What is Truth?

[Nick_A]

Dubious

some like you need "meaning" as a condition of life. When you're dead, meaning will have proved itself as mortal as you once were. The same goes for Plato, Einstein, Simone, all those you so much like to quote. Unless you're alive and kicking, meaning has no meaning. Still for many of the living there is an easy acceptance of no meaning at all to be gleaned in an utterly cold universe except what imagination creates for itself as an anodyne.

Many, like myself, aren't in the least fazed by that. Those who so yearn for it yield to whatever imagination supplies no matter how obtuse or intellectual it may be. To paraphrase Nietzsche the errors we believe in offer more comfort than any truth that's out there; the main one being that as animals our demise is forced upon us in exactly the same manner as any other creature, no exceptions. Having a bigger brain is not an exemption! That which counters fact is due to our own prejudices and wishful thinking as if it were an act of desperation to save oneself from the inexpressible pain of nihilism.

Meaning is our God. Whatever is our primary psychological purpose is our God. For some it is fame, fortune, sex, prestige, or other sources supplied by the world. You must have something, even denial, that offers meaning.

Those like Simone have felt a deeper need for meaning that originates at the depth of their being that isn't satisfied by the world. They seek what the world rejects. As long s you are satisfied by how you value meaning it is OK with me. My heart goes out to the Simone types who have experienced that the meaning they are drawn to does not initiate in the world but above it. They are in a sense "between two worlds." We can only imagine the suffering in this tension. They will be ridiculed but those like me admire them and respectful for what they have to go through to reach their goal. This was written just before Simone entered the hospital. Did she reach her goal?

I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon

[Dubious]

Meaning is our God. Whatever is our primary psychological purpose is our God. For some it is fame, fortune, sex, prestige, or other sources supplied by the world. You must have something, even denial, that offers meaning.

Those like Simone have felt a deeper need for meaning that originates at the depth of their being that isn't satisfied by the world. They seek what the world rejects. As long s you are satisfied by how you value meaning it is OK with me. My heart goes out to the Simone types who have experienced that the meaning they are drawn to does not initiate in the world but above it. They are in a sense "between two worlds." We can only imagine the suffering in this tension. They will be ridiculed but those like me admire them and respectful for what they have to go through to reach their goal. This was written just before Simone entered the hospital. Did she reach her goal?

This is one of your very few posts I can, to some extent, see eye to eye with. It makes no reference, as do your prior ones, to the lunacy of living forever in eternity...an absurdity which has no equal. My main objection to such an idea, it counters the insight that those like Simone are, in fact trying to achieve. People, like her have the ability to create meaning expanding their visions of totality through a mystical closeness to Being akin to empathy navigating far beyond what appears to most as face value. I’m not immune to such feelings myself though you may think so. There are things, especially in music that can, figuratively, lift me off the floor.

Did Simone reach her goal? I’m certain she did. No one would have deserved that final blessing - which wasn't granted by any god but by the human striving to feel a deeper reality - more than her.

...but after that it’s over! The embellishment of life through such feelings having served its purpose.

[Eodnhoj7]

RCSaunders,

Noted there are various threads on this.
Instead of hunting old threads, suggest this new one.

VA, the last thing I wrote to you was, "I'm also not very interested in refuting all the mistaken philosophy there is, especially since I think most of what goes by the name philosophy is mistaken. I am really only interested in what is true. What is false is infinite in scope and can never by fully addressed.

Do you understand what is really true and truth?
I opened a new thread and would like to have your view on What is Truth?

So what is really true and truth?

The formation of the question of ""what" is truth?" is to relegate truth to that of an object thus necessarily forming the boundaries of the answer prior to the answer of the question given only so many answers may be derived from "what" something is or is not.

To actually answer the question of "what is truth?" in a more accurate manner is to ask "truth?" given an absence of boundaries occurs.

[Nick_A]

Meaning is our God. Whatever is our primary psychological purpose is our God. For some it is fame, fortune, sex, prestige, or other sources supplied by the world. You must have something, even denial, that offers meaning.

Those like Simone have felt a deeper need for meaning that originates at the depth of their being that isn't satisfied by the world. They seek what the world rejects. As long s you are satisfied by how you value meaning it is OK with me. My heart goes out to the Simone types who have experienced that the meaning they are drawn to does not initiate in the world but above it. They are in a sense "between two worlds." We can only imagine the suffering in this tension. They will be ridiculed but those like me admire them and respectful for what they have to go through to reach their goal. This was written just before Simone entered the hospital. Did she reach her goal?

This is one of your very few posts I can, to some extent, see eye to eye with. It makes no reference, as do your prior ones, to the lunacy of living forever in eternity...an absurdity which has no equal. My main objection to such an idea, it counters the insight that those like Simone are, in fact trying to achieve. People, like her have the ability to create meaning expanding their visions of totality through a mystical closeness to Being akin to empathy navigating far beyond what appears to most as face value.

