None of us KNOW JACK SHIT!
~~~ SpheresOfBalance ~~~
We are immersed in truth, immersed in reality.
Our minds, our senses filter this sea of absolute truth that we are a part of.
But we cannot know it.
We are a pile of associated atoms amongst other piles of associated atoms.
Why can we even perceive ourselves to the degree that we do?
Why can part of us be self-conscious?
We are the truth, it's just that the truth cannot be a mental concept. The truth; reality cannot be perfectly aware of itself. This would need a total separation from itself. A separation of reality which is the truth that just is.
I can know shit about Jack but I cannot know about Jack Shit.
lancek4 wrote:Ah- sob, I conceed "I know only what I know". But that then is relative.
The way I see it:
Truth as defined as actual existence (accordance with that, which is real), is universal and as such is absolutely true.
Knowledge implies the sentient animal, and as far as our current condition it seems to be relative, when considering our human things, however I believe this to be a product of it's confusion with belief. As applied to the cosmos (without man) I would say it's actually absolute but again it's sometimes seen as relative because of it's confusion with belief.
What do you think of the distinction between 'a priori' and 'a posteriori.' I sense the impossibility of a priori knowledge because it can only be found as a result of prior a posteriori data. Take the example of a priori from wikipedia: 'All bachelors are unmarried.' First Unmarried is the definition of bachelor so that you are actually saying they are bachelors because they are bachelors or they are unmarried because they are unmarried. Also the idea bachelor is a posteriori knowledge of unmarried and married, thus cannot be said to be a priori. You would think that if I'm incorrect that they could have come up with a better example if there is one.
Another thing, I believe that the reason anyone that's associated with philosophy, that has a problem with absolute truth, is because they have bought into the flawed bundle theory instead of the obvious substance theory. I mean by definition, the tree makes a sound in the forest even if no one is around to hear it. It's true that no one has knowledge of the sound, but that does not negate the sounds' (by definition) existence.
lancek4 wrote:Ah- sob, I conceed "I know only what I know". But that then is relative.
The way I see it:
Truth as defined as actual existence (accordance with that, which is real), is universal and as such is absolutely true.
Knowledge implies the sentient animal, and as far as our current condition it seems to be relative, when considering our human things, however I believe this to be a product of it's confusion with belief. As applied to the cosmos (without man) I would say it's actually absolute but again it's sometimes seen as relative because of it's confusion with belief.
Was the truth of the actual universe for the pre-european aboriginal amerindians any less True? This is to say: the Indians had a Truth of the Universe that was Absolutly True for them; was it a distortion of the Actual Truth?
If you say yes, from what basis of knowledge are you claiming the distortion?
Technology?
A particular type or appraoch of knowledge?
How is one approach or method of coming to the Actual Truth better able to determine what is actually true?
Is it our ability to minimize mortality?
lancek4 wrote:Ah- sob, I conceed "I know only what I know". But that then is relative.
The way I see it:
Truth as defined as actual existence (accordance with that, which is real), is universal and as such is absolutely true.
Knowledge implies the sentient animal, and as far as our current condition it seems to be relative, when considering our human things, however I believe this to be a product of it's confusion with belief. As applied to the cosmos (without man) I would say it's actually absolute but again it's sometimes seen as relative because of it's confusion with belief.
Was the truth of the actual universe for the pre-european aboriginal amerindians any less True? This is to say: the Indians had a Truth of the Universe that was Absolutly True for them; was it a distortion of the Actual Truth? Not that I necessarily want to assert any particular 'believed to be truth' as in fact a truth, but I'd have to be apprised of that particular 'believed to be truth', and then it would depend on whether truth criterion had either found that 'believed to be truth' as either a falsehood or as in fact a truth and thus as an excepted bit of knowledge.
If you say yes, from what basis of knowledge are you claiming the distortion?
Technology?
A particular type or appraoch of knowledge? N/A
How is one approach or method of coming to the Actual Truth better able to determine what is actually true? To which truth criterion theory do you subscribe?
Is it our ability to minimize mortality? I'd say it has more to do with the progress of the overall knowledge picture; The specific level of accumulated truths and knowledge that today's humans have come to understand (uncover). It's a superstructure if you will. Where each truth, bit of knowledge, (I-beam) reinforces the next one. Which as Sanjay pointed out is the actual state of affairs with respect to human accumulated knowledge. Did those "pre-european aboriginal amerindians" have a part in the uncovering? Of course they did! If they were correct, then there you go; if they were incorrect, then there you go! The current totality of uncovered truths and knowledge, is in fact a totality of human legacy.
