What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[chaz wyman]

As to the elephant parable:

As these men are 'knowing' not the whole elephant but only individually the tail, the trunk, etc.

Can these men get together and speak to each othe about their experiences so that together thay may alll come to know the whole elephant? Or not?

A collection of partial descriptions of an elephant in the dark could never really say; elephant.
You could spend a year of your life with elephants everyday and they could still surprise you.

[Arising_uk]

... Can these men get together and speak to each othe about their experiences so that together thay may alll come to know the whole elephant? Or not?

What do you mean by "elephant"? Come to that what do you mean by the "whole elephant"? Is that not a heffalump or oliphant?

[lancek4]

... Can these men get together and speak to each othe about their experiences so that together thay may alll come to know the whole elephant? Or not?

What do you mean by "elephant"? Come to that what do you mean by the "whole elephant"? Is that not a heffalump or oliphant?

"Nellie the Elephant packed her trunk and jumbled off to the cirrrcuss .." (Joke -sily song reference)

Anyways -

Interesting take you guys. Both approach at their angles what I was thinking;

Is there indeed an elephant? Is the parable speaking of what we could call 'subjective' experience, where 'truth' Is what each of these seekers experience, the 'elephant' being that which is implicated by the narrorator, as a seer of the 'bigger picture' ? This would be the bigger picture inferred by the individuals each having various truths, that then these apparent truths must be partial truths which together amount to the whole elephant. The elephant which is always only inferred (but not implicated) but never attained by the group intercommunication because each is always 'trapped' in the 'truth' that is their truth (the tail, the trunk, etc).

Or

Is it talking about the 'implicative' truth, which can be found if the seekers get to gether and talk about their individual truths, and thus may be able communally to gain the whole picture of the elephant itself?

But then what is the narrorator? If he is someone who has come to know of the elephant then, it would seem, he was of the latter quality of knowledge, but if he were of the latter then it would seem the prarable would loose its profundity, its significance, for it would hardly take such a parable to explain to people what is apparent in eceryday experience. No?
But if he were of the former, how could he be, for he would be merely another speaking of his truth as if it were the elephant when it is really just another 'part', merely another 'truth' proclaiming to be 'the truth'.

[SpheresOfBalance]

sob would be blind man too according to his stories about all men sharing and learning from their findings about the elephant

Sorry MQ but you must have eaten a funny mushroom, because I have never related such a story, That's sanjays story.
I hope it's just the translation issue!

yeah, i was talking to him or her. but, what you think about his or her story about the elephant and the blind men? is it a short story about your stories or not? why? are we philosophically speaking blind and you are not or are we philosophically speaking more blind than you to see the truth you see? dont be shy.
Seriously Mark I really don't know why you have a hard on for me. I have never asserted that I am all knowing. I am SIMPLY sharing my views, and when I do, and someone refutes my claims I do likewise because they are mine. They are like my child. Do I think my view has merit? Of course I do. Do you or anyone else have to buy into it? Of course not! I am NOBODY! Who are you? Why do you come here? To fuck with people. If so then GO fuck with yourself, because I'm not here for you enjoyment, I'm here for mine. And that is to share my ideas, and to find like minded people. I actually came here to find wise humble people that I may learn from. I really like Sanjay's demeanor. I believe him to be a mature, honest and good man. I also like Ron De Reijze I think he's very mature and also a good, honest man. Some can be cheeky, (at least one of which has given me their time, which I really appreciate, they have allowed me to grow, not that I'm done, and I thank them), which is fine. Some are utter Assholes, pricks, self centered fools. Amongst these where do you belong? Am I perfect? Hell no! Now how honest can you be with your self?

Thus according to my understanding (1st def) nothing can be both realized as truth and then argued as not truth unless they be fools, because that which is 'realized' (to grasp or understand clearly) is that, that is 'real' (true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent). What is real, is 'true' (being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact) What is real, true and exists is 'absolute' (viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic).

why not nothing can be both realized as truth and then argued as not truth? is it only a question of how you define the truth? like if you define the god as: the creator of all and master of the universe? is it truth to atheist or not? or can there be other ways to define god like: the creator of all and master of the universe to those who believe god? can we also say more precisely that the definition you use for the truth is: truth is all that exists, to you? or like: What is real, is 'true' to you? You and I have a different understanding of truth. Neither an atheist nor a theist speak truth because their ideas are not verifiable. To me theists and atheists ONLY have 'belief,' AND THAT IS ALL. That's how I see it. Do you know anything about programming? The word truth was created to indicate an absolute, (a CONSTANT). Belief is (a VARIABLE), a random number or character.

[lancek4]

I am going to juxtapose two thoughts, for I think this this issue at hand:

The Actual, as our definition eariler, appears to me to be correspondant with evolution, science and the like, where humans are likewise determined by such knowledge.

The contradiction involved with an indication of Absolute, and belief of individuals.

