What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[chaz wyman]

Well I'll be.. I go away for a few days the the Canaries and what do i find?

TEN pages added to this voluminous thread!
ANd most of it regurgitations of previously stated opinions!

Was it not bas enough coming home to a dead water boiler- no heat or hot water!

[chaz wyman]

Hey AUK,
I was attempting to cloase my eyes and think of something that exists and not exist at the same time.

Honestly, the first thing I thought of was a unicorn. But that thing might be too vague, too easy for argument. You couldn't have had in mind a mythological beast.

Then I thought of electrons. Uncertainty principle. Is this what you had in mind in your offer?

A large PINK bear!

There is NO pink bear. Forget the Pink bear!
No close your eyes and what do you see?
Ahahahah!
Yes, you can't remove that image from your mind can you?
Does that mean it exists?
It exists in your imagination, but was never real - so does not exist.

[chaz wyman]

Hey AUK,
I was attempting to cloase my eyes and think of something that exists and not exist at the same time.

Honestly, the first thing I thought of was a unicorn. But that thing might be too vague, too easy for argument. You couldn't have had in mind a mythological beast.

Then I thought of electrons. Uncertainty principle. Is this what you had in mind in your offer?

A large PINK bear!

There is NO pink bear. Forget the Pink bear!
No close your eyes and what do you see?
Ahahahah!
Yes, you can't remove that image from your mind can you?
Does that mean it exists?
It exists in your imagination, but was never real - so does not exist.

[lancek4]

Hey ! If I hold the screen with Chaz's last two ( repost) posts up close to my eyes, I get it in 3D !! Does that exist? I mean is what he posted really three dimensional?

[lancek4]

I have used 'realize' as meaning: to make real. When one 'realizes' as Truth, it is that which has been 'supplied' that the individual may may have reality.

For example: Chaz's 'atheism'. He says it has 'no content' in that as a poisition it is simply a negation of that which has "content', namely, theism.
Yet one cannot exist without the other, together they supply a 'true' reality: the condition of knowledge.

Thus I have said that to say 'truth is' is to indicate a particular condition of knowledge that is our moment. Only through the preceding posts (in this case) can more than one of us 'agree' what it means

It is otherwise, and upon subsequent analysis, a platitude, an empty statement, because it only gains it meaning thru the discourse surrounding. If I posit that it indicates a 'universal' or 'static' condition which applies at all times, like it is an 'actual' condition, it is because we ourselves are denying our ability to come upon a 'true' reality, a 'true' meaning in 'actual' terms between us, and likewise are asserting the reality of the platitude as if such thing actually is not a truism or merely a saying that expresses fultilty of our endeavor.

Well Put!

Why, thanks Chaz.

And I think I have the priveledge of eleciting from you the shortest response from you to a post - next to "idiot. ".

[chaz wyman]

Hey ! If I hold the screen with Chaz's last two ( repost) posts up close to my eyes, I get it in 3D !! Does that exist? I mean is what he posted really three dimensional?

If you look hard enough, the PINK bear turns into a green one too!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Here you go Lance, that which you love is coming, namely discourse!

I have used 'realize' as meaning: to make real. When one 'realizes' as Truth, it is that which has been 'supplied' that the individual may may have reality.
"to make real" conjures up images of artificiality. I think it more correct to say "to understand real."

For example: Chaz's 'atheism'. He says it has 'no content' in that as a poisition it is simply a negation of that which has "content', namely, theism.
Yet one cannot exist without the other, together they supply a 'true' reality: the condition of knowledge.
While it's true that the words and thus their concepts cannot exist for humans without the other, the objects referenced in their meaning can exist despite our knowledge as well as independent of each other.

Thus I have said that to say 'truth is' is to indicate a particular condition of knowledge that is our moment. Only through the preceding posts (in this case) can more than one of us 'agree' what it means
I believe it's accurate to say that anyone stating that 'truth is' is indicating that they know that the matter has an absolute understanding regardless of their actually knowing. If you and I are in a cabin in the woods and hear a noise outside, you may say, in truth it was a bear, and I may say, in truth it was a tree trunk rubbing against another, while we both acknowledge that the 'truth' of the sound 'is' in existence, neither of us actually know the truth of it, while it's truth was the acoustics of a creaky old cabin settling. To say that 'truth is' is not to indicate a 'particular condition' of knowledge, but that a particular truth can give way to a particular bit of knowledge, but only if we find all the evidence that negates any shadow of doubt. To say there is a truth to the matter is not to say that you know what that truth is, it's only to say that there is one despite whether you currently know it or not.