The Truth indicated by the 'actual', as to our definition, may not be, but could be, the Absolute Truth. Stars may not have preceded planatary life. But would not then the Absolute be out of reach? in that the future may look back to its past and say "the people of 2011 believed that planetary life was subsequent to the existance of stars, but we know now that they were incorrect".
Is this what you mean?
That the Indians' Truth may have been part of the coming to the truth of the matter, along with our own truth?
>>>>>>>
The Truth indicated by the 'actual', as to our definition, may not be, but could be, the Absolute Truth. Stars may not have preceded planatary life. But would not then the Absolute be out of reach? in that the future may look back to its past and say "the people of 2011 believed that planetary life was subsequent to the existance of stars, but we know now that they were incorrect".
Is this what you mean? Of course!
That the Indians' Truth may have been part of the coming to the truth of the matter, along with our own truth?
>>>>>>> Of course! But I would classify any version of truth, while not being the actual truth, as merely a stepping stone of belief that helps to eventually delineate the actual truth. I believe the actual truth is absolute. Obviously, just because someone calls an apple an orange doesn't mean it is one. They believed it was the truth. In the end, if we're around to see it, truth shall be seen in it's absolute forml
This is 'not' indicative of truth being relative, rather it's indicative of the relativity of truths uncovering; understanding; acknowledgment; unfolding, which is relative to time, clarity of mind, prerequisites, etc.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:about the essence of truth, which is absolute. You've come into the middle of a thread and determined that we are arguing truths NO!!!!!! we are NOT!!!!! My analogies are only meant to find common ground that existed prior to humans that I thought we could agree upon so we can see that truth is absolute. Your arguments I agree with 100%. None of us KNOW JACK SHIT! Have you ever noticed my signature. Have you noticed that I recently argued for Socrates "I only know, that I don't know." In spite of those clues you keep arguing against them as if I'm stating some sort of absolute truth.
do I have to be a bird so I could really know what is to be a bird? do we have to be the essence of truth so we could really know what is to be the essence of truth, which is absolute? or is absolute truth only imaginary goal to us humans like heaven is to atheists? so you are seeking common ground that existed prior humans? if truth is correct view or judgement and there were no viewers or judges then there were no truths. Truth as defined as actual existence, in which criterion of truth? None of us KNOW JACK SHIT? if it is true then it is not true.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:about the essence of truth, which is absolute. You've come into the middle of a thread and determined that we are arguing truths NO!!!!!! we are NOT!!!!! My analogies are only meant to find common ground that existed prior to humans that I thought we could agree upon so we can see that truth is absolute. Your arguments I agree with 100%. None of us KNOW JACK SHIT! Have you ever noticed my signature. Have you noticed that I recently argued for Socrates "I only know, that I don't know." In spite of those clues you keep arguing against them as if I'm stating some sort of absolute truth.
do I have to be a bird so I could really know what is to be a bird? do we have to be the essence of truth so we could really know what is to be the essence of truth, which is absolute? or is absolute truth only imaginary goal to us humans like heaven is to atheists? so you are seeking common ground that existed prior humans? if truth is correct view or judgement and there were no viewers or judges then there were no truths. Not true, truth exists without humans, there just was no knowledge of it. The lack of human knowledge does not negate a truth. Just because we started not knowing, such that we got everything wrong, until one day someone noticed, and realizing there was in fact a version of their knowledge, that was actually the real state of existence, giving birth to the concept of truth, does not mean that it didn't exist on it's own or requires judgement a correct view or otherwise. Truth always existed without our knowledge until one day we took notice. Truth is all that actually exists
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does (by definition). If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does anyone know it made a sound? Of course not!
Truth as defined as actual existence, in which criterion of truth? Truth: is all that actually exists; is the state of being in accord with fact or reality. Truth criterion are theories by which one tests if beliefs are in fact truths thus giving way to knowledge.
None of us KNOW JACK SHIT? if it is true then it is not true. This kind of statement is not clear, elaborate please.
P.S. I lied, I actually know Jack Shit, he lives one street over, it's a cul-de-sac.
