What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

The great and wonderdful frustrating thing of many PN threaders, is that you will never get most(if any- esp Chaz). Into a corner good enough that they will admit the contradiction that is inherent in their arguments. Strange. It begs the question of why we are on this forum. ?

But I will address another point of yours (SOB):

You point to 'star exists before the planet' or something to that effect.
I refer to Wittgestien: ( a paraphrase and summarize): what we know as 'truth', such as the kind you rely upon and indicate in your statment there, is a 'scaffolding' of discourse. It supplies the 'route for truth' (my term) by which we argue truth. It is just as reasonable to construct a decription of the earth as the center of the galaxy as it is to construct one with the sun as the center. It is only that discourse has developed along particular lines that we have the latter as Truth; it reflects a particular ethics, a particular agenda.

It is thus not True in the absolute sense that stars existed before planets, but it is 'ethically' true, which is to say 'relative'. The state of the absolute Truth of the universe is a 'state of affairs' that argues into itself, paradigmic in nature.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The great and wonderdful frustrating thing of many PN threaders, is that you will never get most(if any- esp Chaz). Into a corner good enough that they will admit the contradiction that is inherent in their arguments. Strange. It begs the question of why we are on this forum. ?

But I will address another point of yours (SOB):

You point to 'star exists before the planet' or something to that effect.
I refer to Wittgestien: ( a paraphrase and summarize): what we know as 'truth', such as the kind you rely upon and indicate in your statment there, is a 'scaffolding' of discourse. It supplies the 'route for truth' (my term) by which we argue truth. It is just as reasonable to construct a decription of the earth as the center of the galaxy as it is to construct one with the sun as the center. It is only that discourse has developed along particular lines that we have the latter as Truth; it reflects a particular ethics, a particular agenda.

It is thus not True in the absolute sense that stars existed before planets, but it is 'ethically' true, which is to say 'relative'. The state of the absolute Truth of the universe is a 'state of affairs' that argues into itself, paradigmic in nature.

If what you say is what Wittgestien meant, then he was mistaken. The truth is the state of actual being, without distortion.

I understand that hypothetically the universe could have been anything and that the chain of cause and effect could have gone in an infinite number of directions, but it followed the course that it did. Some believe that it's course was bound by physics, but I would argue that it's possible that the physics we recognize are just a result of this particular version of a universe. So with this in mind one could say that Truth is not pre-written. I would agree. But we're not talking about possible universes. We're talking about the one that we find ourselves in (we have to learn to walk before we can fly). And it just so happens that our star came first then the 'life on planet earth' (which was actually my previous example). You're right, it's possible that it could have gone another way, not probable, but possible. But that makes no difference to truth. For example, If in fact the pre-Copernican model of an earth centric universe was in truth, then it would have been. But it would seem that the Copernican model was in truth. Truth is independent of the chance found in a chaotic universe, if in truth it is chaotic. But what ever the result of the chaos, it is truth. All that in actuality, has existed and/or happened is in truth. Which is what we are currently, and shall continue to explore, because we do not know it's true yet.

OK, let me put it this way (actually I already have, so I hope this version is clearer:)

Lets assume that from the beginning of time there were no life forms in the universe other than those that would eventually be on planet earth, and that there is neither a sentient universe, nor a creator of it. Now prior to our birth, the universe 'actually exists,' (in what ever form that might have been), which is one of the definitions of Truth (5. actuality or actual existence). Therefore despite that fact that much later we would acknowledge truth for the first time, it had already existed since the beginning of time, because the universe 'actually existed.' Then humans were born and found the truth to be cold and uncaring, what with the truth of dying (this is the main one by the way) and other hardships such that they feared the truth. So instead of accepting the truth, humans created an opposite of truth called a lie, so they could deny their fears of the truth, something they could hide behind. Much like an ostrich buries it's head in the sand.

I'm a different kind of animal, since I attended University and studied Philosophy and Psychology. It propelled me into a realm where I believe that Truth is ALL that matters. I believe that the truth shall set you free. And I'm talking about the purest, truest since of the word freedom.

The truth is that 'Truth' came first and existed long before us. We invented lies in an attempt to shield us from that truth.

[Ron de Weijze]

...So instead of accepting the truth, humans created an opposite of truth called a lie, so they could deny their fears of the truth, something they could hide behind...

Wow!

[SpheresOfBalance]

...So instead of accepting the truth, humans created an opposite of truth called a lie, so they could deny their fears of the truth, something they could hide behind...

Wow!

Honestly Ron, Are you being a bit sarcastic?

Know that I'll be the last to say I know, it would just seem to be so.

[Ron de Weijze]

...So instead of accepting the truth, humans created an opposite of truth called a lie, so they could deny their fears of the truth, something they could hide behind...

Wow!

Honestly Ron, Are you being a bit sarcastic?

Know that I'll be the last to say I know, it would just seem to be so.

I think it is a great insight and one that will help me order my own thoughts.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...So instead of accepting the truth, humans created an opposite of truth called a lie, so they could deny their fears of the truth, something they could hide behind...