It is otherwise, and upon subsequent analysis, a platitude, an empty statement, because it only gains it meaning thru the discourse surrounding.
Personally, I say it, indicating that it can be found, it is not meant to be profound. And discourse does not necessarily give it meaning, as it may require observation (empirical data).
If I posit that it indicates a 'universal' or 'static' condition which applies at all times, like it is an 'actual' condition,
It does indicate that.
it is because we ourselves are denying our ability to come upon a 'true' reality, a 'true' meaning in 'actual' terms between us,
It asserts that we may have the ability, but is not conditional upon our agreement.
and likewise are asserting the reality of the platitude as if such thing actually is not a truism
the reality of the statement is a truism
or merely a saying that expresses fultilty of our endeavor.
It expresses that of hope; that we shall eventually know.

[lancek4]

Here you go Lance, that which you love is coming, namely discourse!

I have used 'realize' as meaning: to make real. When one 'realizes' as Truth, it is that which has been 'supplied' that the individual may may have reality.
"to make real" conjures up images of artificiality. I think it more correct to say "to understand real."

----LK4: Realize, as I mean it in the context, is the 'reality' that is presented to the individual at that moment, understood. As if I do not understand it, it has no for reality for me; hence, I have 'realiized': it has become real in that moment of understanding. But this is not inreference to some 'actual' except as what is 'actual' is related to the understanding that I just realized.

Only with reference to a stable (absolute) term/definition that is assumed in the positing of understanding may I understand that other 'reality' that I have termed. In this case, only in the sense that an 'actual' is a stable term (referencing an absolute) or 'has become' static in meaning may someone 'realize' something. But that it has become real; what is 'actually' real has no 'real' basis except in the context of the individual 'realizing'.



For example: Chaz's 'atheism'. He says it has 'no content' in that as a poisition it is simply a negation of that which has "content', namely, theism.
Yet one cannot exist without the other, together they supply a 'true' reality: the condition of knowledge.
While it's true that the words and thus their concepts cannot exist for humans without the other, the objects referenced in their meaning can exist despite our knowledge as well as independent of each other.

----LK4: I'm sorry SOB, I gotta ask again: how do you know this? How do you know that there is an absolute object if exactly when you would find it in understanding it too would be questioned? How would you know when you found this 'actual true thing'.

I offer an answer: exactly when you realize it.




Thus I have said that to say 'truth is' is to indicate a particular condition of knowledge that is our moment. Only through the preceding posts (in this case) can more than one of us 'agree' what it means
I believe it's accurate to say that anyone stating that 'truth is' is indicating that they know that the matter has an absolute understanding regardless of their actually knowing. If you and I are in a cabin in the woods and hear a noise outside, you may say, in truth it was a bear, and I may say, in truth it was a tree trunk rubbing against another, while we both acknowledge that the 'truth' of the sound 'is' in existence, neither of us actually know the truth of it, while it's truth was the acoustics of a creaky old cabin settling. To say that 'truth is' is not to indicate a 'particular condition' of knowledge, but that a particular truth can give way to a particular bit of knowledge, but only if we find all the evidence that negates any shadow of doubt. To say there is a truth to the matter is not to say that you know what that truth is, it's only to say that there is one despite whether you currently know it or not.


--- LK4: how does one priviledge particular terms? Which terms are up for question and which are not?

To say 'truth is'. Is no different than saying 'you big'. It only gains meaning at the moment it is proposed. It means nothing by itself, but it is usually used in a way as if to indicate something 'more than', typically 'the most' truth there is, which is a religious type position which claims to 'know' the Truth. Such a statement 'truth is' is intimately involved with an assertion of a particular form of knowing. It cannot be dismissed from the immediate context in which it is used.




It is otherwise, and upon subsequent analysis, a platitude, an empty statement, because it only gains it meaning thru the discourse surrounding.
Personally, I say it, indicating that it can be found, it is not meant to be profound. And discourse does not necessarily give it meaning, as it may require observation (empirical data).
If I posit that it indicates a 'universal' or 'static' condition which applies at all times, like it is an 'actual' condition,
It does indicate that.

