What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

.

Oh , I misread before, on my blackberry - how it reads is difficult sometimes compared to my computer --

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.
honesty in our represnetaions, a small truth, relative --


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.honesty in our represnetaions, a small truth, relative

The second type of Truth has more to do with consciousness and states of consciousness.big T; ultimate.



did you edit this post ?



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 have this funny feeling that Truth or ultimate Truth would be a wordless moment. Perhaps we would ultimately relate to what we would consider to be ultimate Truth or Satori symbolically. In a symbolic way. Still being fully conscious, or fully self conscious, but in an altered state, a higher state of consciousness.

I would tend to agree and say that ultimate truth is silent - but the the problem we have, which I have said before, is How we bring this silence to have voice.

If I wish to communicate this silence, I must be careful to use the rational and logical rules of dicourse, but in a certain way that remains true to the ultimate truth from which I arrive. I must be careful not to posit a metaphysical reality that cannot be verified except through subjective experience. I mus be careful not to rely upon as assumption of what Being Human may be. I must stick to the rules of discourse as well as the rules of evidence, in that what I speak must be able to be verified between parties. But in doing this I must be careful not to cater to populism or a need to be accepted; I must speak the truth.

This has been an awesome thread.



I thank EVERYONE who has participated.



I am the way, the truth, and the light.






.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





...............................................





Could it be a change of being?


A change of consciousness?


Could it be a way that we look at ourselves?




Could it be that Truth or our best understanding of Truth, by it's nature must be, in the end, silent; wordless?




Self-consciousness?



Symbols?






.

[lancek4]

I would say: indeed, in the final analysis, just after - the Truth may indeed be wordless, silent.

But I would also say: that's it? Shall I go up to my mountain now, then. ?

And, if I have an obligation at all to my fellow travellers in this world, and the world itself, must I not speak? And what happens then to truth?

So, I guess the big question is then how do we/ does one reconsile these 'Truths' ? For I am incapable of avoiding this world right now. Maybe typist has the answer? Or sanjay or (crap; his name). Z ? Or Bill? What's up?

[lancek4]

Her is something weird and metaphysical:
(This is about as rediculous and metaphysical as I get. Lol).
Perhaps we are attatched to the world or manifest or are manifested to the world in the same stroke as language. In as much as language prevades our inner and outer existence. We cannot dismiss ourselves from langauge. Even in the moment that some would call 'thoughlessness' or 'transcendnetal mediatation' we are 'trapped' by language in that we always come 'back' to having language formed around it. And perhaps this phenomenon, language, (that is, as indicated here, language is one way of speaking about thought, and thought one way of language) is insepaerable from existance. So that the problem is solved for us. But then we come back to the issue of this thread:
Why do some 'see' this, and others do not?

Could it be a 'purpose' that is ultimately beyond us. That against this offensive notion we 'create' our purpose, whether it be struggle or contentment? And live our lives in segragation ever proclaiming our 'created' truth?

That is until we give up and have faith in a greater purpose that is true.

Quite metaphysical huh?
Ahhhhh ooooooohhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm.



Ok - back to the drudgery !

[Godfree]

.





...............................................





Could it be a change of being?


A change of consciousness?


Could it be a way that we look at ourselves?




Could it be that Truth or our best understanding of Truth, by it's nature must be, in the end, silent; wordless?




Self-consciousness?



Symbols?






.

I must say Bill you like to use a lot of space in your posts ,
like trying to make up for the lack of substance by stretching it out ,,???
the words will ad up to the same if you just type them in ,
the wisdom will not be lost because you didn't fluff it up ,,!!!
Truth Bill , what is stopping us from seeing YOUR TRUTH ,
isn't that what this is really about ,
So you need to state , what your truth is ,
then we can tell you what if anything is stopping us from seeing or believing your truth ,!!!
I have in a previous post answered your question ,
the answer is , "a lack of impartiality"
the ultimate truth as you put it , is what I call reality ,
in reality there is no god or devil ,
I presume your ultimate truth has a whole lot more religion in it ,,!!
I like to cut through the crap , straight to the heart of the matter ,
You are religious , and you want us to see your truth ,
face it Bill , what you perceive to be the "TRUTH" ,
is in my opinion ignorance ,mythology and not true at all, !!!!

[lancek4]

Godfree, you still have not addressed the question:
How does one gain impartiality? Can you explain to me how your view of being impartial is not partial? With reference to what are you or is one impartial ?

See, because I see Bill as being as impartial as one can be? He offers 'something spoken' (or texted), a kind of floating statement, and then he watched what responses the statements elicit.

I would say, in that you see Bill as promoting a type of Truth shows your partiality in projecting upon Bill an antogonism. Where I think he does very well at not offering definitive assertions. If he has a truth he thinks we should all have, he is doing it through a method that most of us do not use because we are interested in promoting and arguing what we see as true.

So I am arguing against your truth of 'lack of impartiality'. That your truth is not true, and that I will not see it because I am still looking to be shown by someone/ everyone what may be true, would seem to place the impartiality in my court, but yet I do not assert my impartiality.

How is this? Can we discuss or shall we proclaim?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.





As the above posts acutely exemplify, I am so appreciative of this forum and the members who participate here.


This thread began April 14, 2011 with a simple title and one stock image. That's all. That was it!

To my amazement and resignation and we are approaching 1500 posts upon this thread from various active and reflective members. I am thankful for them ALL.




I have my personal relationship and conception of what Truth is. I have grown immensely during the 9 months that have transpired upon the journey of this particular thread.



For me, part of the success of What's stopping us from seeing the truth? is the fact that I have have been able to infuse the non-linear elements into my posts here.


