What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

Let me ask in another way, to get opinions:

Are we:

Objects among objects, or

Are we something else. ?

Or both?

Perhaps we can discuss along these lines a bit.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Let me ask in another way, to get opinions:

Are we:

Objects among objects, or

Are we something else. ?

Or both?

Perhaps we can discuss along these lines a bit.

We are objects among objects. Everything we know is merely differing electromagnetic numbers. The essence that holds everything together is electromagnetic energy. I would say that in life is the pinnacle of chemistry and all that exists in absolute truth. We are stardust, yet so much more, if only it were not for the things we do with it. It matters not from which camp you come, as the miracle is without question for all. The majority of us fail to see the gift, the opportunity, it's enough to look out at all the entangled beauty with a smile upon your face. As far as we know we are the ultimate metamorphosis, if only we respected it and knew what to do with it.

Self image, fear, pride, jealousy; so unsure. What does it all mean? Why are we here? When I see how some of us treat others I sometimes wish I'd never been born, but I love life. I really love to observe life in it's interactions, it often brings a smile to my face.

I've had a dream of me falling and dying then hovering above my body.

I'm not sure what this was, but I remember coming from nothing into pitch blackness. I thought and nothing more. I wanted there to be more and with much concentration there finally was, but it was slow in coming. I was suspended in the vastness of infinity. At first I was just content in just being, but as time grew, I wanted something more. I wanted there to be variety. I wanted to not be just a singular entity.

Nope, no drugs, just tired, I shall sleep and awake to a new dawning, with any luck.

PEACE, my friends!

AND

Happy Holidays to all!

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



I understand truth to be of two kinds. Two kinds that intermingle yet can be distinguished in their extremes.

For me that would be initially a relative, or small truth, if you will, and the second type of truth would be a Truth found in our observation, or ultimate Truth.

The first truth is truth in small things. For instance, honesty in our representations. Truthfulness.


The second type of truth that we could distinguish could sometimes be considered the ultimate Truth that can be observed by a human being or Truth with a capital T.



The first would deal with science or the accepted norm.

The second type of Truth has more to do with consciousness and states of consciousness.

Both overlap and there is ALL the hues of grey in-between.




In philosophy, if we choose to search for ultimate Truth, we must begin with small or relative truth. We must search to be truthful we must practice and respect honesty.

If we make super-human efforts and are extremely lucky we may perhaps reach something that we can be satisfied to call ultimate Truth.


You may have eyes but cannot see. We may have ears but cannot hear.




.

[lancek4]

.



I understand truth to be of two kinds. Two kinds that intermingle yet can be distinguished in their extremes.

For me that would be initially a relative, or small truth, if you will, and the second type of truth would be a Truth found in our observation, or ultimate Truth.

The first truth is truth in small things. For instance, honesty in our representations. Truthfulness.


The second type of truth that we could distinguish could sometimes be considered the ultimate Truth that can be observed by a human being or Truth with a capital T.



The first would deal with science or the accepted norm.

The second type of Truth has more to do with consciousness and states of consciousness.

Both overlap and there is ALL the hues of grey in-between.




In philosophy, if we choose to search for ultimate Truth, we must begin with small or relative truth. We must search to be truthful we must practice and respect honesty.

If we make super-human efforts and are extremely lucky we may perhaps reach something that we can be satisfied to call ultimate Truth.


You may have eyes but cannot see. We may have ears but cannot hear.




.

I like that version. Bill.
What other ideas do we have ? Anyone?

[lancek4]

Let me ask in another way, to get opinions:

Are we:

Objects among objects, or

Are we something else. ?

Or both?

Perhaps we can discuss along these lines a bit.

We are objects among objects. Everything we know is merely differing electromagnetic numbers. The essence that holds everything together is electromagnetic energy. I would say that in life is the pinnacle of chemistry and all that exists in absolute truth. We are stardust, yet so much more, if only it were not for the things we do with it. It matters not from which camp you come, as the miracle is without question for all. The majority of us fail to see the gift, the opportunity, it's enough to look out at all the entangled beauty with a smile upon your face. As far as we know we are the ultimate metamorphosis, if only we respected it and knew what to do with it.

Self image, fear, pride, jealousy; so unsure. What does it all mean? Why are we here? When I see how some of us treat others I sometimes wish I'd never been born, but I love life. I really love to observe life in it's interactions, it often brings a smile to my face.

