What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[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.

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 )
Yes I agree with you Lance, that it's appropriate to both threads, if you would like to see it moved, be my guest, I will follow.

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

[lancek4]

Enlightenment is to enlighten or uncover the truth of Oneself by simply removing everything that is not true. Once the untruth obscuring One's true self is removed, only what is true, or what is remains.
And once One uncovers the truth of Oneself, his true self,
One finds the same truth is equally One as is All.

IS

So I have to come back to: what is not true about oneself? It seems you are working very close to the line here: you began with a statement of self , so I will figure you will not pull it back toward some object.

How do you, that is, how are you capable of segregating your self from yourself? How are you determining what of your thoughts is true from those that are not true. Obviously there are objects that we can delineate a true from a false. How may some of your thoughts have the same quality ? How do you stabilize a thought in order that it can be a 'wrong' or 'not true' thought?

[lancek4]

You either is or you ain't. If you don't know what you is, then how can you become?

but if you do know who you "is" then you have discovered the meaning of truth and is this what seeing the truth means? Enlightenment. But if you dont know what you "is"..... is this what is stopping you from seeing the truth. Ignorance.

If you stop to see the truth, you have failed. Life is becoming. You only arrive when you are dead, then it is too late.
There is no "the truth" to see. It s just a dream.

Alluding to the MLK:
I have a dream today.

Perhaps his 'have' conveys a condition of himself that has no quarter, so he would work or act from a basis where your (Chaz) statement here has no purchase.

[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.

This whole line of thinking presupposes time and thus growth.

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 )
Yes I agree with you Lance, that it's appropriate to both threads, if you would like to see it moved, be my guest, I will follow.

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

So then we are here: what of the process you describe is willed?

[reasonvemotion]

Reading the question, I realise I have never asked myself, what's stopping me from seeing the truth? Maybe that is because, there is no one "truth" or maybe there are many truths to consider in this life which in turn can introduce many untruths. Then the next question is how does one determine what is truth. Solely by the ability to present credibility, enough so, I can accept it and say this is the truthful answer, which interprets as my truth only and not as stated above "the truth" which implies overall truth, essentially one truth. Someone elses "truth" could be easily intellectualised by me as being the untruth. Do we all have our own truths which we believe solely for the purpose to excuse or justify our own personal actions. The question could also easily be answered as I have stated above. I have never asked the question, so I will never see "the truth" as implied in the question, as being omnipotent truth? The reason that is preventing me from seeing "the truth" is a simple lack of will.

[lancek4]

Reading the question, I realise I have never asked myself, what's stopping me from seeing the truth? Maybe that is because, there is no one "truth" or maybe there are many truths to consider in this life which in turn can introduce many untruths. Then the next question is how does one determine what is truth. Solely by the ability to present credibility, enough so, I can accept it and say this is the truthful answer, which interprets as my truth only and not as stated above "the truth" which implies overall truth, essentially one truth. Someone elses "truth" could be easily intellectualised by me as being the untruth. Do we all have our own truths which we believe solely for the purpose to excuse or justify our own personal actions. The question could also easily be answered as I have stated above. I have never asked the question, so I will never see "the truth" as implied in the question, as being omnipotent truth? The reason that is preventing me from seeing "the truth" is a simple lack of will.

Lack of 'want' or 'will power'?

In the pursuit of truth, I cannot be vague : I am in search of The Truth. Thus I am clear about what this is: it is me. Thus I Live the question to see if I am correct. So far do good? Lol.

Am I depressed? Why? It is because I refer truth to a segregation of a reality in which I am subject. Thus I have agency only to the extent that I see my effectivness. Thus I am depressed because my agency is never my self, but always a condition of that reality of which I am subjected. Only one who denies this fact may be ok with it, but it also denies it's correct ethics.

[lancek4]

Do I doubt my self? How may I convey this ? How can it be true? What ever I say denies the root of such doubt for I establish it's certainty as I propose it. Am I insecure? What has this anything to do with reality ? My insecurity is founded in my positing my insecurity as secure. The problems of myself that withhold me from my 'true' self are exactly located in the discrepancy and contradiction involved in my attempt to posit truth.

In so much that I have given up the attempt to overcome the discrepancy, I can only be true. I cannot be false; or rather, I can know totally when I am false, for I have attempted to overcome that which is myself for the sake of the justifying object.

I need not see any truth for I can only act the way I must act. What stops me from seeing the truth is truth itself. At every proposition I am confounded in truth.

[chaz wyman]

Do I doubt my self? How may I convey this ? How can it be true? What ever I say denies the root of such doubt for I establish it's certainty as I propose it. Am I insecure? What has this anything to do with reality ? My insecurity is founded in my positing my insecurity as secure. The problems of myself that withhold me from my 'true' self are exactly located in the discrepancy and contradiction involved in my attempt to posit truth.

In so much that I have given up the attempt to overcome the discrepancy, I can only be true. I cannot be false; or rather, I can know totally when I am false, for I have attempted to overcome that which is myself for the sake of the justifying object.

I need not see any truth for I can only act the way I must act. What stops me from seeing the truth is truth itself. At every proposition I am confounded in truth.

Are you feeling okay?