Animals think.This can be experienced easily. I am sure that you do not have any pet. If you ask anyone who has a dog, his opinion will be the same as mine. Animals, especially mammals, can understand, think, have emotions and even show them.
If we look carefully to do dogs, then we will find that they express themselves in two ways; physical posturing and barking. This is their language, just like English for us. The tone of their barking differs to communicate their emotions to others. If we show a stick to dog, he will run away. Why? It means that he is able to understand that he may be harmed. It means that he also has an emotion of fear. So, if he has understanding and emotions, then he is able to think for sure. This phenomenon is clearer in monkeys. Chimpanzee and orangutan are a perfect examples. They can even recognize themselves in the mirror. Yes, the efficiency of mind differs. Any entity in this world, which has mind, is able to think because it is the only use of mind, otherwise brain is sufficient enough to keep one alive. The state of coma is nothing but a disconnection of brain from the mind. Technically, there is no difference between the states off coma and dreaming. If it is disconnected permanently, then we call it death.
Every human uses to think in his native language. It means that my mental language is different from yours but it is not possible. Our mind converts these languages into understanding and that is universal and common for all entities who possess mind.
Science has a very simple mechanism. It takes a start from a concept of theory. It may be right or wrong so it has to go through the test of physical evidence. Then, if it is able pass it successfully and repeatedly, then we consider it as a fact or truth.
Spirituality has the same procedure. It starts from the belief. Then, if it is able to experience something beyond, either mental of physical, it automatically converts into faith otherwise it remains at the level of belief. It must be supported by experience and more importantly, in person. So, we can see there is no difference. The problem is, as I said in earlier post, we have to experience by ourselves. The experiences told my others are not able to create faith. So, I consider the spiritual knowledge just as we study physics or biology.
More often than not, faith is not properly understood by us. We have generalized it too much and sometimes we tend to use it as synonyms of belief but it is not. Faith must be supported by personal experiences.
I agree with your viewpoint that you should consider yourself as you see yourself in the mirror because, at the first place, neither there is any need nor any evidence to believe that we are something more than that. Furthermore, one can live a perfect life without it.
I must tell you that I was of the same view as yours; just because of the reason that I did not find any use or application of spirituality and religions is our life. I always felt that scientific knowledge and ethics are enough to lead an ideal life, and more o less, it is true, but when I experienced personally that there is something which is beyond our physical reach then I am compelled to believe that. As I progressed, I found that religious texts are not fake.
I am not saying that others should believe me because I know that it is not possible for an intellectual to believe which is not proved to him. But, one should always keep the options and eyes open because destiny has its own and a very peculiar way of teaching.
But, I had to mention about the other dimension to enable the listener to understand what this thread asked; who is stopping us from seeing the truth.
Let us resume from the last post. I tried to explain the subtle dimension in a nutshell. Each and every religion talks about this dimension. But, initially my experiences about it confused me. I was convinced that it exists but a question stood before me that; why all religious texts are so different from each other? Each and every religion shouts loudly that it owns the original God. Moreover, there are further different schools in every religion. If the God is one, the texts should be the same but they are not. I used to think a lot about it but failed to understand.
This question is answered by time. As time passed, I became able to understand that there are many realms instead of one. The scenario is just like our world; as we are divided in continents and countries, so they are. One more thing was troubling me that they were just like humans; birth, death, emotions. Then I used to wonder that is this the ultimate of spirituality?
But one question is answered here that why all religious texts are different. The reason behind this is that each and every talks about a different realm. All major religions are right in their perception of God in broad sense. Their God is subjected to their realm. Every realm is ruled by a king and when the souls from there are inhabited here, then the king sends his messengers (prophets) here to endowed people with the knowledge of their realm. This king or ruler is represented as God in every religion. That is why all texts are different. So, this second dimension is not the ultimate destination.
Now comes the last and most important question; the ultimate. Till now, I am not able to answer perfectly but have some idea of it. I tried to find in the books and found that all major religious texts are silent on this issue. Only two, namely Sufism (a liberal vertical of Islam) and some schools of Hindu mythology discuss it in detail. When my mind is not thinking, there is no language that is going on.
