What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

[SpheresOfBalance]

If. Mans gruntings have no barring on the absolute truth of the universe, then what of your grunting about the fact of this absolute true universe. ? It is an empty proposition. Like saying 'truth is'.

What the hell are you talking about? The word is not barring, it's 'bearing.' My gruntings have absolutely no bearing on any absolute truth of the universe, that's the whole point, they're independent, truth just is. We're talking of the truth of existence, of somethings actuality, not a judgement as to the significance/nature of mans trivial concerns, there is a difference you know!

Of course there is in fact an absolute truth as to the significance/nature of mans trivial concerns, but accessing those truths has to wait until science has thoroughly understood the human brain.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

Like I said above, it's the truth that's bound by the fact that no man knows the absolute truth of existence.

[MJA]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

It's only partly true,
Equal is absolutely and infinitely everything.

=

[lancek4]

If. Mans gruntings have no barring on the absolute truth of the universe, then what of your grunting about the fact of this absolute true universe. ? It is an empty proposition. Like saying 'truth is'.

What the hell are you talking about? The word is not barring, it's 'bearing.' My gruntings have absolutely no bearing on any absolute truth of the universe, that's the whole point, they're independent, truth just is. We're talking of the truth of existence, of somethings actuality, not a judgement as to the significance/nature of mans trivial concerns, there is a difference you know!

Of course there is in fact an absolute truth as to the significance/nature of mans trivial concerns, but accessing those truths has to wait until science has thoroughly understood the human brain.

Yes 'bearing'; it was an auto correct error.

If truth just is, then what are you talking about with an absolute truth. ?

I submit that what I am trying to explain to you is beyond your ability. And ironically this is exactly the expected result of the rxplanation. Even when I tell you I totally and truly understand what you are saying, you do not believe me. This is evident in your response to my propositions, for you answer as if I do not understand physics and science, as if I would argue that acceleration is not the rate of change of velocity. Or that there are 16 ounces in a pound, or what ever the escape velocity might be for earth.

I understand these 'true' things. This is not the issue.

You seem to be do invested in these 'true' things though, that you see what I'm saying as fantasy. And this is rightly do for you. You see, when the object is center then existentialism was just a moment in the progressing movement if knowledge. And what occurs, indeed what has occurred. Is, as one post said, Modern philosophy has no time for ecistentialism, what current philosophy is concerned with is cosmology. And this is true. The object crntered have 'revolted' from the infinite abyss of freedom and have reasserted the True object. (as Sarte). Offended as they are (Kierkegaard) of their own potential, Thier own Being in existence , they cower back into the True object, which is in effect the transcendent and remain 'sick', 'brutish' 'herdsmen'. (Nietchze )

I am not reiterating something that I have learned from these authors, I am stating my experience in and of knowledge, of being fearless in existence, and I came upon other authors who understand what I have come upon.

[lancek4]

So what kind if truth is it that frames 'all humans' as 'equal'. ?

[lancek4]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

Like I said above, it's the truth that's bound by the fact that no man knows the absolute truth of existence.

Ok. So truth gains its credence by a relation with an unknown 'binding' element that exists but is not yet known. Is this a correct assessment of your statement ?

[chaz wyman]

Above I have disproved your and Chaz's: "we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. ..." and so in fear you try and scramble to pick up the pieces of your facade so as to maintain your illusion. You appear to be a man of hollow words, and not a man of actual physical means.

And your delusion here is exactly why we think you are so stupid.
It would seem you are stupid, speak for yourself, fool!

Every truth you try to demonstrate reinforces the view which Lance and I have asserted, simply because your method inevitably exemplifies that viewpoint. Everything you hold true is based on a relationship between you (the subject) and the thing you think is a truth (the object).
Bullshit! Just because you say so, does not make your case. Get off your lazy ass and try and make a case for a change!

Try and say something that is true, without demonstrating a relationship between object and subject!
When you do that then you can talk about absolute truth.
There is no argument here except your banal failure to see common sense.

[chaz wyman]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

Like I said above, it's the truth that's bound by the fact that no man knows the absolute truth of existence.

That has f*** all to do with it.
That 'truth' is an assertion of an ideal. It is not in any sense true.
In fact it is palpably false.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

Like I said above, it's the truth that's bound by the fact that no man knows the absolute truth of existence.

That has f*** all to do with it.
That 'truth' is an assertion of an ideal. It is not in any sense true.
In fact it is palpably false.

It has everything to do with it!
Not an ideal, any more or less than your side. Mine is an assertion of FACT!!!!! And if in FACT you don't KNOW, then you can't 'rightfully' ACT, on merely that of belief!!!! At least not with any sense of certainty. To believe otherwise, can only be fueled by egoism and thus selfishness, one of psychosis, like that of megalomania. Your view is that of one with his fingers up his arse, manipulating his prostate.

It is in every sense true, which I could prove in a gym, care to accompany me? And no, it has every relevance, because we're talking about truth in logic, and that which does, and does not, logically follow. After I was through with you, lying flat on your back, bruised and bleeding from your mouth, I would ask of something I believed you knew, that I didn't, probably related to history, and after you confidently answered correctly, (third party verification) I'd yell down to your sorry arse, "see, neither of us better than the other, such that we were both created equal, fool!" And still, I'm sure that somehow it would continue to escape you.

