LK4: Some would say: that is a contradiction. Within 'truth is' is an assumption of human potential defined along particular lines.lancek4 wrote:SpheresOfBalance wrote none of whats in the quote window below and thus the original window.SpheresOfBalance wrote:Gentlemen...
On 'Truth';
The entire Universe (only is One!), every moment of existence, constitutes the entirety of Existence.
Existence is all inclusive!
I would equate the entirety of existence, with Reality Realityh is all incusive!
'Truth' must, being 'based' on the Universe/Reality, must also be all inclusive!
Thus, everything exists, everything is Real, everything is True!
Every unique Perspective, every moment of existence, perceives a true feature of the complete Truth/Reality...
"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
All inclusive!
It's ALL True!
We no longer need to reinvent the wheel in questioning anything's Reality or Existence or Truth! We can accept that it is True, and, if we are interested, find out 'how' it's True!
That would be a win/win/win... rather than a battle of egos. All would have 'greater Perspective' of Reality/Truth/'Self!'!
How you ask:
Simply remove any measure, uncertainty or doubt.
Truth is All that remains.
Truth is
=
SOBHPlease explain how you see this is a contradiction as I see no "assumption of human potential defined along particular lines," in the statement "Truth Is."
LK4:In order for there to be a knowing of such 'truth is', a concordant 'doubt' must exist: thus togther they must be True - yet this too must be doubted.
You say an "agreeing doubt; a harmonious doubt." "Doubt" implies potential disagreement. It's like saying a black white or a white black.
Hence the contradiction which find itself resolved by an Absolute - which cannot be except in reflection of the potential for relativity.
SOB: It sounds like you're trying to say that there can be no black because there is a white; there can be no up because there's a down.
---LK4: just the opposite: there must be both.
Resume:
Hence the asserted position of 'god': the Absolute Object at which we cease to be human, a purpose by which I am negated for my own comfort.
SOB: Why you think even for a second, that absolute has anything what so ever to do with a god is beyond me. Sounds like presumption based upon archaic belief to me.
[/quote][/quote]
I am saying that when we include 'eVerything' or 'all that is' in our proposition/idea of what is real, reality, then the inherent contradictions are solved by positing the 'real' as "contradiction means that point of incorrection or absolute falsity or falacy". Where this point 'exists' as 'the Real' or 'absolute truth' (point of contradiction=point of falacy or non-truth) a denial of part of reality is operative. This 'space' or 'position' that is denied functions for the 'true/real' as that which Allows for that which is now True: the effect of this 'silence' can be, or is often come upon by default, God.
The idea of God (spirits, mutilple gods, etc..) arrives, likewise, in three forms:
1. The denied space is 'come upon': this is the 'religious' type positing oof God (or gods) as a spiritual, supernatural or otherwise anthropomorphic entity or animismistic entity. This is the typical route likewise of arguments for atheism.
2. The denied space is not come upon, or is 'fully denied'. This is the 'position' from which atheists make their claim. But, to our knowledge and logic, there is still this space which informs that which we might know. When we say 'there can be no black without white' we are relying upon a logical proposition of sufficient inclusion. Where we draw this logic and apply it to every position (positing), we cannot but bring it upon our own 'knowledge' ('knowledge' as another 'thing', another position) and see it too must have another 'position' which informs its ability or capacity to exist.
If we do not admit this 'other position', or include it in a potential of an unknown (that is 'to be or will be known), then we are in effect of a 'god' element: in as much as the term 'god' implies a operateing element which must be 'in-itself' in the same way and character as black must be to white or vice versa. Here, it makes no difference for meaning whether we term the 'in-itself' as "god" or "absolute truth" or "absolute true obejct", because the relation is the same.
3) The space is come upon as denied. This is the sythesis of 1 and 2 as dualistic holding for 2 through the logic suspended in and which defines 2. Her is the rationalist/empricist who adopts a 'nautural spirituality' as a sort of practice which supports the 'truth is' type proposition. But this (3) is also the 'zen-bhuddist' type 'god', which uses the term 'god' ambidextrously (sp?), at once to deny it in a positing of an 'enlightenment', and then to posit it in the 'accepting fully that is said to be denying' achievement of such enlightenment. But the effect is still that of an 'outside' or 'unaccounted for' or 'silent' space which allows for and thus informs us what knowledge may be as true/false.
But this is discursive space, a necessity of how we may know.[/quote]
