Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:30 am**

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

=

LK4: Some would say: that is a contradiction. Within 'truth is' is an assumption of human potential defined along particular lines.
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]

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:42 am**

..nameless.. wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:I have no time for the class clown of a troll.
Such a fragile ego.
Well, me neither, so you may join '4' on my ignore. Bye.

nameless ,,???
I havn't read such shit since grok tried to crash Atheists vrs Skeptics ,
truth is you seem to make very little sense ,
it might help if you tell us some of your core beliefs ,
like if your a Bahai , that might explain why everything is TRUE ,
when in reality , not much is true and there is a whole heap of crap out there ,
we have got religion , hemeopathy , aliens ,
so tell us no name ,what is your religion/belief system ,
I'm an Atheist , there is no god , a true statement ,
therefore , god is real , is not a true statement .

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:59 am**

..nameless.. wrote:
What's stopping us from seeing the truth?
Perhaps a good reason is the toxically poor notion of 'either/or', 'true/false', me/you'... (Western philosophy) that is obfuscating our perception of the Truth that Truth/Existence/Reality is One, all inclusive.
That is the complete 'set', all other definitions that include your 'distinctions' and 'conditions' are subsets. Just as 'everything exists' is the complete 'set'. All definitions depending on 'exclusions' are 'subsets'.

We always see Truth, That which Is, a reason that we doubt it is that thoughtful dualistic perspective.
All the different descriptions/definitions of elephant are correct perceptions of the one Truth od Elephant! Though the ego's argue who's 'right', the complete elephant is defined as the sum-total of all Perspectives!

"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 duality is ego. All ego is thought.
Sometimes you make me laugh out loud. "All duality is ego. All ego is thought" huh?

Thus the religious teachings that thought/ego must be transcended to perceive our One-ness (enlightenment), Truth.

It is the inability of many to perceive 'That-which-Is', sans 'thought', that cannot see further than the dualist Perspective; "Me vs you sukka!"
Yes, dualism exists, and so does the One from which the duality has been, in 'thought', schizophrenically fragmented.

That schizophrenic rift that has been the hallmark of homo (schizo-) sapiens is finally healing, and we are become (evolving into) homo-novus, New Man. We are witnessing a world shaking (literally) birth right Now! Globally!

We are One and we will all see it and all live it. The schizo-sapiens will evolve or die off.
Either way, good riddance!

Goodness Gracious son, you've got to get a grip. While we could probably agree on some things, you seem to be too tweaked to give it a chance. You should always relax and not charge into a room like a raging rhino. It would seem that you've come here to 'tell' everybody things and that's the wrong attitude to take

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:22 pm**

Godfree wrote: I havn't read such shit since grok tried to crash Atheists vrs Skeptics

I really did expect more from the 'so called' philosophers gracing such a great magazine's forum.
I was obviously mistaken.
Gee, three on the ignore list in one night.
Anyone left worthy of philosophical communication?
Any subject can be respectfully examined, that is what philosophers do. You and your ilk don't. Seems that I stumbled in on some daisy chain (with, perhaps, few exceptions). I guess that I'll see.
I don't mind casting a pearl or two if there is at least one here who isn't a 'swine'!
So 'pleasant' talking to you.
Dismissed back to your daisy buddies.

(We do have something in common, though, you are 'Godfree' (intelligencefree, respectfree...) while I am Jackassfree!
You are Ignored.
Bye

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:28 pm**

Hi ..nameless..,

Welcome back, I missed you.

I'd love to chat but I'm really stuck for time.

Best pop me on your ignore list right away.

_________________
Don't follow this link!!

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:42 pm**

..nameless.. wrote:
lancek4 wrote: Oh, does that mean that perception is that which is known? I can agree with this version, but I would have to ask how we know what perception is.
Took me a moment to translate your format..
Perception? Existence. Reality. The act/moment of 'Self!' Knowledge.
How do you know what an itch is?
How do you know when you are hungry"
Next time you itch, doubt your perception and don't scratch it. Same when you are hungry. That we perceive is evidence a'plenty of it's existence.

