What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

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

Ahhh thank you. I feel so refreshed.

[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.

I have referred to this lie in the latest update on my philosophy blog. The lie seems to fuel groupsism when honesty is taken as disloyalty and the group splits to create (another) enemy, each distancing itself from the other while powers remain the same, in independent rejection. Or fuel cronyism when dishonesty is taken as loyalty and the top dog creates (another) friend, submitting the other to his power while distance remains the same, in dependent confirmation.

[lancek4]

I have referred to this lie in the latest update on my philosophy blog. The lie seems to fuel groupsism when honesty is taken as disloyalty and the group splits to create (another) enemy, each distancing itself from the other while powers remain the same, in independent rejection. Or fuel cronyism when dishonesty is taken as loyalty and the top dog creates (another) friend, submitting the other to his power while distance remains the same, in dependent confirmation.

Hello Ron. I am curious of the link you post is your personal site, or you just have a bolg within it (as I could not figure out the site); I imagine that you concur with the ideas expressed in the site, at least?

It is interesting that the name of the site includes "philsophical application.
To me, philsosophy that is applied to problems of living equate to being in the probelm; but people love it because it gives them a purpose, even if the solution advated by that purpose is never realized. It comes back to the great human justification "at least I tried". So great for the millions in poverty and social oppression. Such a strong faith one must have in one's own ability to cause good things to happen.
This is not to say that i do not attempt to promote what I feel is good, but i do not have the presumtuousness in myself to present it as 'philsophy', unless I am useing the term as a colloquialism.
I think it would be more honest and forthright to cal the site "..for social justice". My wife is all about advocating social justice.

It is a nice diagram of how the world makes sense which appears in the site, but I have come accross many, many, many diagrams and ideas of how everything fits together and many of them make sense. What is interesting to me is how all these disparate 'cosmologies' fit together even thought very little of them are really interacting to come to some 'truth' between them. But such is the usual case with such methodologies and truths: they cannot hear each other.
I guess the basic idea is that we are all learning what works and through everyone giveing their proposal out to the world eventually the ideas that work or are most correct wil condense into a perfect system where humanity will all live in peace.

Great idea. I wonder how long it takes: 100 years? 1000 years? 10000 years? But it is at least good to know that one is trying and that one's faith displaces whatever imposed anonymidity (sp) history would place upon the individual of faith.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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 their 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?

Actually All I was trying to demonstrate with this passage was that with regard to truth, humans have merely conceived it's prior existence. With regard to lies/falsehoods humans conceived their birth. Simply that, nothing more. In other words truth is absolute and lies/falsehoods are relative.

You see my and Chaz's argument has always been about truths origin. I have never deviated from that course. I've never attempted to prove/disprove any particular truth except the truth of truth!

The red section was an edit to clear up my meaning.

[lancek4]

Actually All I was trying to demonstrate with this passage was that with regard to truth, humans have merely conceived it's prior existence and with regard to lies/falsehoods humans conceived it's birth. Simply that, nothing more.

You see my and Chaz's argument has always been about truths origin. I have never deviated from that course. I've never attempted to prove/disprove any particular truth except the truth of truth!

huh? You have been attempting to prove/disprove the truth of truth??

So there is no truth?
it seemed like you were saying that there is an Absolute truth.

I think you are attempting to dodge the issue. Perhaps I misread your guy's exchange.
Because:
then it seems that, once again, Chaz has agued with someone who was arguing the same thing as him, but using different terms.
Is this the case? Do you admit then that the argument between you guys was a battle over nothing, that you guys were saying the same thing?

I would submit: there IS a Truth. It is a human element situated in its consciousness for the purpose of allowing Being; but there is no Truth that we can situate in discursive knowledge which reaches a 'ground' except to describe its affect.
The effect of truth is the affect of consciousness. Hows that?
How would you frame it?

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance]
....To speak truth would take forever and thus would negate a speedy trial...

...No one speaks truth, just a infinitesimally brief approximation steeped in infinite assumption and ambiguity!!!!!!!!!...


...TRUTH is ABSOLUTE!!
HUMANS do not deal in TRUTH, they deal in BELIEF and spout it as truth! Which is why we're so screwed up!...[/quote]

Ah -
These statements of yours, appear to me to indicate that the reason humanity is screwed upo is because of the utter inability for humanity to understand the Truth, which is absolute. That is, human beings are always attempting to express truth but alwatys fail. And then this process is one of a contionuing aggrivation of the probelm it attmepts to solve, because its application is always addressing a truth that is not true.

Is this a correct summation?

I would have to offere: the idea that there is some basic or Absolute Truth, as indicated above, is itself an misunderstanding, such that the Absolute that we understand is not absolute. Which, I beleive, is at least one thing that Chaz was getting at.