Wow!

Honestly Ron, Are you being a bit sarcastic?

Know that I'll be the last to say I know, it would just seem to be so.

I think it is a great insight and one that will help me order my own thoughts.

You know what's sad Ron? I was prepared for opposition and argument but acceptance leaves me at a loss and with a bit of tears in my eyes.

Thanks for the chance to breath, I can only be so lucky to help anyone!

I hope that together, "ALL" of humankind can accept each other and together find the answers that we seek in order to propel the human species into the cosmos as the animal that could appreciate and love themselves and the miracle of the symbiosis of life!

[lancek4]

Aw man - it didn't post my response S0B.
Well here's a new one:

What you say about 'man creating a lie'. I could easily say of your idea. (My unposted post I will do again later).

That: you, man, believe the lie because you are offended that the True Object of your proposal does not justify your Being. So you deny your Self for the sake of the Truth of fulfillment of Truth in the Object, what you propose as the Absolute, which is really an object of faith.

[Arising_uk]

Aw man - it didn't post my response S0B.
...

As long as you've not shut the tab or page, click backwards using the browser buttons, you may find it still cached.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Aw man - it didn't post my response S0B.
Well here's a new one:

What you say about 'man creating a lie'. I could easily say of your idea. (My unposted post I will do again later).

lancek4, hey whats up? Look, anyone can say anything they want about anything. just because you say something doesn't mean it's true. I look forward to your resending the lost post.


That: you, man, believe the lie because you are offended that the True Object of your proposal does not justify your Being. So you deny your Self for the sake of the Truth of fulfillment of Truth in the Object, what you propose as the Absolute, which is really an object of faith.

I wish you wouldn't speak this gibberish, not that I have problems with the words or that I think you're an idiot, but you've left specifics out. and I'm not sure how to respond. Do you mean like "hey, man" or "mankind." If you meant me then my gender is not important. If you meant mankind then "you" was not required. And it sounds as though you think you can read my mind. Who said I believe a lie? I may believe in something that eventuality I'll come to know as a lie. Who's to say it's a lie. Which proposal? I've made many. I require nothing to justify my being. I simply am. (I could quote Descartes here).

I realize that you lost your original post, and that you quickly wanted to post something. And that you were sure of what you were talking about because it was in your mind. But I was not there and I absolutely hate to assume I know what someone is talking about. I know it takes longer but an unabridged version is required before I'll make comment. Sorry!

P.S. You're just having way too much fun with my nyms initials

[lancek4]

Aw man - it didn't post my response S0B.
Well here's a new one:

What you say about 'man creating a lie'. I could easily say of your idea. (My unposted post I will do again later).

lancek4, hey whats up? Look, anyone can say anything they want about anything. just because you say something doesn't mean it's true. I look forward to your resending the lost post.


That: you, man, believe the lie because you are offended that the True Object of your proposal does not justify your Being. So you deny your Self for the sake of the Truth of fulfillment of Truth in the Object, what you propose as the Absolute, which is really an object of faith.

I wish you wouldn't speak this gibberish, not that I have problems with the words or that I think you're an idiot, but you've left specifics out. and I'm not sure how to respond. Do you mean like "hey, man" or "mankind." If you meant me then my gender is not important. If you meant mankind then "you" was not required. And it sounds as though you think you can read my mind. Who said I believe a lie? I may believe in something that eventuality I'll come to know as a lie. Who's to say it's a lie. Which proposal? I've made many. I require nothing to justify my being. I simply am. (I could quote Descartes here).

I realize that you lost your original post, and that you quickly wanted to post something. And that you were sure of what you were talking about because it was in your mind. But I was not there and I absolutely hate to assume I know what someone is talking about. I know it takes longer but an unabridged version is required before I'll make comment. Sorry!

P.S. You're just having way too much fun with my nyms initials

Well, SOB, you're correct: I love how your initials play into my posts. Lol.
And yes to the rest - but it was hours before I realized it didn't post (thx AUK ill try that next time) - it was to vague without the lost post.

[lancek4]

Ill begin here:

...So instead of accepting the truth, humans created an opposite of truth called a lie, so they could deny their fears of the truth, something they could hide behind...

Wow!

The implication here is what you have been saying: that truth exists (-ed) before or 'basically' to humans. thus your sentence is saying that when humans came along in this apriori true universe, humans created a lie and called it truth - meaning, I gather, that human beings coming into this universe that already exited were fearful and so tried to mitigate this fear by comeing up with all sorts of, may I say, 'superstitions' about the world, which are basically 'lies' because humans were not able to deal with the 'true' universe due to thier overwhelming fear. Humans thus lived in a state of denial where their superstitions established the truth for them.

Is this a good synopsis of your position?