Whether you believe everything or doubt everything, one eventually finds the same Truth!
-----LK4-- platitude. Great. Where's Typist? he'd dig this.

If you have nothing to say, please do.
If you have some sort of viable refutation, let's hear it. Personal attacks and remarks are amateurish and not philosophy.
Your ad-hom attack by calling what I said some 'name' is meaningless, philosophically or scientifically.
If someone says something that bothers your delicate sensitivities here, ask for clarification before declaring ignorance and wildly attacking. To tell you the truth, i expected more from the folks here. So much for expectations. Are you all divided up into your own corners of the schoolyard? Someone comes with a different Perspective and gets marginalized and bullied? Homey don't play that!

----LK4: got my hopes up there for a second...
And with that sad juvenility, welcome to my ignore list.

***************************

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Obviously with your thinking you'd fail a college level logic course as false does in fact exist.
Perhaps if you unclenched a moment and read what I wrote!
..nameless.. wrote: Everything Is! Everything exists!
I have witnessed the mediocre mindless parrots regurgitating the same crap, like zombies, spewing from the hallowed halls. Your unphilosophic ad-hom insult is meaningless and juvenile.
Nor does it refute anything.

Truth tables would seriously kick your arse.
Again, you don't manage to refute an iota of what I have said. Are you the best that those hallowed halls produce?
Going 'personal' is a sad sign of inability to philosophically refute something said that 'bothers' you (usually a 'belief').
If there is any particular point that you wish elucidated, that I have offered, if you care, just ask, but lets keep the disrespectful cheap personal stuff out of this. Philosophy is about 'critical thought', not personalities.

A good place to start;

Critical Thinking Mini Lessons
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons.html

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

Thanx

I'm gonna give a nod to Bills earlier thread:

I am you.

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:56 pm**

I might take you ignore as an indication of me feeling the same as you in your rebuttals.

I have given you sound argument and you offered the rebuttal : truth is and 'I ignore you!". So I retorted with childlike play.

I addressed your point, now address mine with something more than "it just all 'is', dood, come on, take another bong load".

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 3:41 pm**

Metazoan wrote:Hi ..nameless..,
Welcome back, I missed you.

Nice to be welcomed. Sweet! Thank you!
I'm a whole new updated version!

I'd love to chat but I'm really stuck for time.

Me too, anytime you like!

Best pop me on your ignore list right away.

So far you are completely unqualified! We'll see! *__-
I have no time anymore for mentally constipated schoolyard bullies or their disrespect.

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:45 pm**

..nameless.. wrote:
Metazoan wrote:Hi ..nameless..,
Welcome back, I missed you.
Nice to be welcomed. Sweet! Thank you!
I'm a whole new updated version!

I'd love to chat but I'm really stuck for time.
Me too, anytime you like!

Best pop me on your ignore list right away.
So far you are completely unqualified! We'll see! *__-
I have no time anymore for mentally constipated schoolyard bullies or their disrespect.

Yes, all 'is', but I have no time for bs in my dualistically informed life.

I have no time to give of my self to those who are Obviously not like me, so even as I say Truth Is, I am going to contradict myself and take the priviledge of asserting my separation from this other being.

Good instructive parable in it own right -

Shall we get back to discussion of the issue?

I think it was 'what is stopping us from seeing the Truth?'.

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:01 pm**

Dear

"Ultimately 'lies' are True as they are subsets of Truth. Locally, with definitional limitations ('exclusivity' rather than the 'inclusivity' (Oneness) of the 'Set') there are 'falsehoods'."

So then everything you hear is true and false depending on what?

"The flaw of classical science is the assumption of empiricism, which has been refuted by quantum, as has the obsolete notion of the 'independent observer'."

Are we not independent observers?

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman

The only laws of nature are the ones created by independent observation right?
But if there is no such thing then nature is truly lawless and free.

"All existence ('Self Knowledge') is one timeless Planck (almost 10^-43/sec; one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!) moment, Now!"