I've had a dream of me falling and dying then hovering above my body.

I'm not sure what this was, but I remember coming from nothing into pitch blackness. I thought and nothing more. I wanted there to be more and with much concentration there finally was, but it was slow in coming. I was suspended in the vastness of infinity. At first I was just content in just being, but as time grew, I wanted something more. I wanted there to be variety. I wanted to not be just a singular entity.

Nope, no drugs, just tired, I shall sleep and awake to a new dawning, with any luck.

PEACE, my friends!

AND

Happy Holidays to all!

I like your impetus for your objective.
I supppose it would be nice of someone could offer a sythesis of knowledge of how we could know that we are only objects. .


I suppose I resist the absolute reduction of reality to one position - even while I endeavor to do just that! Ah haaa! Lol.

Indeed, I suppose so far as designating 'universe' to know, I concede to your synopsis SOB. But if we are speaking 'reality' or what often is designated as 'world' then I do not.

And I noticed a few posts back you specifically answered of the Truth you were speaking of: universe.

[SpheresOfBalance]

.



I understand truth to be of two kinds. Two kinds that intermingle yet can be distinguished in their extremes.

For me that would be initially a relative, or small truth, if you will, and the second type of truth would be a Truth found in our observation, or ultimate Truth.

The first truth is truth in small things. For instance, honesty in our representations. Truthfulness.


The second type of truth that we could distinguish could sometimes be considered the ultimate Truth that can be observed by a human being or Truth with a capital T.



The first would deal with science or the accepted norm.

The second type of Truth has more to do with consciousness and states of consciousness.

Both overlap and there is ALL the hues of grey in-between.




In philosophy, if we choose to search for ultimate Truth, we must begin with small or relative truth. We must search to be truthful we must practice and respect honesty.

If we make super-human efforts and are extremely lucky we may perhaps reach something that we can be satisfied to call ultimate Truth.


You may have eyes but cannot see. We may have ears but cannot hear.




.

Great Job Bill, I see some truth in your assessment!
I can't believe that you've actually been accused of not using your words. I'd say that you just try and not use them frivolously.

Thanks for your creation and contribution of/to this thread.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Let me ask in another way, to get opinions:

Are we:

Objects among objects, or

Are we something else. ?

Or both?

Perhaps we can discuss along these lines a bit.

We are objects among objects. Everything we know is merely differing electromagnetic numbers. The essence that holds everything together is electromagnetic energy. I would say that in life is the pinnacle of chemistry and all that exists in absolute truth. We are stardust, yet so much more, if only it were not for the things we do with it. It matters not from which camp you come, as the miracle is without question for all. The majority of us fail to see the gift, the opportunity, it's enough to look out at all the entangled beauty with a smile upon your face. As far as we know we are the ultimate metamorphosis, if only we respected it and knew what to do with it.

Self image, fear, pride, jealousy; so unsure. What does it all mean? Why are we here? When I see how some of us treat others I sometimes wish I'd never been born, but I love life. I really love to observe life in it's interactions, it often brings a smile to my face.

I've had a dream of me falling and dying then hovering above my body.

I'm not sure what this was, but I remember coming from nothing into pitch blackness. I thought and nothing more. I wanted there to be more and with much concentration there finally was, but it was slow in coming. I was suspended in the vastness of infinity. At first I was just content in just being, but as time grew, I wanted something more. I wanted there to be variety. I wanted to not be just a singular entity.

Nope, no drugs, just tired, I shall sleep and awake to a new dawning, with any luck.

PEACE, my friends!

AND

Happy Holidays to all!

I like your impetus for your objective.
I supppose it would be nice of someone could offer a sythesis of knowledge of how we could know that we are only objects. .
Lance you know how I feel, I'm not saying there's nothing more, just being honest with what it is, that I believe I know. There is so much we don't know about the human mind, or more appropriately there's so much we've failed to 'commit to,' with respect to the human mind. I believe it's for good reason. As far as I'm concerned the jury is still out, which is a testament to our youthfulness. No decisions before their time, or they could lend to distortion. We'll just have to be content for now with being in limbo. If we don't kill ourselves off, I believe there shall come a time when we'll know of the human mind. Then objects shall be seen clearer; it's definition shall be updated in either direction.