I’m not immune to such feelings myself though you may think so. There are things, especially in music that can, figuratively, lift me off the floor.

That was good to read. Eternity is not forever but is a cycle following the cycle of our universe or what the East calls the breath of Brahma. But eternal recurrence written of by Nietzsche and Ouspensky is not so easy to reject as fantasy. So why not keep an open mind.

People, like her have the ability to create meaning expanding their visions of totality through a mystical closeness to Being akin to empathy navigating far beyond what appears to most as face value.

A great philosophical question. Did Simone create her observations or did she remember them? Did she create anything unique or remember what was already there?

Did Simone reach her goal? I’m certain she did. No one would have deserved that final blessing - which wasn't granted by any god but by the human striving to feel a deeper reality - more than her.

...but after that it’s over! The embellishment of life through such feelings having served its purpose.

But is it over? Science accepts physical evolution but can evolution for Man continue on into conscious evolution? We don't know. We do know that many have this need for meaning beyond our animal needs.

The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God. Meister Eckhart

Perhaps Man's evolutionry potential is to have God nature as a son of God. We don't know but I cannot see any reason why this apparent natural progression from mechanical animal life into conscious life must be rejected as absurd.

[Veritas Aequitas]

RCSaunders,

Noted there are various threads on this.
Instead of hunting old threads, suggest this new one.

Do you understand what is really true and truth?
I opened a new thread and would like to have your view on What is Truth?

So what is really true and truth?

The formation of the question of ""what" is truth?" is to relegate truth to that of an object thus necessarily forming the boundaries of the answer prior to the answer of the question given only so many answers may be derived from "what" something is or is not.

To actually answer the question of "what is truth?" in a more accurate manner is to ask "truth?" given an absence of boundaries occurs.

No clue what you are talking about?
May help if you give examples.

[Dubious]

Eternity is not forever but is a cycle following the cycle of our universe or what the East calls the breath of Brahma.

We don’t know if the universe recycles but if it does it’s simply a statistic with each new version being different from the last. Even if it repeats endlessly in exactly the same format like a tape which keeps rewinding it would amount to a performance with no connection or umbilical cord to anything prior. In effect, a complete separation without any evolutionary progression conjoining the cycles. If true, it would be one wacky universe with our trite little conversations in endless rewind.

But eternal recurrence written of by Nietzsche and Ouspensky is not so easy to reject as fantasy. So why not keep an open mind.

Nietzsche never explicitly stated what he meant by it. Ostensibly, it was devised as a test of fortitude for the so-called Ubermensch to accept fate repeatedly and willingly if necessary which has some connection with what he often mentions as Amor Fati or love of fate. Ouspensky impressed me a long time ago for a short period but now comes across as a charlatan so I have no idea what his version of it is.

Did Simone create her observations or did she remember them? Did she create anything unique or remember what was already there?

She experienced the world on her own terms based on what seemed meaningful to her which penetrated deeper than the majority who see only surfaces.

Science accepts physical evolution but can evolution for Man continue on into conscious evolution? We don't know. We do know that many have this need for meaning beyond our animal needs.

What would force consciousness into an evolutionary path independent from that which created it? What would cause consciousness to separate itself from the physical upon which it relies and cause itself to be its own self-generating, self-fulfilling paradigm? Is it possible that the physical can be removed, literally creating by its own evolutionary process an independent self-enhancing extension into some version of pure spirit? Not likely! Consciousness is anchored in the physical in whatever manner the physical manifests itself. Being materialistic doesn’t preclude the brain becoming a mind searching for a foundation beyond itself.

Perhaps Man's evolutionry potential is to have God nature as a son of God. We don't know but I cannot see any reason why this apparent natural progression from mechanical animal life into conscious life must be rejected as absurd.

A nice sentiment, but let the son-of-bitch first respect the planet that supports him and all his ludicrous theories before we think of man’s evolutionary potential toward god nature. He’s been a monster on this planet since he first walked on it, still in the habit of destroying on a grand scale what took nature billions of years to create, this in spite of long having known the consequences. Instead of god-nature, he’s more deserving of complete extermination.

[Eodnhoj7]

RCSaunders,

Noted there are various threads on this.
Instead of hunting old threads, suggest this new one.



So what is really true and truth?

The formation of the question of ""what" is truth?" is to relegate truth to that of an object thus necessarily forming the boundaries of the answer prior to the answer of the question given only so many answers may be derived from "what" something is or is not.

To actually answer the question of "what is truth?" in a more accurate manner is to ask "truth?" given an absence of boundaries occurs.