Was Planck the observer?
I think you should double check his measurements!

Thanks,

=

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:28 pm**

A Symposium

I’d love to have a symposium with Socrates, Einstein, and King, but will settle equally and happily with all of you. The menu is simple, it’s simply the Truth.
(Sorry for clarity no alcohol will be served)
Let’s eat!
First Course:
The flaw in our mentality is our continued practice and belief in measure or measurement. Science has proven nature to be truly immeasurable but unfortunately as of yet most including science itself has failed to move on. Probability is all we have today, QM, the grey area of fairness, of justice, a dice game. “Man is the measure of all things,” yet truly everything is immeasurable!
Main Course:
Einstein knew God or nature doesn’t play dice but unfortunately again science rather than searching for the absolute path went the most probable way instead, the wrong way. Beyond our path of measurements, of uncertainty or chance, beyond our judgments of good and bad, beyond our philosophies of East and West, beyond our theories and faiths, or beyond what you call relativity IS nature’s absolute; a truth more simple and more powerful than thought; the true Way.
Desert (The Cake):
There was an old Greek who asked his wife to follow him outside into the starry night so that he could show her the truth of the universe he had found. As they walked through the darkness the man stumbled and fell into a ditch. The woman began to laugh. The man became angry and asked why she found this so funny. She said you claim to know the truth of the universe yet you fail to know what is in front of your own to feet.
The Frosting:
The truth is not only in front of us All, it is us All.
Truth is!
Bon appetite,

=

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:53 pm**

..nameless.. wrote:
Godfree wrote: I havn't read such shit since grok tried to crash Atheists vrs Skeptics
I really did expect more from the 'so called' philosophers gracing such a great magazine's forum.
I was obviously mistaken.
Gee, three on the ignore list in one night.
Anyone left worthy of philosophical communication?
Any subject can be respectfully examined, that is what philosophers do. You and your ilk don't. Seems that I stumbled in on some daisy chain (with, perhaps, few exceptions). I guess that I'll see.
I don't mind casting a pearl or two if there is at least one here who isn't a 'swine'!
So 'pleasant' talking to you.
Dismissed back to your daisy buddies.

(We do have something in common, though, you are 'Godfree' (intelligencefree, respectfree...) while I am Jackassfree!
You are Ignored.
Bye

Translation , you are some sort of religious nutter ,
who wants to make everything true , so you can feel your religion is true ,
truth is religion is not true , religion is a fantasy ,
if you don't agree with that , think it's true ,
then you don't live in the real world .
you may have read about a few philosophers , seems you didn't understand much of what you read ,
I find people quote others because they lack the understanding to put it in their own words ,
are you ashamed of your belief system ,???
will you deny your god just to appear intelligent ,,???
because believing in god , isn't very bright ,
only children could believe such nonsense , are you still a child ,,???

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:48 pm**

Godfree wrote:
..nameless.. wrote:
Godfree wrote: I havn't read such shit since grok tried to crash Atheists vrs Skeptics
I really did expect more from the 'so called' philosophers gracing such a great magazine's forum.
I was obviously mistaken.
Gee, three on the ignore list in one night.
Anyone left worthy of philosophical communication?
Any subject can be respectfully examined, that is what philosophers do. You and your ilk don't. Seems that I stumbled in on some daisy chain (with, perhaps, few exceptions). I guess that I'll see.
I don't mind casting a pearl or two if there is at least one here who isn't a 'swine'!
So 'pleasant' talking to you.
Dismissed back to your daisy buddies.

(We do have something in common, though, you are 'Godfree' (intelligencefree, respectfree...) while I am Jackassfree!
You are Ignored.
Bye
Translation , you are some sort of religious nutter ,
who wants to make everything true , so you can feel your religion is true ,
truth is religion is not true , religion is a fantasy ,
if you don't agree with that , think it's true ,
then you don't live in the real world .
you may have read about a few philosophers , seems you didn't understand much of what you read ,
I find people quote others because they lack the understanding to put it in their own words ,
are you ashamed of your belief system ,???
will you deny your god just to appear intelligent ,,???
because believing in god , isn't very bright ,
only children could believe such nonsense , are you still a child ,,???