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance]

I understand that hypothetically the universe could have been anything and that the chain of cause and effect could have gone in an infinite number of directions, but it followed the course that it did. Some believe that it's course was bound by physics, but I would argue that it's possible that the physics we recognize are just a result of this particular version of a universe. So with this in mind one could say that Truth is not pre-written. I would agree. But we're not talking about possible universes. We're talking about the one that we find ourselves in (we have to learn to walk before we can fly). And it just so happens that our star came first then the 'life on planet earth' (which was actually my previous example). You're right, it's possible that it could have gone another way, not probable, but possible. But that makes no difference to truth. For example, If in fact the pre-Copernican model of an earth centric universe was in truth, then it would have been. But it would seem that the Copernican model was in truth. Truth is independent of the chance found in a chaotic universe, if in truth it is chaotic. But what ever the result of the chaos, it is truth. All that in actuality, has existed and/or happened is in truth. Which is what we are currently, and shall continue to explore, because we do not know it's true yet.

I am not argueing that it is possible that things could be another way. I agree with you, I think; the universe occurred in just this way and we have the truth presented before us. Indeed, for example, here is a wall in front of me; it is 'true'. i cannot deny that there is this wall. I cannot deny that there is a 'true' universe 'out there' of planets and such, other human beings, the economy in its way, pop music in its way that it is. These things are indeed True.
OK, let me put it this way (actually I already have, so I hope this version is clearer:)

Lets assume that from the beginning of time there were no life forms in the universe other than those that would eventually be on planet earth, and that there is neither a sentient universe, nor a creator of it. Now prior to our birth, the universe 'actually exists,' (in what ever form that might have been), which is one of the definitions of Truth (5. actuality or actual existence). Therefore despite that fact that much later we would acknowledge truth for the first time, it had already existed since the beginning of time, because the universe 'actually existed.' Then humans were born and found the truth to be cold and uncaring, what with the truth of dying (this is the main one by the way) and other hardships such that they feared the truth. So instead of accepting the truth, humans created an opposite of truth called a lie, so they could deny their fears of the truth, something they could hide behind. Much like an ostrich buries it's head in the sand.

I'm a different kind of animal, since I attended University and studied Philosophy and Psychology. It propelled me into a realm where I believe that Truth is ALL that matters. I believe that the truth shall set you free. And I'm talking about the purest, truest since of the word freedom.

The truth is that 'Truth' came first and existed long before us. We invented lies in an attempt to shield us from that truth.[/

quote]
What I see here, the point of contension between us, is what I call 'orientation'; one either is oriented upon the Object, or one is oreinted upon the Subject.
When I say that I could make the same argument for you, i am indicating 'you: SOB', for I see, that you are oriented upon the Object.
I will attempt to explain.

The first question that must be asked in the search for truth is: what is 'X'? What is that thing there? As to my 'wall' above; surely there is that wall there. Then I ask myself: what is it? I may come to an answer but the more significant avenue is to ask another person: so I ask you; what is that wall? describe to me this wall?

Inevitably you will offer me any number of descriptors in the attempt to give me the wall, but none will suffice. No matter what you say to me to describe to me what the wall is, two things occur: 1) you will rely upon some 'innate knowing' or 'sympathy' between us as human beings; your hope is that at some point you will have given me a sufficient amount of data that I will go "eureka!" I know what you are saying, and I know what you mean, thus I know what that wall is.
And 2) the manner of your description is unique. the order of process, the method by which you proceed to tell me of the 'true' aspects of this wall is yours: it is your truth; you express it how you express it. No one will express it the same way, even when you move to express it again, it will be simmilar but no the same.

The 'possibility' that I speak of becomes significant when we concern Witt's 'scaffolding'. The possibility is the variation of Subjects. The scaffolding is the 'truth' of the Object.

Indeed there may be a truth that existed long before us, but what is it? How do you 'know' it? You know it, as you exemplify, because of your reliance upon the scaffolding for your sense of truth, as if 'out there' is a True Object, an Absolute, that you/we may know, a Truth that we may come upon.

thus I posted:
What you say about 'man creating a lie'. I could easily say of your idea. (My unposted post I will do again) here:

That: you, and/or man in general , believe the lie because you are offended that the True Object of your proposal does not justify your Being. So you deny your Self for the sake of the Truth of fulfillment of Truth in the Object, what you propose as the Absolute, which is really an object of faith.

The Self, as the product of a True history, which includes the idea that stars existed before planetary life is a lie; a superstition, a mythology of Truth, to 'cover' the Subject from its own infinite, nauseating, freedom.


Thus, what you have said of relativity, I have said of the absolute.

[lancek4]

The overlay of my proposition yields its meaning to either side of the argument. From either side the proposition rings true. That humanity created superstition to be a stalwart against his denial of the realiy he can't face.

The difference in interpretation lay in what it is we call reality: which is the heart of the problem.

And so I ask, again: what is this Truth of reality? Describe it to me.

[Barbara Brooks]

Lance, what a stupid uneducated remark more talk on the fence of gibberish

[Barbara Brooks]

I was just passing by thought I would stop and drop a few defacing remarks about you to make your day.