How might such a unniverse of actual bring about humans that cannot really know but do know through not being able to know ? What is chemistry that is our 'actual' basis?
Or even, what is this elephant that is seeming of an opposite of actual?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



We cannot see the truth. Thus, we are unable to understand the nature of truth. Therefore we are unable to understand the nature of untruth.



We are literally trapped in the middle. We exist entirely in purgatory. There is no escape.




.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I am going to juxtapose two thoughts, for I think this this issue at hand:

The Actual, as our definition eariler, appears to me to be correspondant with evolution, science and the like, where humans are likewise determined by such knowledge.

The contradiction involved with an indication of Absolute, and belief of individuals.

How might such a unniverse of actual bring about humans that cannot really know but do know through not being able to know ? What is chemistry that is our 'actual' basis?
Or even, what is this elephant that is seeming of an opposite of actual?

Are you talking about a parallel universe, lance? I believe it is a falsehood to say "cannot really know" and that the truth is that we "do not currently really know" And of course that is in reference to things that we do not currently really know. Because there are many things that we do currently really know that we once didn't. History answers your question, Lance. It shows how we came to know that which we know. There was a program on television called "Connections." It was all about the interconnectedness of inventions and how they give way to newer ones in sequence. That is how it is with everything. We minutely find solution as knowledge, sequentially on the backs of previously understood truths as they permeate our consciousness. Each generation starts in the construct of knowledge of the previous generation and then builds their construct of knowledge for the next generation. There is a difference between coming to terms with knowledge in ones lifetime and being born into a world of pre-established knowledge as a foundation.

Of course the same thing applies to your "not being able to know" which I believe is translated to "not being able to currently know."

I believe that the problem with your view is impatience. Your solution makes it all known now, now, now, now, now. Could you possibly be from the US?

[lancek4]

.



We cannot see the truth. Thus, we are unable to understand the nature of truth. Therefore we are unable to understand the nature of untruth.



We are literally trapped in the middle. We exist entirely in purgatory. There is no escape.


Aaarrrrrhhhhh! Omg that is too funny ! I Know That one has Got to be a tounge firmly planted in cheek.

But ok, ill roll with it.
From where do we gain purgatory?
But hey, how could hell be any worse?
"Pity..pity..on the millions of ignorant poeple.. Pity..pity.. On the future of centuries to come... Pity..pity...on the masses of agression. ".

.

But indeed we are. And we will not tolerate it (sartre) and so we rebel -

Pity...pity.. Its all a matter of looking at the past. Its all a question of how long will we last. If we endure the aggression that's inside of us, will we wipe out our own species and thus ..the World. Ahhhh
Pity! Pity! On the billions of ignorant people. Pity ..pity.. On the future of centuries to come...on the masses of aggression.

[lancek4]

I am going to juxtapose two thoughts, for I think this this issue at hand:

The Actual, as our definition eariler, appears to me to be correspondant with evolution, science and the like, where humans are likewise determined by such knowledge.

The contradiction involved with an indication of Absolute, and belief of individuals.

How might such a unniverse of actual bring about humans that cannot really know but do know through not being able to know ? What is chemistry that is our 'actual' basis?
Or even, what is this elephant that is seeming of an opposite of actual?

Are you talking about a parallel universe, lance? I believe it is a falsehood to say "cannot really know" and that the truth is that we "do not currently really know" And of course that is in reference to things that we do not currently really know. Because there are many things that we do currently really know that we once didn't. History answers your question, Lance. It shows how we came to know that which we know. There was a program on television called "Connections." It was all about the interconnectedness of inventions and how they give way to newer ones in sequence. That is how it is with everything. We minutely find solution as knowledge, sequentially on the backs of previously understood truths as they permeate our consciousness. Each generation starts in the construct of knowledge of the previous generation and then builds their construct of knowledge for the next generation. There is a difference between coming to terms with knowledge in ones lifetime and being born into a world of pre-established knowledge as a foundation.

Of course the same thing applies to your "not being able to know" which I believe is translated to "not being able to currently know."

I believe that the problem with your view is impatience. Your solution makes it all known now, now, now, now, now. Could you possibly be from the US?

It could be impatience.
But I think I evidence patience quite, in our continuing discussions.

See, I am refering to our discussion earlier in this thread. To sum, you have said that 'we currently don't know' and that we do not know to what extent we are knowing the absolute truth of any matter; to wit, that we cannot know what truth they may know in the future and that indeed they may know in the future, of our truth now, that it is/was non-sense. For example, for all we know now, in the future they may say 'they used to think that the sun is the center our solar system, but we know no the moon is the actual center', that no matter how rediculous we might think it now, the future may have found out such truth; we can't know and to this extent our truth is relative.

I do not deny that there is a sensibility, a logic to how knowledge is linked together. I merely propose that it is but one scheme, not an absolutely true scheme but one scheme which bases itself around a static absolute and that this absolute actually changes as the discourse changes, like 'the pot of gold is at That end'.

Such a position of which I indicate is not one of impatience but of huge patience because I endeavor to find this Truth, and have patience to look barring nothing, under and behind every sacred cow, every proposal (even mine), instead of having the 'impatience' that settles into 'hope' which are the catered absolutes, conveniently showing up at various discursive junctions as if indicating The One Stable Absolute.

