[quote="SpheresOfBalquote="lancek4"]Bal. "lancek4"]
reasonvemotion wrote: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'?
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 part of this process you have described is willed? (crossed threads. We can return it to the AC thread, but it also seems appropriate to this one also )
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
[/quote]