No clue what you are talking about?
May help if you give examples.

To ask "what" is to automatically reduce truth to an object such as a cup or a pencil. In asking "what" we already reduce truth, through the question, to that of an object which in turn limits the answer to a specific type of phenomenon. In reducing truth to a specific type of phenomenon we limit all available answers as to the question of truth. In trying to understand truth we must open it up to a variety of phenomena such as "who/when/where/how/why" and this can be addressed under the simple question "truth?".

[Nick_A]

We don’t know if the universe recycles but if it does it’s simply a statistic with each new version being different from the last. Even if it repeats endlessly in exactly the same format like a tape which keeps rewinding it would amount to a performance with no connection or umbilical cord to anything prior. In effect, a complete separation without any evolutionary progression conjoining the cycles. If true, it would be one wacky universe with our trite little conversations in endless rewind.

But the universe is not just one eternity but includes all possible eternities. Modern science calls the sixth dimension parallel universes. If you consider a universe of six dimensions as the body of God and we are limited to three dimensions it is obvious why we cannot penetrate the reality of our universe. Change takes place in the sixth dimension we cannot grasp with our senses

But eternal recurrence written of by Nietzsche and Ouspensky is not so easy to reject as fantasy. So why not keep an open mind.

Nietzsche never explicitly stated what he meant by it. Ostensibly, it was devised as a test of fortitude for the so-called Ubermensch to accept fate repeatedly and willingly if necessary which has some connection with what he often mentions as Amor Fati or love of fate. Ouspensky impressed me a long time ago for a short period but now comes across as a charlatan so I have no idea what his version of it is.

So we really don't know Nietzsche's intention but I'm curious as to why you call Ouspensky a charlatan. I don't know what you mean by a charlatan.

Did Simone create her observations or did she remember them? Did she create anything unique or remember what was already there?

She experienced the world on her own terms based on what seemed meaningful to her which penetrated deeper than the majority who see only surfaces.

This is true but did she invent reality to suit her beliefs or did she remember what is normally forgotten

Science accepts physical evolution but can evolution for Man continue on into conscious evolution? We don't know. We do know that many have this need for meaning beyond our animal needs.

What would force consciousness into an evolutionary path independent from that which created it? What would cause consciousness to separate itself from the physical upon which it relies and cause itself to be its own self-generating, self-fulfilling paradigm? Is it possible that the physical can be removed, literally creating by its own evolutionary process an independent self-enhancing extension into some version of pure spirit? Not likely! Consciousness is anchored in the physical in whatever manner the physical manifests itself. Being materialistic doesn’t preclude the brain becoming a mind searching for a foundation beyond itself.

Does Man create consciousness or is Man a receiver of consciousness.,As I understand it, Man is dual natured. His lower parts otiginate with the earth and limited to animal consciousness. His higher parts devolved from above allowing us to be aware of higher values and human conscious potential

A human being is like an acorn When it develops sufficiently the seed breaks free of the husk. The hard part in this day and age is the ability to become free of the husk. Animal attractions and negative emotions normally deny human conscious potential.

Perhaps Man's evolutionry potential is to have God nature as a son of God. We don't know but I cannot see any reason why this apparent natural progression from mechanical animal life into conscious life must be rejected as absurd.

A nice sentiment, but let the son-of-bitch first respect the planet that supports him and all his ludicrous theories before we think of man’s evolutionary potential toward god nature. He’s been a monster on this planet since he first walked on it, still in the habit of destroying on a grand scale what took nature billions of years to create, this in spite of long having known the consequences. Instead of god-nature, he’s more deserving of complete extermination.
[/quote]

This is the great struggle between our higher and lower natures. How can we understand and deal with it? This is a real philosophical question avoided in favor of cursing out Trump. But if enough of humanity cannot deal with this question, I doubt if humanity will make it to the next century.

[RCSaunders]

I doubt if humanity will make it to the next century.

It certainly won't matter! The present crop of terrestrial humans is so despicable and vile, all the other intelligent beings in the universe have evaded them. There is no Fermi paradox. Earth is shunned because the rest of the universe does not want to be infected by the insanity and ignorance that dominates the stunted variety of the human beings on this planet.

[Dubious]

I doubt if humanity will make it to the next century.

It certainly won't matter! The present crop of terrestrial humans is so despicable and vile, all the other intelligent beings in the universe have evaded them. There is no Fermi paradox. Earth is shunned because the rest of the universe does not want to be infected by the insanity and ignorance that dominates the stunted variety of the human beings on this planet.

...or as I like to say, if the universe had an ass to wipe we'd be the first to get flushed. It's not just the present crop, we've been this way since we started walking upright. This is the disgusting species that values a single microbe on some other rock more than the advanced life forms it forces into oblivion on this one.

