowledge of what "the truth" is. I have answered the question as it was posed.

I would suggest there are those who need no 'mental stillness' for their truth.

and would that be you?

No, it would not be me. but there would be some.

But let me offer something from
Ecce Homo:

Sec 9:

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

If I have to question facets if my thinking, I am avoiding the very fact that it is the faulty thinking that I am using to appraise my thinking, as if I can segregate my self from my self. This feature or ability posits itself into reason and justifies the incompletion of its self for the sake, not of finding a whole ness or solution , but exactly for the sake of problem.

[lancek4]

Bill started this thread and is quite enugmatic in his approach ( or tries to be . Look back in the thread.

[chaz wyman]

Bill started this thread and is quite enugmatic in his approach ( or tries to be . Look back in the thread.

In fact he is so enigmatic that he has abandoned the Forum thanks to Arising hounding him out.

[Arising_uk]

In fact he is so enigmatic that he has abandoned the Forum thanks to Arising hounding him out.

Bit harsh, all I wanted was for him to converse as well as post images, since it is a philosophy forum. Although he did crow about doing as much to BB so maybe fairs fair(although in reality I think BB took it as an opportunity). My take is that he left for other reasons as if you do a quick goggle you'll find him joining and leaving many sites in his effort to publicise his Way.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think you should ask the originator of this post to answer that question.

What's stopping us from seeing the truth? He/she implies by this statement they have the knowledge of what "the truth" is. I have answered the question as it was posed.

I would suggest there are those who need no 'mental stillness' for their truth.

and would that be you?

No, it would not be me. but there would be some.

But let me offer something from
Ecce Homo:

Sec 9:

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

If I have to question facets if my thinking, I am avoiding the very fact that it is the faulty thinking that I am using to appraise my thinking, as if I can segregate my self from my self. This feature or ability posits itself into reason and justifies the incompletion of its self for the sake, not of finding a whole ness or solution , but exactly for the sake of problem.

This whole line of thinking presupposes time and thus growth.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Bill started this thread and is quite enugmatic in his approach ( or tries to be . Look back in the thread.

In fact he is so enigmatic that he has abandoned the Forum thanks to Arising hounding him out.

Damn, you are deluded, there goes your megalomania again.

[chaz wyman]

In fact he is so enigmatic that he has abandoned the Forum thanks to Arising hounding him out.

Bit harsh, all I wanted was for him to converse as well as post images, since it is a philosophy forum. Although he did crow about doing as much to BB so maybe fairs fair(although in reality I think BB took it as an opportunity). My take is that he left for other reasons as if you do a quick goggle you'll find him joining and leaving many sites in his effort to publicise his Way.

I don't think he was bright enough to do as you ask. He had his own way to express himself, but if he had the where with all to engage in the banter then I think he would have done it. I remember having a long discussion about the "Bicameral Mind". By the end it looked like it was the only book he had read and did not have a very deep or wide notion of the implications of it. I steamed in, as I usually do, and ended up being embarrassed by his conciliatory and respectful responses. I had to back down and pussy-foot. He could be a little annoying with all those images and his persistent use of the 'return' key which meant his postings were ridiculously large and empty; a metaphor for some aspect of him I think!!

[lancek4]

Bill started this thread and is quite enugmatic in his approach ( or tries to be . Look back in the thread.

In fact he is so enigmatic that he has abandoned the Forum thanks to Arising hounding him out.

Now That, is funny.

[lancek4]

Bal. "lancek4"]

I think you should ask the originator of this post to answer that question.

What's stopping us from seeing the truth? He/she implies by this statement they have the knowledge of what "the truth" is. I have answered the question as it was posed.

I would suggest there are those who need no 'mental stillness' for their truth.

and would that be you?

No, it would not be me. but there would be some.