Thus Your truth which proposes an Absolute which is beyond knowing, contradicts your position. No?

How would you situate this statement: "stars existed before planetary life"?

[SpheresOfBalance]

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

Schadenfreude!

[SpheresOfBalance]

lancek4,
I've been consistent throughout, Basically my position is that truth is absolute. it existed since the beginning of time, as truth is merely the state of actual existence. Humans created untruths in the face of truth initially because of fear. Of course today there are a plethora of reasons we do it. Fear, greed, psychological imbalance, lust, power, etc. Anyone that sees truth as relative does so to feed their selfish desires. Relative truth breeds anarchy. The really funny thing about anarchists is that you won't catch them sticking a loaded gun in their mouths and pulling the trigger. This a an important distinction when considering the lessons of mutually assured destruction.

And none of what I've said has had anything to do with uncovering truth, which is an extremely complicated matter, such that I've previously said that humans know little, if any, truth. Just because we're surrounded by it doesn't mean we understand it. There are limitations of our 5 senses as well as our minds eye.

I believe that's a complete recap, though I might have left something out.

Later

[Ron de Weijze]

Hi Lance. Yes that is my site. The basic idea is we find confirmation for our proposals and only then do what is best (lawmakers). My proposal includes ideas about not letting solutions in where confirmation was biased by power-distance. To elites who can do that do belong those only taking special interests of minorities to heart for that is one of the best ways to stay in the lead. I believe that all that we come up with must be what we can be personally held accountable for and includes all special interests of all we know every time at all times.

Now may your discussion come to a robust conclusion with Spheres and Barbara if she still wants to (understandable if she doesn't).

[Mark Question]

lancek4,
I've been consistent throughout
truth is absolute.
truth is merely the state of actual existence.

And none of what I've said has had anything to do with uncovering truth
humans know little, if any, truth.

are you not little, if any, human?
are you not uncovering truth?
is there consistence between those sentences?
are you saying that you have been logical when you have been consistent throughout and is that enough in philosophical epistemology? sorry my english.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Here you go. This should be simple for everyone to understand.

I had noticed it previously and had meant to mention it because it answers the question of absolute or relative truth once and for all. But sometimes with age comes distraction such that my original train of thought continued as I caught an inkling of this idea, thinking I'd revisit after the trains caboose, however it turned into one of those, LOOOONNNNNGGG trains such that I forgot to revisit the inkling. Old age sux, crap, who knows maybe I would have done it at 18 as well.

While you can argue anything, one would have to be a fool to do so in this case. And it's so simple!

The primary argument of actually reaching truth, actually understanding it, actually knowing it, for certain, is human flaws, human incapabilities, human bias, human agendas, etc

OK, can you see it? It's there right before your eyes! Before I say what is self evident, look again starting with the red "The" and ending with the red "etc"

If you haven't seen it yet here it is. Simply by stating that we have problems coming to terms with it indicates that it's absolute. It's absoluteness is the gauge by which we state that we are limited. Of course referring to it as it doesn't help the argument of those that claim relativity either. The concept of truth, is singular as it is the actual state of existence. It's true that more than hundreds of billions of things exist and each has it's own truths that are specific to each, which some may falsely think eludes to truth being plural, but while there specific truths vary it's because of the singular nature of truth (actual states of existence) that delineates those differences. Truth attests to their actual state of being what ever that might be. Understanding the absolute truth of the concept of truth does not allow you to understand any particular things absolute truths but merely calls attention to the fact that from the human perspective, with all it's inabilities, we may have a very long way to go before truly understanding them. Of course our evolution along with our invented tools, designed to compensate for humanities shortcomings, shall continue to grow in numbers and complexity. And one day shall give way to the understanding of the absolute truth of the universe, that is if we're capable of maintaining our existence, for that long, in the face of our selfishness.

What's relative is human belief, that often times is passed off as truth. Just because someone believes something and says that it's truth does not necessarily mean it's so. Remember those senses, those agendas, those neurosis, I'd say that most beliefs passed as truths are unconscious. Humans aren't even aware that they're spouting belief as truth, such is the human mind!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Actually All I was trying to demonstrate with this passage was that with regard to truth, humans have merely conceived it's prior existence and with regard to lies/falsehoods humans conceived it's birth. Simply that, nothing more.

You see my and Chaz's argument has always been about truths origin. I have never deviated from that course. I've never attempted to prove/disprove any particular truth except the truth of truth!

huh? You have been attempting to prove/disprove the truth of truth?? Yes!
So there is no truth? No, there is!
it seemed like you were saying that there is an Absolute truth. That is correct

I think you are attempting to dodge the issue. (No, I'm trying to stick with the issue) Perhaps I misread your guy's exchange. I'm not sure.
Because:
then it seems that, once again, Chaz has agued with someone who was arguing the same thing as him, but using different terms.
Is this the case? I don't think so. Do you admit then that the argument between you guys was a battle over nothing, that you guys were saying the same thing? Not at All. I believe chaz is in fact a troll because he's continually lying. telling me what I mean. Saying anything he can to save himself as if this is some sort of game. As a matter of fact he's now being ignored. I have no time for trolls.