[Nick_A]

"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
- Albert Einstein

Between RC and Dubious there is a complete lack of compassion for the human condition. Jesus said to forgive them for they know not what they do but it is very difficult. It is easier to condemn the results of the human condition and the sad fact that through no fault of our own, we are the Wretched Man in opposition with ourselves. But is such suffering worthy of compassion and is it worth the efforts leading to liberation from the self?

[Dubious]

"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
- Albert Einstein

Between RC and Dubious there is a complete lack of compassion for the human condition. Jesus said to forgive them for they know not what they do but it is very difficult. It is easier to condemn the results of the human condition and the sad fact that through no fault of our own, we are the Wretched Man in opposition with ourselves. But is such suffering worthy of compassion and is it worth the efforts leading to liberation from the self?

We've been around long enough and have a good idea of what the consequences of our actions are without doing much about it. So forget the useless compassion. Either smarten up or croak; we haven't got forever to practice compassion.

As for the Einstein quote. The same thing has been stated many times in many ways long before Einstein existed. It has become one of the most trite and useless statements in existence. If the planet could speak it would want to liberate itself from us. The other thing is he could be such a loathsome little hypocrite with his holier-than-thou sayings almost all of which was said long before but very rarely practiced by him.

He accomplished a lot in physics but not in the least regarding liberation from the self. He was always extremely aware of that part of his personality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The formation of the question of ""what" is truth?" is to relegate truth to that of an object thus necessarily forming the boundaries of the answer prior to the answer of the question given only so many answers may be derived from "what" something is or is not.

To actually answer the question of "what is truth?" in a more accurate manner is to ask "truth?" given an absence of boundaries occurs.

No clue what you are talking about?
May help if you give examples.

To ask "what" is to automatically reduce truth to an object such as a cup or a pencil. In asking "what" we already reduce truth, through the question, to that of an object which in turn limits the answer to a specific type of phenomenon. In reducing truth to a specific type of phenomenon we limit all available answers as to the question of truth. In trying to understand truth we must open it up to a variety of phenomena such as "who/when/where/how/why" and this can be addressed under the simple question "truth?".

I understand your point in getting to the highest possible precision of what is truth, BUT;

1. What is the purpose with the idea of 'truth'?

2. Truth has survival values to humans.

3. But human are exposed to degrees of threats to survival and opportunities for growth.

4. But re point 1-3 we need to restrict/limit the degree of 'what is truth' to optimize within the known conditions.

What matter is 'what is truth' but we also need to discuss 'what is truth' in various perspectives from the highest possible to the lowest but not to falsehood.

[RCSaunders]

"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
- Albert Einstein

Between RC and Dubious there is a complete lack of compassion for the human condition. Jesus said to forgive them for they know not what they do but it is very difficult. It is easier to condemn the results of the human condition and the sad fact that through no fault of our own, we are the Wretched Man in opposition with ourselves. But is such suffering worthy of compassion and is it worth the efforts leading to liberation from the self?

"Well, as long as one has the right, 'feelings,' it doesn't matter what one actually does or thinks," is the philosophy that will ultimately destroy, and is destroying the human race. One might have some sympathy for humanity if all its so-called, "condition," were something foisted on it and not the consequence of it's own choices and actions.

The, "human race," despises true humanity and all it's efforts are in opposition to human success: its governments, religions, ideologies, and worship of gangs (collectives) are all designed to repress those who would not join their headlong rush to destruction and the only human beings worth caring about, those who will not swallow their ideologies, support their agencies of oppression, join their gangs, and actually think for themselves, produce something of value, and make something of their lives, the only human beings capable of civilized relationships with other human beings and the only ones worthy of the designation, human.

[RCSaunders]

"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
- Albert Einstein

Between RC and Dubious there is a complete lack of compassion for the human condition. Jesus said to forgive them for they know not what they do but it is very difficult. It is easier to condemn the results of the human condition and the sad fact that through no fault of our own, we are the Wretched Man in opposition with ourselves. But is such suffering worthy of compassion and is it worth the efforts leading to liberation from the self?

We've been around long enough and have a good idea of what the consequences of our actions are without doing much about it. So forget the useless compassion. Either smarten up or croak; we haven't got forever to practice compassion.

As for the Einstein quote. The same thing has been stated many times in many ways long before Einstein existed. It has become one of the most trite and useless statements in existence. If the planet could speak it would want to liberate itself from us. The other thing is he could be such a loathsome little hypocrite with his holier-than-thou sayings almost all of which was said long before but very rarely practiced by him.

He accomplished a lot in physics but not in the least regarding liberation from the self. He was always extremely aware of that part of his personality.

"Either smarten up or croak; we haven't got forever to practice compassion."

Yes!