What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

<snip>
...the elemental contrary reality of my view...
<snip

So Lance, do me a favor and pick the 'one(1)' fundamental contrary element in contention between our arguments and lay it out in an 'easy' to discern method so that I can try and see it for what I believe it to be, then I shall provide you feedback.

[lancek4]

Perhaps a statement to analyze:

'The king is dead; long live the king'.

[lancek4]

<snip>
...the elemental contrary reality of my view...
<snip

So Lance, do me a favor and pick the 'one(1)' fundamental contrary element in contention between our arguments and lay it out in an 'easy' to discern method so that I can try and see it for what I believe it to be, then I shall provide you feedback.

That's what we've been doing, I thgought.

Let's see...
How to do this.

In our discussioin about Truth, we came to the problem of Absolkute Truth. (Of course, correct me where I am wrong). I contend that there is no Ab Truth that we can speak of without it being relative, that is, in our debate together, we find a stalemate: you assert, as our definition, thgat the actual holds withhin it an Ab Truth. I asseert that your assertion reveals no Ab Truth but only relative truth.

[chaz wyman]

<snip>
...the elemental contrary reality of my view...
<snip

So Lance, do me a favor and pick the 'one(1)' fundamental contrary element in contention between our arguments and lay it out in an 'easy' to discern method so that I can try and see it for what I believe it to be, then I shall provide you feedback.

That's what we've been doing, I thgought.

Let's see...
How to do this.

In our discussioin about Truth, we came to the problem of Absolkute Truth. (Of course, correct me where I am wrong). I contend that there is no Ab Truth that we can speak of without it being relative, that is, in our debate together, we find a stalemate: you assert, as our definition, thgat the actual holds withhin it an Ab Truth. I asseert that your assertion reveals no Ab Truth but only relative truth.

SoB is a superior being and has a hotline to God, where Absolute truth was never a problem.

[lancek4]

In considering our latest posts, I came to consider Chaz position on atheism where he has said as rebuttal to mine and others assertions, that 'atheism has no content'.

This has brought me by Kant; it seems that our point of contension may be one of 'form' versus that 'matter' which seeks reconcilment with the object.

It may be that SOb is 'stuck' in the Truth of the latter where as I am speaking of form against the possibility of the Truth of the matter.

Any comments?

[chaz wyman]

In considering our latest posts, I came to consider Chaz position on atheism where he has said as rebuttal to mine and others assertions, that 'atheism has no content'.

This has brought me by Kant; it seems that our point of contension may be one of 'form' versus that 'matter' which seeks reconcilment with the object.

It may be that SOb is 'stuck' in the Truth of the latter where as I am speaking of form against the possibility of the Truth of the matter.

Any comments?

SoB is in a delusional state common amongst many; that is objectivism. He assumes that by taking the received wisdom, and absorbing the opinion of the many that he has achieved the ability to find the absolute and objective truth. Such a delusion ignores the lessons from anthropology and history (of those open enough to listen) which demonstrate that truth is contingent on cultural factors, endemic assumptions and the dogmatic assertions of the ruling hegemony.

Truth is always relative. It is that which relates to the state of affairs and the interpretation, perception and opinion of the subject who is commenting on that state of affairs. There is always a relational distance between the object the perception and the interpretation by the subject

[SpheresOfBalance]

Take note before you read this that I'm not a tactician and my methods are crass, I apologize.

<snip>
...the elemental contrary reality of my view...
<snip

So Lance, do me a favor and pick the 'one(1)' fundamental contrary element in contention between our arguments and lay it out in an 'easy' to discern method so that I can try and see it for what I believe it to be, then I shall provide you feedback.

That's what we've been doing, I thgought.

Let's see...
How to do this.

In our discussioin about Truth, we came to the problem of Absolkute Truth. (Of course, correct me where I am wrong). I contend that there is no Ab Truth that we can speak of
Both agree and disagree. I would rephrase as: "I contend that there is some Ab Truth that we can speak of and some that we can't..." I contend that this is true because we come as a resultant (at the relative end) of a lot of it, such that we had to start with nothing to grunts and groans to hunting and gathering to complicated forms of language to organized farming to telescopes and we are still trying to reverse engineer through thought and empirical data to traverse the 13 billion years to come to terms with all that 'AbTr' that still escapes us.

without it being relative,
Some is only relative to now, no now, no now, get it. Each minute some scientist/thinker is pushing the envelope some place on our globe thus incrementally increasing our knowing the 'AbTr.' Thus anytime someone says that truth is relative, is really a testament to their not knowing (their belief). Anyone choosing to say I know that it's relative, is actually their arrogance showing through because of their inability as seeing themselves as anything less than perfect. Peoples egos give way to their arrogance. It's better to label their not knowing AbTr as realitive so that they can maintain their egos up high. Humility is hard for most. I would say that for many to be here with their word smithing is a testiment to what I mean. They believe that if they can create a back and forth so called logic that is complicated then it elevates their egos high. It allows them to believe that they are philosophers (ego-arrogance). The relative viewpoint is one catch all that allows for the maintaining of their egos high (arrogance). I look in the mirror and say I'm nothing, I'm just like all others, I am not a follower nor shall I ever be a leader). My belief 'AbTr' say's we currently do not know 'all' that is in fact but that we shall eventually, this then is a testament to humility.