I would submit: there IS a Truth. It is a human element situated in its consciousness for the purpose of allowing Being; Here you're talking about belief, not truth

but there is no Truth that we can situate in discursive knowledge which reaches a 'ground' except to describe its affect. Here it seems you're referring to specific truth criterion that as I've said is often impossible to come to terms with. please rephrase if you mean otherwise.

The effect of truth is the affect of consciousness. Cause has effect, truth does not, it is merely the state of actual existence (being). Any effect you realize is generated in your mind as you come to terms with the truth.

Hows that? it's your understanding
How would you frame it? As I already have.

[SpheresOfBalance]

....To speak truth would take forever and thus would negate a speedy trial...

...No one speaks truth, just a infinitesimally brief approximation steeped in infinite assumption and ambiguity!!!!!!!!!...

...TRUTH is ABSOLUTE!!
HUMANS do not deal in TRUTH, they deal in BELIEF and spout it as truth! Which is why we're so screwed up!...

I, SpheresOfBalance, shall respond in red for this post so as to answer as I go and to eliminate 1 nested quote level
Ah -
These statements of yours, appear to me to indicate that the reason humanity is screwed upo is because of the utter inability for humanity to understand the Truth, which is absolute. That is, human beings are always attempting to express truth but alwatys fail. I wouldn't say "utter inability" or "always fail" I was generalizing due to my frustration in dealing with Chaz's continual twisting and side stepping, which was misleading, sorry!And then this process is one of a contionuing aggrivation of the probelm it attmepts to solve, because its application is always addressing a truth that is not true. Which process? Of seeking truth?

Is this a correct summation?

I would have to offere: the idea that there is some basic or Absolute Truth, as indicated above, is itself an misunderstanding, such that the Absolute that we understand is not absolute. Which, I beleive, is at least one thing that Chaz was getting at. OK, I hope that I can speak for you when I say that: we are truly attempting to jointly share information with each other; if you're with me then it's absolute. However, as to the question of whether we truly are sharing information, well that's relative to both our abilities in comprehension, willingness to hear, our trust of one another, and the list goes on. But someone other than us two might say that we are sharing information. So are they speaking in truth. Absolutely not they are speaking in belief as they don't necessarily know what criterion is required for our jointly sharing information. 99 out of 100 probably wouldn't want to spend the time required to consider whether or not we are. They would just quickly say that we are because of what they think they see and move on.

As a kid in school, did you ever play the game of telegraph (Or maybe it was telephone) I forget. Anyway 30 students sit in a circle and the teacher tells them that she will whisper something in one of their ears and that they are to whisper it into the students ear immediately to their left all the way around the circle until the student just prior to the one that started hears it. Then she asks the last student what it was that they heard. It's never exact and often has absolutely nothing to do with the original statement. Were they truly sharing the original information? Of course not. What the teacher told the first student was the absolute true information. What came out of the other end of the human telegraph was the relative belief of the absolute true information.
Does this mean that it's always the case? Of course not, but I would say that it's more often the case than not

Thus Your truth which proposes an Absolute which is beyond knowing, contradicts your position. No? I Never said that truth was beyond knowing!

How would you situate this statement: "stars existed before planetary life"? That in truth it's believed to be so but it's not necessarily so. It would seem that energy as heat is required to create life, but I would imagine that it could be possible for some type of life to exist in the coldness of space, though I would neither have any knowledge of it nor where it would come from.

I believe that truth is hard to uncover. Most of what we claim as truth pertaining to the universe is purely conjecture (belief). The truths of humanity (our small microcosm) is where we currently find the majority of truth because it's close to us. It too is filled with much ambiguity and shall continue to be so until we've unraveled all there is to know about the human brain. Once the entire human psyche is fully understood the truth of humanity shall finally be complete, that is except for the universal perspective of humanity.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...Now may your discussion come to a robust conclusion with Spheres and Barbara if she still wants to (understandable if she doesn't).

Hey Ron,
Actually she hasn't really been involved. But your statement "understandable if she doesn't" seems to be out of character. What exactly did you mean?

[Ron de Weijze]

...Now may your discussion come to a robust conclusion with Spheres and Barbara if she still wants to (understandable if she doesn't).

Hey Ron, Actually she hasn't really been involved. But your statement "understandable if she doesn't" seems to be out of character. What exactly did you mean?

In the philosophy of mind thread, Lance called for this response from Barbara:

Also, who the hell are you to denounce me as uneducated, I say your a clown!

and the dispute continued here.