I quoted you purposely here in the last because the answer is in this line. Our mind is a very unique entity. We use it 24/7 and from the birth till death but we do not understand it. In general we perceive mind as a part our existence but it is not. The reality is that it is not our mind but we are the body of our mind. Our mind owns us. We can say that our hand is mine because it will do what we ask but we cannot order my mind. It will refuse. On the contrary, we do exactly what our mind wants. So, the real “we” is our mind.
You are saying that there may be moments when mind stops thinking. It is impossible. I want to mention a parable from Hindu mythology I this context.
There was a father and a son. Father was a very learned and famous religious scholar so people from all over used to see him for guidance. The son thought that I should take advantage from my father and asked him the way to be immortal. Father said that there is no instant way for such things but the son insisted that you know the easy way but do not want to tell me. At last father gave up. He told some mantas (prayers) to his son and asked him to repeat those for 10 times. Father said that if you will be able to do it successfully, you will be immortal immediately but there is only one condition; the thought of the frog should not come in your mind during repeating mantras. The son became very happy as he thought that it could not be easier than that. So, he sat down and started repeating mantas but immediately the monkey popped up in his mind. He tried for this during his whole life but did not succeed.
This story is the perfect example of our mind. What we consider “we” is actually our will. It does not represent the total anatomy of our mind. Mind is an entity which has many verticals. Mind is consisted of all our emotions and thinking tools; as each of these creates a layer in it; Love, hate, anger, kindness, memory, imagination, analyzing, ego, will etc. The subtle dimension of our existence represents our mind, as each emotion is associated with a particular spiritual realm. It is slight difficult to understand but going through the process, it becomes easier.
The process is that- let us assume that a will is initiated in one’s mind to know the ultimate so he starts meditating. Now, at this very moment, he has only one emotion in his mind; will. If he is serious and his will is strong enough, then his will will be transferred to subtle mind because the journey is to done by subtle version. He is eager to know, so will manifested another emotion; eagerness. Now, even unknowingly, he has provoked the realm of eagerness. So, now his subtle version will have to fight and conquer the realm of eagerness. This fight will be shown to the physical mind through dreams. If physical mind is strong and keep going, then the subtle version will succeed, otherwise not. The success will reflect as a change in the nature of human mind, as he will be no more eager. It is not the case that eagerness will never come to his mind, but it will not able to make him eager. He is able to recognize it now so his will does not pay any attention to eagerness and it has to die. In the journey, one has to conquer all the emotions. This is the reason why those people, who have done some journey, look different by nature.
If one is not able to cross any particular realm, but is in the process, and dies, the journey is stopped and soul will return to the realm from where it came. If the soul will come again here in the form of human, the journey will be resumed from the realm where it stopped. This is KARMA.
The last realm of the mind is will. It is will that helps throughout the journey but it is the last hurdle also and the most difficult one. Both, Sufism and Hinduism say that it is impossible to cross it without the guidance of such a person, who has crossed it successfully.
Mind is eternal and ultimate but not in complete sense. The ultimate consists of two different entities. One is doing entity and that is mind. The other is feeling part and that is consciousness. Both were existed before the existence of universe. We cannot stop our mind thinking even for a moment. If we are able to do it, then the second part of the existence will be automatically unveiled. This is what is described as enlightenment. So, it is our mind who is stopping us from seeing the truth.
The ultimate truth is beyond the subtle dimension but it cannot be bypassed. One has to go through it. I cannot claim that I know everything but at least I have been able to make a start and perhaps, covered some ground also.
There is no need to believe me as one can easily say that he is satisfied with that version of him, which is reflected in the mirror. But I want to ask a very simple question; is one can see his mind in the mirror?
If one finds the answer in affirmative then it is OK. But if not, then try to have a look at your mind. Go on a date with it. If we start spending some time with it, and be honest with it, it will automatically show the way, just because it is the very part of the ultimate and as well as the only tool by which the journey could be done. There is no need to look anywhere else.
I want to thank you all, especially Bill, Auk, SOB and Lancek4, who had the patience to bear me.
With love,
Sanjay.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Not true, truth exists without humans, there just was no knowledge of it. The lack of human knowledge does not negate a truth. Just because we started not knowing, such that we got everything wrong, until one day someone noticed, and realizing there was in fact a version of their knowledge, that was actually the real state of existence, giving birth to the concept of truth, does not mean that it didn't exist on it's own or requires judgement a correct view or otherwise. Truth always existed without our knowledge until one day we took notice. Truth is all that actually exists
if truth is a word and part of humans language then how you can know is there anything or what is there without language or outside language? humans is also a word. word is also a word. gods and stories are also words. and they existed before man?