that is, in our debate together, we find a stalemate:
Our stalemate is that you claim that you know that it's relative so you have to go no further (you know it all), mine is that I don't know because it's absolute and currently beyond my knowing, I have to go further (I don't know it all). Mine is that of humility, yours is that of arrogance.

Look at the way we interpreted Socrates. Mine is of humility while yours is of arrogance.

But you are younger than me and still immortal, it is to be expected.


you assert, as our definition, thgat the actual holds withhin it an Ab Truth.
This is absolutely true!

I asseert that your assertion reveals no Ab Truth but only relative truth.
It is not meant to reveal any particular 'AbTr' It's just to specify the nature of truth. You want it to 'reveal' 'AbTr' so that you can know it, and since it does not yield the knowing of all 'AbTr' you hide in the lie of relative truth to secure your knowing, ego and arrogance. You care more about yourself as the know'er than the true nature of humankinds current status in knowing. You want it all and you want it now, so it's relative. I can wait, I'm comfortable with the fact that I don't know, but that it's out there and shall eventually be found, if we don't kill ourselves off first. I am humbled by truth, you want to conquer it and it can't be done now, it is not the time of it's time in terms of human understanding, so to you it's relative. This idea allows you to be right, it allows you to know, at all costs. And it creates chaos, as when truth is relative 'all' things go without saying. Death by your own belief system!

Do not take it personal, I'm really speaking to those that take your side of the argument, not you in particular. In haste (which is ambiguous/relative), I couldn't think of a better way to put it.

[lancek4]

Indeed perhaps I am arrogant in my humility.

I would say that the Ab Truth that can be spoken about (form) is a negotiation of discourse for any moment. It says nothing of any 'actual' reality, only the reality that is actualzed in the negatiation of discourses between peoples. To encompass an umbrella around all humans under an 'actual' Ab Truth is to assert an ideology of power.
Therein lay the arrogance.
Perhaps you might do well to read Paulo Friere "Pedagogy of the Oppressed".

[SpheresOfBalance]

Indeed perhaps I am arrogant in my humility.
You are definitely not humble if you believe that truth is relative and thus you can wield it just as easily as the next person despite the fact that they both collide as opposing forces. That is arrogance (and naiveté), not humility. It's obvious that you have no conception of the actuality of "the front."

I would say that the Ab Truth that can be spoken about (form) is a negotiation of discourse for any moment.
Give an example of something that is only true because we agree through our talking about it that can change tomorrow.

It says nothing of any 'actual' reality, only the reality that is actualzed in the negatiation of discourses between peoples.
Here I'll give you an absolute truth: the matter that makes up the earth is currently in an approximately spherical shape. This truth is not relative, it is absolute, please don't try and pull semantics out of your bag of tricks. If someone does not know it, then this truth is not relative, it remains absolute, it is merely not known by that individual and lies in wait until such time that they know, or not!

To encompass an umbrella around all humans under an 'actual' Ab Truth is to assert an ideology of power.
But there is an ultimate power common to all on planet earth, call it a 'big bang,' if you will.

Therein lay the arrogance.
Wrong, this twisted view of yours allows for your personal arrogance to reign supreme so that you may do as you please because of your selfishness. Arrogance is in the individual self proclaimed power in denying that which is actually the unifying power, i.e. big bang or what have you. only a fool would say that 'all' humans don't share a common origin of power, what ever that may be.

Perhaps you might do well to read Paulo Friere "Pedagogy of the Oppressed".
Perhaps you should not assert that some writing is necessarily true, merely because you've read it and it suits your selfish needs.

[lancek4]

Indeed perhaps I am arrogant in my humility.
You are definitely not humble if you believe that truth is relative and thus you can wield it just as easily as the next person despite the fact that they both collide as opposing forces. That is arrogance (and naiveté), not humility. It's obvious that you have no conception of the actuality of "the front."

I would say that the Ab Truth that can be spoken about (form) is a negotiation of discourse for any moment. It says nothing of any 'actual' reality, only the reality that is actualzed in the negatiation of discourses between peoples. To encompass an umbrella around all humans under an 'actual' Ab Truth is to assert an ideology of power.
Therein lay the arrogance.
Perhaps you might do well to read Paulo Friere "Pedagogy of the Oppressed".