I suppose I resist the absolute reduction of reality to one position - even while I endeavor to do just that! Ah haaa! Lol.
Great job, to see potential ambiguity in the quest to eliminate ambiguity. We must continue to question all, to further clarify all, thus negating ambiguity relative to the ultimate absolute truth, while ensuring our means are not ambiguous. As Socrates said: 'All we truthfully know, is that we don't know,' this then is the only possible road to actually knowing truth, even though to some, they may seem contrary.

Indeed, I suppose so far as designating 'universe' to know, I concede to your synopsis SOB. But if we are speaking 'reality' or what often is designated as 'world' then I do not.
All in a definition, all in a definition! That's the problem isn't it? Where are the bounds if there are bounds. If there are bounds what are they? In what form? Bounds suggest ends, if ends, as with everything humans can touch, what's beyond this delineation, as with all that humans can touch? It's perplexing! Shall we ever come to know it?

And I noticed a few posts back you specifically answered of the Truth you were speaking of: universe.
Yes universe, our existence, life, all there is, the 'need' for it or just 'coincidence,' so much cause and effect. Is nothing just as likely as something. 'Nothing' would be easier, but 'something' is a lot more fun, despite a few pitfalls. I guess I'd rather have the chance to witness the miraculousness, and hence the beauty and deal with it's end as opposed to never seeing the beauty of the symbiosis.

"...under the cities, lies a heart made of ground, but the humans will give no love. You see I've been through a desert..."

Yes I'm extremely happy to have seen a hummingbird hover while gathering nectar and thus maintaining the symbiosis, just to name one of billions. I'll put up with dying for that!

[lancek4]

Speaking of belief ,

I do not believe that humanity will destroy itself. It may destroy the present facade of knowledge with supports our present standard and way of living, but I believe man is ultimately adaptable and will survive because of this trait.

Which brings to point that our current way of living is just one particular way of adapting. It holds no absolute truth, only the truth which upholds our way of adapting knowledge to the universe.

Consciousness makes 'sense'; that's what it does as an actual manifestation of the universe it reflects nothing of some absolute-ness of the Universe. Only the human universe. Is the sense a bear makes of the universe 'not true' or based in a 'distortion' of some sort?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Speaking of belief ,

I do not believe that humanity will destroy itself. It may destroy the present facade of knowledge with supports our present standard and way of living, but I believe man is ultimately adaptable and will survive because of this trait.
Sure it's just belief, but remember that assumptions and arrogance can blind one to possibility/probability. First and foremost you assume mankind is in control. You assume that his actions won't lead to catastrophic failures. You assume his mistakes can be seen despite his selfishness. Denial, as some one pointed out earlier, is first visited in his coming to terms with potential problems. Assuming he's aware, when it comes to choosing between his, so called progress, and erring to the side of caution, I believe that his sacrifice takes a back seat to his greed and selfishness. It's not like he doesn't have a well established track record.

Which brings to point that our current way of living is just one particular way of adapting. It holds no absolute truth, only the truth which upholds our way of adapting knowledge to the universe.
I'm sorry, but I really have a problem believing that mankind has a clue, as his bartering standards have been two of the most useless elements (slight exaggeration). For us to still use gold and silver (pretty rocks) as a means to dominate each other, (have a slave workforce), in the face of our own death and the truth that is the miracle of life, after all these years, when it's totally unnecessary, attests to his cluelessness. Mankind seems to rather be brawn, as opposed to brain.

Consciousness makes 'sense'; that's what it does as an actual manifestation of the universe it reflects nothing of some absolute-ness of the Universe. Only the human universe. Is the sense a bear makes of the universe 'not true' or based in a 'distortion' of some sort?
A bear only kills to protect it's young or for food, as such it stays within the confines of an ecosystem; a circular means of balance; part of the symbiosis that is planet earth without mans influence. I don't think I have to say anymore.

As far as I'm concerned, Intelligence is not decided by what you 'can' do, but what you 'should' do, where should is dictated by equilibrium and not by a 'will to power.'

[lancek4]

Speaking of belief ,

I do not believe that humanity will destroy itself. It may destroy the present facade of knowledge with supports our present standard and way of living, but I believe man is ultimately adaptable and will survive because of this trait.
Sure it's just belief, but remember that assumptions and arrogance can blind one to possibility/probability. First and foremost you assume mankind is in control. You assume that his actions won't lead to catastrophic failures. You assume his mistakes can be seen despite his selfishness. Denial, as some one pointed out earlier, is first visited in his coming to terms with potential problems. Assuming he's aware, when it comes to choosing between his, so called progress, and erring to the side of caution, I believe that his sacrifice takes a back seat to his greed and selfishness. It's not like he doesn't have a well established track record.