[chaz wyman]

Let's face it the whole thread is based on an inappropriate question.

Such as "why are we here?"; " what colour is the wind?"; "what is the sound of blue?"; "When was the future?"

Why would we think that the idea "the truth" is meaningful or a thing that is capable of being seen.

Even if it is, what makes us think that there is something stopping us seeing a thing that might not be meaningful or capable of being seen?

[lancek4]

Do I doubt my self? How may I convey this ? How can it be true? What ever I say denies the root of such doubt for I establish it's certainty as I propose it. Am I insecure? What has this anything to do with reality ? My insecurity is founded in my positing my insecurity as secure. The problems of myself that withhold me from my 'true' self are exactly located in the discrepancy and contradiction involved in my attempt to posit truth.

In so much that I have given up the attempt to overcome the discrepancy, I can only be true. I cannot be false; or rather, I can know totally when I am false, for I have attempted to overcome that which is myself for the sake of the justifying object.

I need not see any truth for I can only act the way I must act. What stops me from seeing the truth is truth itself. At every proposition I am confounded in truth.

Are you feeling okay?

I am responding to reason emotion s apparent line of propositions. Such as 'I am my own worst emeny'. And true and false thoughts or good and bad thoughts, how her thoughts are cluttered with garbage, etc. I am suggesting a possibility of how such garbage has accumulated.

[lancek4]

Let's face it the whole thread is based on an inappropriate question.

Such as "why are we here?"; " what colour is the wind?"; "what is the sound of blue?"; "When was the future?"

Why would we think that the idea "the truth" is meaningful or a thing that is capable of being seen.

Even if it is, what makes us think that there is something stopping us seeing a thing that might not be meaningful or capable of being seen?

I think more to the point: The result of the discussion of truth is evident of most discussion that has to do with true things. The discussion always leads to a compromise or a negotiation of truth, such that the truth is thus what a defined majority or consensus deems.

What is this then ? What is this truth that 'they' establish? Say for example 'all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights...'. What truth is this? How did it come about? Or perhaps a most siginifcant question: from where did does it arise? From observation? From utility?

Or the most operative: what relation do I have to this truth? Am I an object defined by a conflation of objects? Or am I that which establishes the conflation ?

Is that which is contradictory, that is, reason that reaches contradiction, de facto false?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Let's face it the whole thread is based on an inappropriate question.

Such as "why are we here?"; " what colour is the wind?"; "what is the sound of blue?"; "When was the future?"

Why would we think that the idea "the truth" is meaningful or a thing that is capable of being seen.

Even if it is, what makes us think that there is something stopping us seeing a thing that might not be meaningful or capable of being seen?

I think more to the point: The result of the discussion of truth is evident of most discussion that has to do with true things. The discussion always leads to a compromise or a negotiation of truth, such that the truth is thus what a defined majority or consensus deems.
Incorrect, you speak of beliefs that men have claimed as truths, as though they are in fact.

What is this then ? What is this truth that 'they' establish? Say for example 'all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights...'. What truth is this?
That's elementary, the answer is easy: 'NO' man 'ACTUALLY KNOWS' the 'TRUTH' of 'EXISTENCE.'

How did it come about?
The final acceptance of the truth of this lack of knowledge.

Or perhaps a most siginifcant question: from where did does it arise? From observation? From utility?
See Above!

Or the most operative: what relation do I have to this truth? Am I an object defined by a conflation of objects? Or am I that which establishes the conflation ?
What is this second (or more) object? To what fusion are you referring?


Is that which is contradictory, that is, reason that reaches contradiction, de facto false?
No, it's the 'reason,' that is false.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Do I doubt my self? How may I convey this ? How can it be true? What ever I say denies the root of such doubt for I establish it's certainty as I propose it. Am I insecure? What has this anything to do with reality ? My insecurity is founded in my positing my insecurity as secure. The problems of myself that withhold me from my 'true' self are exactly located in the discrepancy and contradiction involved in my attempt to posit truth.

In so much that I have given up the attempt to overcome the discrepancy, I can only be true. I cannot be false; or rather, I can know totally when I am false, for I have attempted to overcome that which is myself for the sake of the justifying object.

I need not see any truth for I can only act the way I must act. What stops me from seeing the truth is truth itself. At every proposition I am confounded in truth.

I see non sequitur logic so as to assert ego.

[Arising_uk]

If people want absolute truth and falsity then Logic and maybe Pure Mathematics is the place for them as this is the only place they lie. The rest, including facts, lie in the realm of the contingent. Its this that lancek4 is grappling with(that and Existentialism(?)), i.e. how can we know something is true or false in the contingent and this, in Philosophy, lies within the categories of Epistemology and Ontology.

[reasonvemotion]

Lance somehow this question has awakened something within and you want an answer.

Have you thought that the question itself is spurious, undoubtedly originating from a church or religious establishments. They are similar to any corporation seeking ways to retain and build their assets. People are the assets, without them, they are inconsequential. Each church has its own unique propaganda to appeal. Let your mind be open, to cleave to one idea without exploring others, will make you a prisoner of religion. Much damage has been done in the name of religion. The question is unanswerable and I doubt its content.