-----LK4: sorry; again: how do you know this? Only be definition. The only object that you know is that object that you know - that's it. There is no 'in-itself' actual object that rests statically 'out there' somewhere BEYOnD your knowing such a condition.

And then we retrun to an eariler part of our discussion:
Where you describe this necessity of ' beyond relative knowledge' and I rebut again: how do you escape your own condition of relative truth sufficiently to be able to 'know' there is an Ab True object? And you say something which effects 'because there must be' and reference a 'tree', say, And I say: that sounds like the ontological argument for the existance of god




it is because we ourselves are denying our ability to come upon a 'true' reality, a 'true' meaning in 'actual' terms between us,
It asserts that we may have the ability, but is not conditional upon our agreement.
and likewise are asserting the reality of the platitude as if such thing actually is not a truism
the reality of the statement is a truism
or merely a saying that expresses fultilty of our endeavor.
It expresses that of hope; that we shall eventually know.

-----LK4: ahh hope - that there 'is' a 'truth', because 'truth is'. ?

[lancek4]

Btw - the previois post has my replies as :

---- LK4:


(blkbrry can't do the color or quote function very well - its an annoying excersize to try. Lol. ).

[Arising_uk]

Hey AUK,
I was attempting to cloase my eyes and think of something that exists and not exist at the same time.

Honestly, the first thing I thought of was a unicorn. But that thing might be too vague, too easy for argument. You couldn't have had in mind a mythological beast.

Then I thought of electrons. Uncertainty principle. Is this what you had in mind in your offer?

Whatever it is you have thought of, now think of that same thing in the same way existing and not existing at the same time.

[lancek4]

Hey AUK,
I was attempting to cloase my eyes and think of something that exists and not exist at the same time.

Honestly, the first thing I thought of was a unicorn. But that thing might be too vague, too easy for argument. You couldn't have had in mind a mythological beast.

Then I thought of electrons. Uncertainty principle. Is this what you had in mind in your offer?

Whatever it is you have thought of, now think of that same thing in the same way existing and not existing at the same time.

Definitionally, this is not a difficult task. Or I do not follow your point. What are you trying to indicate here?

I can easily situate that book there as not existing because I am comfortable in its 'metastable facticity'. (Great terms, eh?).

[zexwiththeuniverse]

All different types of people cannot see the truth for all different types of reasons. Some people do not want to see the truth, especially if the truth hurts.
Some people have defense mechanisms to ignore the truth or avoid it. Some people are not sensitive enough to see the truth. Some people are satisfied and do not care about the truth. Some people are deceived as to what the truth is. Truth is subjective. Studies have been done on participants to recall events and to communicate what the truth is about those events. These people's stories all ended up being different. But they were all communicating what they thought was the truth. There is also truth with a small t and truth with a capital T. You can decide what that means for yourself. The people that can see the truth and feel the truth are going to be people that are extra sensitive and hypervigilant. Most sensitive personality types are hypervigilant and these types of people not only tend to be well aware of the truth but seem to have a painfully emotional connection to the truth since we all know that knowing the truth is not always in our best interest. Furthermore what do people do when they know the truth? Is that the next question? Seeing it is one thing but what about the action taken when people do see it?

[Arising_uk]

... I can easily situate that book there as not existing because I am comfortable in its 'metastable facticity'. (Great terms, eh?).

Try situating that book as not existing and existing there in its 'metastable facticity' at the same time.

[lancek4]

... I can easily situate that book there as not existing because I am comfortable in its 'metastable facticity'. (Great terms, eh?).

Try situating that book as not existing and existing there in its 'metastable facticity' at the same time.

Would this then be like concieving of Jesus?

[lancek4]

Kants intent with his Critiques was to delimit the tendancy for people to reason any way they they want and call it Truth, as if the reasoning itself was sufficient to reveal truth; basically, what sophistry is.

He thought he could take 'reason' as an Absolute object and get it to what it actually 'is' or 'does' and thereby come to a stable 'science of mind': a True metaphysics.

But his was just another form of 'synthetical' proposition, another type of sophistry.

It took another 100 some years for Wittgenstien to see this.