I'm sorry, this argument of arrogance based in an assertion a relative truth, I think is a weak argument. So you are saying that discussing something with someone presumes arrogance, whereas discussing something with someone with a presumption of absolution is humble?

Equality of humanity can only be founded upon at least a presumption of a level playing field, where all have equal potential for input and consideration. This is called relative. The truth of any matter is determined by the equal contribution of individuals in negotiation.

To proceed into a negotiation as if there is an Ab Truth is to preclude the possbility of resolution in that absolute, which, btw, is exactly what 'science' works upon and toward. And what informs our stalemate here.
I would say that it is Your (sob) presumption of AT that sees in my proposals and quaetions that I am attempting to lead you into conclusions that I have not made myself. Of course I can attempt to 'think ahead' in argument to where I anticipate such dynamic may lead, but I am left without any confirmation of what may be true Except that which is revealed in that discussion as it lay. In that in this thread, it appears to me that you stop the discussion when you think I am leading you - and this, it seems to me, stems from a presumption of what you see as True, and in that it 'bahaves' as such for you, you will not allow it to be breached.
Hence, the stalemate and the veracity of relative true vs an arrogance from it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Refresh Lance I edited, you only got a partial, sorry!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Refresh Lance, I hit "submit" in my previous by accident so I edited.

I'm sorry, this argument of arrogance based in an assertion a relative truth, I think is a weak argument. So you are saying that discussing something with someone presumes arrogance, whereas discussing something with someone with a presumption of absolution is humble?


Relative truth: places truth in the individual hands = Arrogance!

This places the self at the center, the supreme entity like that of the big bang.

Absolute truth: places truth in the universes hands, removing the individual from the equation = Humility

This places the self below that of the actual big bang, below that of our causal such that we are just the effect as in fact it actually is.


A relative truth has always been and shall always be the source of humanities problems. Coming to terms with the actual absolute truth yields equality for all and is the only way it can happen.

[lancek4]

Refresh Lance, I hit "submit" in my previous by accident so I edited.

I'm sorry, this argument of arrogance based in an assertion a relative truth, I think is a weak argument. So you are saying that discussing something with someone presumes arrogance, whereas discussing something with someone with a presumption of absolution is humble?


Relative truth: places truth in the individual hands = Arrogance!

This places the self at the center, the supreme entity like that of the big bang.

Absolute truth: places truth in the universes hands, removing the individual from the equation = Humility

This places the self below that of the actual big bang, below that of our causal such that we are just the effect as in fact it actually is.


A relative truth has always been and shall always be the source of humanities problems. Coming to terms with the actual absolute truth yields equality for all and is the only way it can happen.

Ah, an interesting twist. You are saying: definition. Ok; I agree. The situating of R and A Truth in such definition has creedence.

Mine is that in actual interaction between humans to speak of Truth makes Truth defacto relative. To SPEAK of an Absolute Truth contradicts itself. Thus, I refered this to Kant who deals with this oddity.

Thus, I say - not excluding myself from my own propositions (like above): somehow I still think there is an Absolute. Thus, it is not so much as what is Absolute as how we speak of it. And thus, your definition above of relative and absolute is all you can say of what may be absolute, except with consideration of Kant or Wittgenstein - who can be ued to guide us in our assertions.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Refresh Lance, I hit "submit" in my previous by accident so I edited.

I'm sorry, this argument of arrogance based in an assertion a relative truth, I think is a weak argument. So you are saying that discussing something with someone presumes arrogance, whereas discussing something with someone with a presumption of absolution is humble?


Relative truth: places truth in the individual hands = Arrogance!

This places the self at the center, the supreme entity like that of the big bang.

Absolute truth: places truth in the universes hands, removing the individual from the equation = Humility

This places the self below that of the actual big bang, below that of our causal such that we are just the effect as in fact it actually is.


A relative truth has always been and shall always be the source of humanities problems. Coming to terms with the actual absolute truth yields equality for all and is the only way it can happen.

Ah, an interesting twist. You are saying: definition. Ok; I agree. The situating of R and A Truth in such definition has creedence.

Mine is that in actual interaction between humans to speak of Truth makes Truth defacto relative. To SPEAK of an Absolute Truth contradicts itself. Thus, I refered this to Kant who deals with this oddity.

Thus, I say - not excluding myself from my own propositions (like above): somehow I still think there is an Absolute. Thus, it is not so much as what is Absolute as how we speak of it. And thus, your definition above of relative and absolute is all you can say of what may be absolute, except with consideration of Kant or Wittgenstein - who can be ued to guide us in our assertions.

It's funny that you mention Kant, because recently I realized that as to the subject of "Time" I see it as he, and thus Gottfried Leibniz see's it.

[lancek4]

It's funny that you mention Kant, because recently I realized that as to the subject of "Time" I see it as he, and thus Gottfried Leibniz see's it.

How is that?
time and space as the only things that exist analytically apriori?