And so I am asking you, addressing the present: if you right now, you who are proposing this 'actual/absolute truth', know the universe through a 'vehicle' of knowledge that shows up for you in a potential by which you cannot discern whether your knowledge is 'of the absolute' (since, as you have said, we cannot know what truth the future may have) or is of 'distortion', how can you say that any of what you know reflects the absolute truth of the universe?

If your positing of 'actual truth' and 'distortion' of truth is based upon a situation of knowledge where you cannot know what may or may not be actually true (or of the absolute), what is the point of asserting such an absolute that is known only through the potential to be merely relative? Hope??

Are you hoping that your arguments have veracity?

I would say that it is the hope invested in the Absolutely True Object that is the impatient position.

[MJA]

As to the elephant parable:

As these men are 'knowing' not the whole elephant but only individually the tail, the trunk, etc.

Can these men get together and speak to each othe about their experiences so that together thay may alll come to know the whole elephant? Or not?

No matter how you measure and divide the Universe,
The elephant as is the truth are simply and equally just One.

=

[lancek4]

As to the elephant parable:

As these men are 'knowing' not the whole elephant but only individually the tail, the trunk, etc.

Can these men get together and speak to each othe about their experiences so that together thay may alll come to know the whole elephant? Or not?

No matter how you measure and divide the Universe,
The elephant as is the truth are simply and equally just One.

=

That's so great and faithfully platitudinous. Is there a possibility of what you just said not being True? Let's be philosophical about this:
What would that possibility be?

Perhaps we can get together and discover the elephant. Why not?

[MJA]

As to the elephant parable:

As these men are 'knowing' not the whole elephant but only individually the tail, the trunk, etc.

Can these men get together and speak to each othe about their experiences so that together thay may alll come to know the whole elephant? Or not?

No matter how you measure and divide the Universe,
The elephant as is the truth are simply and equally just One.

=

That's so great and faithfully platitudinous. Is there a possibility of what you just said not being True? Let's be philosophical about this:
What would that possibility be?

Perhaps we can get together and discover the elephant. Why not?

You will need no faith or possibility when it comes to truth,
Truth simply is, are you?
And as for getting together, I am, are you?
Reminds me of a song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEo9Bh679wM

They are singing about the elephant,
Do you know, yourself?

=

[lancek4]

[qAs to the elephant parable:

As these men are 'knowing' not the whole elephant but only individually the tail, the trunk, etc.

Can these men get together and speak to each othe about their experiences so that together thay may alll come to know the whole elephant? Or not?

No matter how you measure and divide the Universe,
The elephant as is the truth are simply and equally just One.

=

That's so great and faithfully platitudinous. Is there a possibility of what you just said not being True? Let's be philosophical about this:
What would that possibility be?

Perhaps we can get together and discover the elephant. Why not?

You will need no faith or possibility when it comes to truth,
Truth simply is, are you?
And as for getting together, I am, are you?
Reminds me of a song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEo9Bh679wM

They are singing about the elephant,
Do you know, yourself?

=[/quote]

Yes; I know myself. And I could say that this knowing is the Whole truth.
But I cannot deny that there is an apparent otherness conditioning my wholeness. I must engage with it as it is presented to me as other.
And so we have discourse and discussion

Otherwise I would just sit on my mountain in my cave and never say anything to anyone -because my Truth is all there is, I would not need anyone else.

[MJA]

Once you find the truth,
It must be practiced, lived and shared.
The old Eastern Masters thought the truth could not be spoken,
So they lived on a mountain being or living true to themselves
But I think the truth can be lived as well as spoken, it only can't be heard.
That is what brings me hear.
If you are ever fortunate enough to find something so valuable that you can't wait each day to share it, to tell the world what truth you have found, that my friend is what truth is All about.
Fortunately the truth is just me,

=

[lancek4]

Once you find the truth,
It must be practiced, lived and shared.
The old Eastern Masters thought the truth could not be spoken,
So they lived on a mountain being or living true to themselves
But I think the truth can be lived as well as spoken, it only can't be heard.
That is what brings me hear.
If you are ever fortunate enough to find something so valuable that you can't wait each day to share it, to tell the world what truth you have found, that my friend is what truth is All about.
Fortunately the truth is just me,

=

I can appreciate the sentiment. I am skeptical about reducing all such 'masters' to having found the 'one' truth; as it is of oneself.
Thus we have the issue at hand: discourse. How is this truth being expressed, and do the expressions really reveal a one truth.

I would suggest that what you speak about with 'must tell other' is being expressed at all times; indeed we have the various yogas, some which indicate an ignorance of one's own expression.

What such an idea proposes though reduces to mere practice, and in that I agree with that it is being expressed at all times everywhere, such a reduction is useless - except for thgose who have already had the experience. So I reject mere practice (because it is manifest) and see discourse as the sigificant element in what may be True. Not as 'truth is' platitude of method.