But let me offer something from
Ecce Homo:

Sec 9:

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

If I have to question facets if my thinking, I am avoiding the very fact that it is the faulty thinking that I am using to appraise my thinking, as if I can segregate my self from my self. This feature or ability posits itself into reason and justifies the incompletion of its self for the sake, not of finding a whole ness or solution , but exactly for the sake of problem.[/quote]
CHAZ's post: This whole line of thinking presupposes time and thus growth.[/quote]

Lk4's post: Indeed. But what is occurring of this 'growth'? What solution is posited by a faulty premise ? How is this contradiction 'solved' ? By 'growth'? Seems paradoxical; no ?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Bal. "lancek4"]

I think you should ask the originator of this post to answer that question.

What's stopping us from seeing the truth? He/she implies by this statement they have the knowledge of what "the truth" is. I have answered the question as it was posed.

I would suggest there are those who need no 'mental stillness' for their truth.

and would that be you?

No, it would not be me. but there would be some.

But let me offer something from
Ecce Homo:

Sec 9:

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

If I have to question facets if my thinking, I am avoiding the very fact that it is the faulty thinking that I am using to appraise my thinking, as if I can segregate my self from my self. This feature or ability posits itself into reason and justifies the incompletion of its self for the sake, not of finding a whole ness or solution , but exactly for the sake of problem.

CHAZ's post: This whole line of thinking presupposes time and thus growth.[/quote]

Lk4's post: Indeed. But what is occurring of this 'growth'?
Coming to an understanding of things, as there are multitudes of things to consider, and it is 'impossible' to consider them all, the first day we pop out of the womb. With each day of life we add to our understanding of what it is in being human, that of sensing the totality of our environment, we 'become' what we are, as a direct result of the specifically random order, timing, strength, combination, etc, of unique experience, this then yields the differences between us, yields what we become, and in any normal person it is continually ongoing. So of course no one, at any particular time knows what they are in it's totality, as we are always evolving, learning, and while it's improbable that any individual shall know themselves in their totality, there are varying degrees of this knowledge. So again I don't see a requirement to say such a thing, with the inclusion of "remotest suspicion," which is what disqualifies the assertion from bearing any fruit, as in truth he speaks from his own life's experience, it is impossible for him to speak for others with any degree of certainty. Of course no one shall know everything, it's ridiculous to even consider it, but that does not qualify "remotest suspicion."

What solution is posited by a faulty premise ? How is this contradiction 'solved' ? By 'growth'? Seems paradoxical; no ?[/quote]


Edit: removed P.S. as it does not apply, wrong thread

[MJA]

"So of course no one, at any particular time knows what they are in it's totality, as we are always evolving, learning, and while it's improbable that any individual shall know themselves in their totality, there are varying degrees of this knowledge."

As the totality is the infinite Universe,
We are the Universe too.
Dividing this wholeness, our Oneness is what stands in your way.
Truth is simply the other Way.

=
PS: Measure is the flaw

[chaz wyman]

"So of course no one, at any particular time knows what they are in it's totality, as we are always evolving, learning, and while it's improbable that any individual shall know themselves in their totality, there are varying degrees of this knowledge."

As the totality is the infinite Universe,
We are the Universe too.
Dividing this wholeness, our Oneness is what stands in your way.
Truth is simply the other Way.

=
PS: Measure is the flaw

You are just failing to draw a distinction.

Are you the same a a pile of dog shit? Yes or No.
If you are the Universe then you are dog poo.
The fact is that you , me, and dog poo are PARTS of the universe. Not the whole not the oneness (whatever fluffy bit of nonsense that is supposed to represent).
There is no trouble dividing this up in normal parlance. Measure is the key.

[reasonvemotion]

Ecce Homo:

Sec 9:

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

Sounds to me Nietzsche was obviously already over the edge when he wrote this. Delusional fantasy.

[MJA]

I would say: One is.

=

[chaz wyman]

Ecce Homo:

Sec 9:

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

Sounds to me Nietzsche was obviously already over the edge when he wrote this. Delusional fantasy.

Actually this is perfectly logical. Think about it!

You either is or you ain't. If you don't know what you is, then how can you become? Are you becoming another thing, or are you continually becoming?
Is you is, or is you ain't?
The quote might do well in context.