What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[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.
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.' I do.

Is the statement "all people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights...'. False. Then? Or is it true?

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.

[lancek4]

Are there thoughts that I have that are not true? Such that they prevent me from seeing the truth?

[reasonvemotion]

Are there thoughts that I have that are not true? Such that they prevent me from seeing the truth?

In Christian reglion the basic teaching is to the nullification of the natural man. Which you could say began with the eating of the apple. The problems in life, such as "What's stopping us from seeing the truth?" for example are never fully solved. This does not mean you should not continue working on it.

[lancek4]

I am my own worst enemy. Thinking too much, just like too much of anything, can be detrimental to oneself. To erase much of the acquired knowledge or rubbish in the mind, almost like restoring a computer to manufacturer's state, so it becomes simple, clear and your heart is the same, perhaps then truth can come into fruition. It has certainly eluded me up to this point as I find it almost impossible to clear and still my mind for a substantial amount of time. In Buddhism it is the most difficult of all tasks to achieve.

I am still a little perplexed about this statement and how it relates to your subsequent postings and responses.

Can you give me an example of 'rubbish' of the mind.
What is 'thinking too much' ? (though people have told me all through my life that I do this)
What is the relationship between mind and heart? And what is this clarity that unites them?

I myself feel I have a certain type of clarity, but I am not sure if it had anything to do with my mind or heart. There was no rubbish of my thoughts before this clarity for I never viewed my thinking as flawed, though it may have been and possibly still is. I have an idea what you (r.v.e.) mean, and i have experience in trying to mold myself to what i thought others meant by such expressions: thus i have given input along what i thiught you mean. But it seems i was incorrect Thus I am interested in what you mean so far as to truth and what may be stopping us from seeing it.

[lancek4]

Are there thoughts that I have that are not true? Such that they prevent me from seeing the truth?

In Christian reglion the basic teaching is to the nullification of the natural man. Which you could say began with the eating of the apple. The problems in life, such as "What's stopping us from seeing the truth?" for example are never fully solved. This does not mean you should not continue working on it.

Yes; do not imagine that I have any other interest in asking questions but that of clearing up my own difficulties.

And my difficulties find particularity only in my interaction with others , else I could probably live in a dream world of total contentment yet that others would call me insane. So it is that I find my way. Perhaps I can say I have grown and still grow, but the situating of this growth in my own terms grants me only myself, and in as much as I exist in a world of others I need find this situation in the terms that are in play there.

[reasonvemotion]

Lance:
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?

SoB
That's elementary, the answer is easy: 'NO' man 'ACTUALLY KNOWS' the 'TRUTH' of 'EXISTENCE.'

Lance
I do.

In Buddhism, enlightenment is when a Buddhist discovers the truth about life. Bodhi means Enlightenment. You can become Enlightened by following the Middle Way.

Method

Buddhists generally achieve this using meditation (or deep thought), whilst deeply concentrating and "clearing" their minds.

A Buddhist will tell you not to try and look for a "true self" because the only self you would find would be ego. Rather you should try to be "true to yourself".

Lance, what is this really all about, as you declare above you know the truth of existence.

[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.
SOB-1: 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?
SOB-1: That's elementary, the answer is easy: 'NO' man 'ACTUALLY KNOWS' the 'TRUTH' of 'EXISTENCE.'
L-2: I do.
SOB-2: No you don't, to say you do, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, not only that you don't, but if serious, that you have mental problems as well.
You merely believe and assert this as knowledge. To prove one knows, one would have to know how to create a universe, and then be capable, and then, do so. Or else one could not logically say that in fact they know.

L-2: Is the statement "all people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights...'. False. Then? Or is it true?
SOB-2: Well the original,:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
as Jefferson said, it's, "self-evident," such that what I said, obviously, in the crux of this evidentness, such that I see no need in the asking. And if you left out the referencing of "creator" as your hidden, ace in the hole, I see that creator is synonymous with "creation" in this case, which I see as accounting for both camps of thought, as it doesn't matter, whether this creation was intentional or by chance, as in both cases, constituents were required, and must come together for life to exist, and within this understanding, my point that no one currently knows, or can know, is born.