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does (by definition). If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does anyone know it made a sound? Of course not!
if sun has risen every day, does it rise tomorrow? does anyone know if it made a rise when there was no one to see it? what you mean "(by definition)"?
Truth as defined as actual existence, in which criterion of truth?
Truth: is all that actually exists; is the state of being in accord with fact or reality. Truth criterion are theories by which one tests if beliefs are in fact truths thus giving way to knowledge.
let us test if beliefs are in fact truths: Truth: is all that actually exists; is the state of being in accord with fact or reality. in which criterion of truth truth is like that?
None of us KNOW JACK SHIT? if it is true then it is not true.
This kind of statement is not clear, elaborate please.
P.S. I lied, I actually know Jack Shit, he lives one street over, it's a cul-de-sac.
if you know anything about jack shit then it is not true that it is true that none of us know nothing about something called jack shit. or did you mean that if we are not jack shit then we cant fully know jack shit? elaborate please.
so, if more efficient minds are stopping us from seeing the truth and dogs have not as efficient minds than us and some animals, vegetables or stones reacts without or with even less efficient bodily reaction centers(like brains or cell nucleuses) and without more complex reactions to call them thinking or feeling beings, then we should kill ourselves and turn faster to less complex beings without too efficient mind not stopping to react too complex ways like enabling even thinking, and thinking that we see or not see the truth?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:about the essence of truth, which is absolute. You've come into the middle of a thread and determined that we are arguing truths NO!!!!!! we are NOT!!!!! My analogies are only meant to find common ground that existed prior to humans that I thought we could agree upon so we can see that truth is absolute. Your arguments I agree with 100%. None of us KNOW JACK SHIT! Have you ever noticed my signature. Have you noticed that I recently argued for Socrates "I only know, that I don't know." In spite of those clues you keep arguing against them as if I'm stating some sort of absolute truth.
do I have to be a bird so I could really know what is to be a bird? do we have to be the essence of truth so we could really know what is to be the essence of truth, which is absolute? or is absolute truth only imaginary goal to us humans like heaven is to atheists? so you are seeking common ground that existed prior humans? if truth is correct view or judgement and there were no viewers or judges then there were no truths. Not true, truth exists without humans, there just was no knowledge of it. The lack of human knowledge does not negate a truth. Just because we started not knowing, such that we got everything wrong, until one day someone noticed, and realizing there was in fact a version of their knowledge, that was actually the real state of existence, giving birth to the concept of truth, does not mean that it didn't exist on it's own or requires judgement a correct view or otherwise. Truth always existed without our knowledge until one day we took notice. Truth is all that actually exists
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does (by definition). If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does anyone know it made a sound? Of course not!
Truth as defined as actual existence, in which criterion of truth? Truth: is all that actually exists; is the state of being in accord with fact or reality. Truth criterion are theories by which one tests if beliefs are in fact truths thus giving way to knowledge.
None of us KNOW JACK SHIT? if it is true then it is not true. This kind of statement is not clear, elaborate please.
P.S. I lied, I actually know Jack Shit, he lives one street over, it's a cul-de-sac.
It is indeed ironic that you and Chaz seem to be saying the same thing. And that its taken this long for me to see ytour meaning.
I suppose my issue is : if the actual is the True, can we know of it? If it is only our 'knowing' of it, and this is relative, is there a point to discussing what may be 'absolutely true' ? It would seem that the absolute actual and the actual absolute would be mutually exclusiive for argument. A 'thing in itself' (a noumen) that is knowable.
But i think this last is what Chaz was indicating.
Perhaps we might begin again with the question Bill posed for this thread:
What are we talking about when we say 'truth'?
And
What do we mean when we say 'see' it ? Know it? Realize it ? Visualize it? Sense it? Come upon it?
If we are 'seeing' that truth is subjective or cultural then I think nothing has 'stopped' us from seeing this.
If it is 'actual', as SOB and I defined it, I think we 'see' that the problem lay in wether the actual includes what may be 'the distortion' or whether 'the distortion' is also part of the actual.
It seems also that Mq has offered that the decrepancy is solved by moving to another possibility.