I prefer the arrogant fools who can stand up to other arrogant fools, rather than the pompous fools who run away and ignore.

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:52 pm**

MJA wrote:A Symposium

I’d love to have a symposium with Socrates, Einstein, and King, but will settle equally and happily with all of you. The menu is simple, it’s simply the Truth.
(Sorry for clarity no alcohol will be served)
Let’s eat!
First Course:
The flaw in our mentality is our continued practice and belief in measure or measurement. Science has proven nature to be truly immeasurable but unfortunately as of yet most including science itself has failed to move on. Probability is all we have today, QM, the grey area of fairness, of justice, a dice game. “Man is the measure of all things,” yet truly everything is immeasurable!
Main Course:
Einstein knew God or nature doesn’t play dice but unfortunately again science rather than searching for the absolute path went the most probable way instead, the wrong way. Beyond our path of measurements, of uncertainty or chance, beyond our judgments of good and bad, beyond our philosophies of East and West, beyond our theories and faiths, or beyond what you call relativity IS nature’s absolute; a truth more simple and more powerful than thought; the true Way.
Desert (The Cake):
There was an old Greek who asked his wife to follow him outside into the starry night so that he could show her the truth of the universe he had found. As they walked through the darkness the man stumbled and fell into a ditch. The woman began to laugh. The man became angry and asked why she found this so funny. She said you claim to know the truth of the universe yet you fail to know what is in front of your own to feet.
The Frosting:
The truth is not only in front of us All, it is us All.
Truth is!
Bon appetite,

=

So, is the flaw 'the way' we measure? Or is it 'that' we 'are measuring' ?

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:07 pm**

Godfree wrote:I havn't read such shit since grok tried to crash Atheists vrs Skeptics

..nameless.. wrote:I really did expect more from the 'so called' philosophers gracing such a great magazine's forum.
I was obviously mistaken.
Gee, three on the ignore list in one night.
Anyone left worthy of philosophical communication?
Any subject can be respectfully examined, that is what philosophers do. You and your ilk don't. Seems that I stumbled in on some daisy chain (with, perhaps, few exceptions). I guess that I'll see.
I don't mind casting a pearl or two if there is at least one here who isn't a 'swine'!
So 'pleasant' talking to you.
Dismissed back to your daisy buddies.

(We do have something in common, though, you are 'Godfree' (intelligencefree, respectfree...) while I am Jackassfree!
You are Ignored.
Bye

Godfree wrote:Translation , you are some sort of religious nutter ,
who wants to make everything true , so you can feel your religion is true ,
truth is religion is not true , religion is a fantasy ,
if you don't agree with that , think it's true ,
then you don't live in the real world .
you may have read about a few philosophers , seems you didn't understand much of what you read ,
I find people quote others because they lack the understanding to put it in their own words ,
are you ashamed of your belief system ,???
will you deny your god just to appear intelligent ,,???
because believing in god , isn't very bright ,
only children could believe such nonsense , are you still a child ,,???

lancek4 wrote:I prefer the arrogant fools who can stand up to other arrogant fools, rather than the pompous fools who run away and ignore.

I hear you lance, I'm sure you all know by now that I have my problems/limits that I'm working on improving everyday. I've only ignored Chaz and BobEVenson. Chaz for name calling, and Bob because of this religious SPAM! Maybe it's cowardly by some standards but my emotional plate is currently full enough as it is. So I prefer balanced psyches meshing with my slightly off kilter one. I just can't stand people that have the arrogance to assert that their knowing supersedes another's because I know that in fact 'no one does.' We all have beliefs though. Hey part of me wishes we were that close to perfection (knowing all) at least then the lines between good and evil could be definitively drawn, (where good is that which supports other life and evil is that which destroys other life, because you have every right to destroy your own, and that's it, unless it's in defense.)

Philosophy Now Forum

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?