How did it come about?
SOB-1: 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?
SOB-1: 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 ?
SOB-1: 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?
SOB-1: No, it's the 'reason,' that is false.

[/quote][/quote]

[lancek4]

Lance:
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?

SoB
That's elementary, the answer is easy: 'NO' man 'ACTUALLY KNOWS' the 'TRUTH' of 'EXISTENCE.'

Lance
I do.

In Buddhism, enlightenment is when a Buddhist discovers the truth about life. Bodhi means Enlightenment. You can become Enlightened by following the Middle Way.

Method

Buddhists generally achieve this using meditation (or deep thought), whilst deeply concentrating and "clearing" their minds.

A Buddhist will tell you not to try and look for a "true self" because the only self you would find would be ego. Rather you should try to be "true to yourself".

Lance, what is this really all about, as you declare above you know the truth of existence.

It seems Sob is expressing to us the truth of existence, that know one can know it.

I understand this Buddhism method. I am not sure if it is any more than another method. I am not sure that it does not have more to do with another system of thinking.

I am not sure if a method can bring enlightenment. In fact I think it may be that the method was asserted because the people who did feel ok felt bad for the people who apparently did not feel ok with themselves.




....

And sob- are such self evident truths true?



My question is how does one not know the truth of existence.
And here we have my proposition: how is one oriented? If the object is absolutely true then no one does know the truth of existence.

( these threads are so interlinked right now-). N lays the significant factor of what is occurring for existence. : decedence.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Lance:
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?

SoB
That's elementary, the answer is easy: 'NO' man 'ACTUALLY KNOWS' the 'TRUTH' of 'EXISTENCE.'

Lance
I do.

In Buddhism, enlightenment is when a Buddhist discovers the truth about life. Bodhi means Enlightenment. You can become Enlightened by following the Middle Way.

Method

Buddhists generally achieve this using meditation (or deep thought), whilst deeply concentrating and "clearing" their minds.

A Buddhist will tell you not to try and look for a "true self" because the only self you would find would be ego. Rather you should try to be "true to yourself".

Lance, what is this really all about, as you declare above you know the truth of existence.

It seems Sob is expressing to us the truth of existence, that know one can know it.
You know better than that, buddy, we've been down this avenue before. No one knows it "NOW!" Like I told you, you want it all now, as if that's actually possible. I see that if you and I were born 150,000 years ago, you'd want to know of a automobile of now, then, but you could never know of it then, you would have to wait until, what was it 18 something AD, so you and I would die before it was possible. But our children's children's, children's, etc would come to know of such things. The same holds true for today, like I've said, if we get a clue to stop our destruction of the Biosphere then one day our progeny may come to know of this, but it is quite a long way away, try maybe in the year googolplex to the googolplex, maybe.



I understand this Buddhism method. I am not sure if it is any more than another method. I am not sure that it does not have more to do with another system of thinking.

I am not sure if a method can bring enlightenment. In fact I think it may be that the method was asserted because the people who did feel ok felt bad for the people who apparently did not feel ok with themselves.




....

And sob- are such self evident truths true?

I've already answered this!

[lancek4]

So they are not true?

[SpheresOfBalance]

So they are not true?

You just like messing with me, don't you? Of course it's true, what Jefferson said.

[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?

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?

... or what kind of truth is it that admits to any compromise?

[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?

... or what kind of truth is it that admits to any compromise?

Oh shit! That's it , isn't it? The issue here.

That's what I like about you Chaz; your not afraid to bring things right down to the line.

So what are we talking about. Are all humans created equal? What are we talking about ? Lead it onward.

[reasonvemotion]

Discontinue your association with Scientology.

[lancek4]

Lol ! That's great. But Scientology is so great. And then when I add my Mormanism to it , not only do I get to be clear but I get my own universe after I die. And then I sprinkle some Buddhism on top and I get peace of mind about it all. Ahhh the smorgasbord of realities. I'm glad I live in a time where I have such freedom.