Which brings to point that our current way of living is just one particular way of adapting. It holds no absolute truth, only the truth which upholds our way of adapting knowledge to the universe.
I'm sorry, but I really have a problem believing that mankind has a clue, as his bartering standards have been two of the most useless elements (slight exaggeration). For us to still use gold and silver (pretty rocks) as a means to dominate each other, (have a slave workforce), in the face of our own death and the truth that is the miracle of life, after all these years, when it's totally unnecessary, attests to his cluelessness. Mankind seems to rather be brawn, as opposed to brain.

Consciousness makes 'sense'; that's what it does as an actual manifestation of the universe it reflects nothing of some absolute-ness of the Universe. Only the human universe. Is the sense a bear makes of the universe 'not true' or based in a 'distortion' of some sort?
A bear only kills to protect it's young or for food, as such it stays within the confines of an ecosystem; a circular means of balance; part of the symbiosis that is planet earth without mans influence. I don't think I have to say anymore.

As far as I'm concerned, Intelligence is not decided by what you 'can' do, but what you 'should' do, where should is dictated by equilibrium and not by a 'will to power.'

I do not think we will 'come to our senses' or something like that, but exactly the good and bad of humanity will bring about, not an end of the world, like we will destroy humanity, but the end of 'that' world which harbors, manifests, establishes what is true for humanity now.
We are no further that the bear; it is merely a part of our universe creation of brain/mind/ consciousness that is human that finctions in such a way that it has a 'truth' which justifies its existance in such a way.

For all our ability to think, the bear may be in its own 'bear consciousness' think that humans are the dumb brutes who have no 'intelligence'.

Our presumtuousness is linked with technology; we merely establish our selves in such a way. Does the bird making nests have some superior intelligence over, say, a fish who hangs around a sea anamonie?

We merely do what we do. Control is a human manifestation, particular to our way of existing. It has no 'absolute' reality, except in that absolution is a part of our consciousness establishing what is True for itself as an actual creature of the universe.

[lancek4]

Probability, probably, says only about the statistcal situuation of the moment. Projection of that into the future is self mediated; the situation at any moment is self established.

[lancek4]

Here is a good rebuttal from the 18th century, Kant, to SOB's. 'Distortion' theory:
(Critique of Pure Reason, ss9; kindle location 1171) -

"To say,then, that all our sensibility is nothing but the confused respresentation of things containing exclusively that which belongs to them as things in themselves, and this under an accumulation of characteristic marks and partial representations which we cannot distinguish in consciousness, is a falsification of the conception of sensibility and phenomenization, which renders our whole doctrine thereof empty and useless. ".

Or a the paragraph earlier:

"What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. We know nothing more than our mode of percieving them...".

So with this stated, the question I ask follows accordedly:

How is it that I knew this before I had ever heard of Kant ? How is it that when I read him, it was/is as if I was merely speaking to myself in my own head - but this had been written 300 ± years before I was born. ?

What is Truth?

[Mark Question]

We must continue to question all
Yes universe, our existence, life, all there is

must we?
is there anything at all?
why you have not answered my previous questions?
is it worth living?
why mcdonalds have no human meat burgers, have they?
Agnus Dei a la broche in fancy restaurants?

How is it that I knew this before I had ever heard of Kant ? How is it that when I read him, it was/is as if I was merely speaking to myself in my own head - but this had been written 300 ± years before I was born. ?

maybe kant brought his questions to spread among us in public debate already 300 years ago?
sorry my english. many miracles seems to have same kind of structure like this one. or like some one would say: elementary, my dear watson. but not the author.

[lancek4]

Thanks MQ. I have considered that perhhaps the residuum of ideas since Kant have created a particular discursive environment that has been met by me in my time.
But I cannnot believe I am unique in this respect. I would think that everyone has moments where something new to them is come uponn by them as already encountered. No?
Because, say, with reading of computers or plumbing or reading other philkosophical texts that center in math I hardly have such moments. But I bet some people do.

[MJA]

The only thing stopping you from seeing the truth is the untruth obscuring your vision.
Once the untruth is removed truth is all that remains.
Descartes had a good method for this.

=