My use of images, font size, use of structured Bold, Italic, and Underline features, space, framing of posts, links, GIFs, reference to videos, extensive use of Wiki, acknowledgment of current events, use of metaphors, and simplistic or casual mode of speech allows me to stretch or expand our experience here.


I am attempting to use and understand the most accessible mode of philosophical communication for this medium for the greatest number of people.




When you workout with your physical body it is a process that involves tension. If your doing it right your muscles will feel sore-in a good way, for the next day or two. That is the same way here. Intellectually, we are reluctant to step beyond our comfort zone. If we are to expand as philosophers and as members here we need to make the effort. An effort that will initially not feel comfortable but will ultimately make us stronger.




I will continue trying and using even more non-linear avenues whenever possible.





The attainment of Truth or the relationship each one of us have with what we know or understand Truth to be NEEDS TO BE mental, physical, emotional, and instinctive; Our total being.

As a true philosopher, I know that.



I am a porthole to, what I hope will be, an expanded view of the true meaning or goal of all real philosophy and that is, to get out of our head and engage our entire being in our conception of self and our pursuit of Truth. Wisdom will follow...um, if there is such a thing as wisdom.
















..................................................................




Philosophy is seeing something common in an uncommon way...













.

[lancek4]

Thanks for that beating a dead horse in a new way Bill. . I think my head hurts.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


You're doing it right!


.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Whew! I was temporarily unable to post replies. I was silenced!!

Chaz you are halarious!!!

Yes, godfree .. You were included in the initial post of mine concerning screennames. (We just moved the keg to another room and didn't tell any body)

You assert that you are free of god, yet ironically you rely upon an effect of a 'god' to posit your freedom.

strange view , I see it that god is a burden , of which I am free ,
I was free to start with , and I didn't let god take away that freedom ,
the concept of god , is just a control mechanism ,
do you have a desire to be controlled ,,????

You're not at odds with a creator you are at odds with the old standard man-made god of old and all the writings associated with him.

For me and my version of the possible creator, which is just fanciful, but then I would assert that all beliefs of any godlike entity, so to speak, are fanciful, is just energy that goes around and creates, it does not have any human qualities at all, except the ability of consciousness, but on a much larger scale. There is nothing but uncontrolled freedom in my version of the creator, except for the obvious imperatives that can be said to go without saying in light of the creation.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You're not beating a dead horse if you make some headway, however slight. I have found that communication can be difficult amongst different people, and that sometimes you have to lay some ground work of commonality before you can argue the differences of opinion. I still don't understand some peoples need to seemingly try and make explanation difficult.

[lancek4]

Maybe we could alter our tac again in this discussion.

Since 'here we are', we posit a creator of 'this here-ness, as the world and such.

Is it knowable?
If so, in what way? If not, why?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Godfree, you still have not addressed the question:
How does one gain impartiality? Can you explain to me how your view of being impartial is not partial? With reference to what are you or is one impartial ?

See, because I see Bill as being as impartial as one can be? He offers 'something spoken' (or texted), a kind of floating statement, and then he watched what responses the statements elicit.

I would say, in that you see Bill as promoting a type of Truth shows your partiality in projecting upon Bill an antogonism. Where I think he does very well at not offering definitive assertions. If he has a truth he thinks we should all have, he is doing it through a method that most of us do not use because we are interested in promoting and arguing what we see as true.

So I am arguing against your truth of 'lack of impartiality'. That your truth is not true, and that I will not see it because I am still looking to be shown by someone/ everyone what may be true, would seem to place the impartiality in my court, but yet I do not assert my impartiality.

How is this? Can we discuss or shall we proclaim?

Do you think the lack of face to face communication has any effect on proclamation versus discussion?
personally I believe that it does to some extent, as Bill offered somewhere, a large percentage of communication is non-verbal. I think these non-verbal visual cues give rise to discussion, because you acknowledge a human transaction. Here I'm writing as in a book where you have to illuminate meaning such that you may tend to tell the story instead of listening to a campfire story teller or engaging one another in a round table discussion.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Maybe we could alter our tac again in this discussion.

Since 'here we are', we posit a creator of 'this here-ness, as the world and such.

Is it knowable?
If so, in what way? If not, why?

Some ground rules??
I say lets leave any preconceived ideas of a god behind and only use a sort of newage logic from our relative perspectives. In other words lets not spend time either proving or disproving the man made god of old. Lets forge new territory in the possibility.

I believe that proof is something one should look at first. The fact of so many requirements for life as we know it, can be said to be indicators of creation. But then you can also see a chance percentage, due to the age and size of the universe.

Another consideration I recently acknowledged is that I believe it's kind of arrogant that we consider that only we, a so called product of chance, to be the only entities that are capable of creation. To me it seems more logical that those of creation ability were of creation.

[lancek4]

Maybe we could alter our tac again in this discussion.

Since 'here we are', we posit a creator of 'this here-ness, as the world and such.

Is it knowable?
If so, in what way? If not, why?

Some ground rules??
I say lets leave any preconceived ideas of a god behind and only use a sort of newage logic from our relative perspectives. In other words lets not spend time either proving or disproving the man made god of old. Lets forge new territory in the possibility.

I believe that proof is something one should look at first. The fact of so many requirements for life as we know it, can be said to be indicators of creation. But then you can also see a chance percentage, due to the age and size of the universe.

Another consideration I recently acknowledged is that I believe it's kind of arrogant that we consider that only we, a so called product of chance, to be the only entities that are capable of creation. To me it seems more logical that those of creation ability were of creation.

Is there a possibility of a personal creator (god) one which communicates or listens or other wise interacts with the individual, or is there only dellusion, neurosis and insanity ?