Here comes a metaphor, which is very appropriate:

And will you two fags stop trying to double team me, and stick your cocks back in your own mouths, it's obvious Chaz likes being on top, but where does that leave the other one. I think I'll write a song titled "Butt Buddies," and dedicate to, well you know who!

[MJA]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

Like I said above, it's the truth that's bound by the fact that no man knows the absolute truth of existence.

Ok. So truth gains its credence by a relation with an unknown 'binding' element that exists but is not yet known. Is this a correct assessment of your statement ?

Equal is the unity that binds us all.

=

[SpheresOfBalance]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

Like I said above, it's the truth that's bound by the fact that no man knows the absolute truth of existence.

Ok. So truth gains its credence by a relation with an unknown 'binding' element that exists but is not yet known. Is this a correct assessment of your statement ?

Illogical question! you asked: 'does truth gain belief of it's truth.' it should be 'does man gain acknowledgement of truth'

Truth simply is, and only gains mans acknowledgement, through understanding, nothing more.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If. Mans gruntings have no barring on the absolute truth of the universe, then what of your grunting about the fact of this absolute true universe. ? It is an empty proposition. Like saying 'truth is'.

What the hell are you talking about? The word is not barring, it's 'bearing.' My gruntings have absolutely no bearing on any absolute truth of the universe, that's the whole point, they're independent, truth just is. We're talking of the truth of existence, of somethings actuality, not a judgement as to the significance/nature of mans trivial concerns, there is a difference you know!

Of course there is in fact an absolute truth as to the significance/nature of mans trivial concerns, but accessing those truths has to wait until science has thoroughly understood the human brain.

Yes 'bearing'; it was an auto correct error.

If truth just is, then what are you talking about with an absolute truth. ?

Your question is not a question as "truth just is" and "absolute truth" are one in the same thing, and here is a proof of your not understanding.

I submit that what I am trying to explain to you is beyond your ability.
Your ego!

And ironically this is exactly the expected result of the rxplanation. Even when I tell you I totally and truly understand what you are saying, you do not believe me.
See above!

This is evident in your response to my propositions, for you answer as if I do not understand physics and science, as if I would argue that acceleration is not the rate of change of velocity. Or that there are 16 ounces in a pound, or what ever the escape velocity might be for earth.

I understand these 'true' things. This is not the issue.
It is exactly the issue, as all these true things, are absolutely true, and that is at issue.

You seem to be do invested in these 'true' things though, that you see what I'm saying as fantasy. And this is rightly do for you. You see, when the object is center then existentialism was just a moment in the progressing movement if knowledge. And what occurs, indeed what has occurred. Is, as one post said, Modern philosophy has no time for ecistentialism, what current philosophy is concerned with is cosmology. And this is true. The object crntered have 'revolted' from the infinite abyss of freedom and have reasserted the True object. (as Sarte). Offended as they are (Kierkegaard) of their own potential, Thier own Being in existence , they cower back into the True object, which is in effect the transcendent and remain 'sick', 'brutish' 'herdsmen'. (Nietchze )
Here is your problem:
"Opposed to Hegelianism and Kantianism,[3][6] Kierkegaard posited that it is the individual who is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and for living life passionately and sincerely,[7][8] even in view of its many obstacles and distractions."

Your stuck on meaning, as in words, language, like I said earlier. There is no meaning to an object, it just is. It is absolutely true. There is absolutely no meaning in absolutely true or absolutely false as they are just states of actuality. You are apparently shallow as you seem only capable of looking from inside to the outside, thus attributing meaning from only one (your) perspective. My point is that your individual perspective, from the inside out, can only truly be seen and understood, from the perspective of the outside in, from the universal absolute truthful perspective, such that you can actually see yourself trying to attribute meaning along side another doing likewise, on to the 7 billion also doing such, in the foreground of a spinning sphere amid the backdrop of infinity, the only true singular perspective of absolute truth.

Do you 'finally' understand?

I am not reiterating something that I have learned from these authors, I am stating my experience in and of knowledge, of being fearless in existence, and I came upon other authors who understand what I have come upon.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Above I have disproved your and Chaz's: "we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. ..." and so in fear you try and scramble to pick up the pieces of your facade so as to maintain your illusion. You appear to be a man of hollow words, and not a man of actual physical means.

And your delusion here is exactly why we think you are so stupid.
It would seem you are stupid, speak for yourself, fool!

Every truth you try to demonstrate reinforces the view which Lance and I have asserted, simply because your method inevitably exemplifies that viewpoint. Everything you hold true is based on a relationship between you (the subject) and the thing you think is a truth (the object).
Bullshit! Just because you say so, does not make your case. Get off your lazy ass and try and make a case for a change!

Try and say something that is true, without demonstrating a relationship between object and subject!
When you do that then you can talk about absolute truth.
There is no argument here except your banal failure to see common sense.

I have, throughout the course of this argument, you're just incapable of understanding, because your presumption, you believe, precludes my argument, actually your presumption, precludes your understanding of my argument.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So what kind if truth is it that frames 'all humans' as 'equal'. ?

Absolute!