The Philosophy Discussion Forum

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Those that believe in Theism know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in Atheism know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in the Object know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in the Subject know not truth, necessarily.
If we do not self extinguish, which is likely, the truth shall eventually be revealed as the reality of the universe unfolds. Only then shall any of those previously mentioned truly know anything about truth other than their potential ignorance of it.

It is premature, arrogant, impatient, and absurd for any human to even consider for a nanosecond that they have the definitive answer as to the truth of the universe. All one can truthfully say is to echo Socrates, when he said: 'I only know that I know nothing.' Only when considering this can you begin to finally understand anything else.

Arising_uk wrote:

Mark Question wrote:do you have no faith that ice picks can hurt you? ...

Is this one of those Nordic language things that Notvaka pointed out? I.e. "faith" means "belief" in your language? As I think it "I know that ice-picks can hurt me" rather than have a "faith" or "belief" that an ice-pick can hurt me.

chaz wyman wrote:

Mark Question wrote: do you have no faith that ice picks can hurt you? whats the difference being systematically
faithful to any belief system and how does official religions differs from materialism or realism in that?

NO, I don't need FAITH to tell me that ice-picks can hurt - I have experience that sharp things can hurt.
The difference IS this experience - against faith, which is believe without experience or evidence.

lancek4 wrote: 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' ?

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



I only know that I know nothing.


I did not mean to confront or offend anyone in my above post.

I used the term purgatory which, as I look back at it, was a mistake.


I had no intent of invoking religion as opposed to atheism.


I was thinking of mankind in general. We are lost.

Lost between two extremes that we are unable to discern; truth and untruth.


That is what I meant to share.


I only know that I know nothing.





.

Godfree wrote:

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Those that believe in Theism know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in Atheism know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in the Object know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in the Subject know not truth, necessarily.
If we do not self extinguish, which is likely, the truth shall eventually be revealed as the reality of the universe unfolds. Only then shall any of those previously mentioned truly know anything about truth other than their potential ignorance of it.

It is premature, arrogant, impatient, and absurd for any human to even consider for a nanosecond that they have the definitive answer as to the truth of the universe. All one can truthfully say is to echo Socrates, when he said: 'I only know that I know nothing.' Only when considering this can you begin to finally understand anything else.

Those that know Atheism know not truth, necessarily , but possibly ,???
surely that leaves room for some Atheists to know truth ,,??
the truth of the universe ,
we know some truths ,,,we evolved , that is true ,,!!
the earth revolvers around the sun , that is true ,,,
the question most people want answered is ,
how did we come to be ,
what started it , what happens when we die ,, etc
the answer for a lot of people is god ,
but god is not the truth , god is not true or real ,
god is what the ancients used as truth because to quote Socrates ,
"I only know that I know nothing"
that would be true of most people in those times ,
unfortunately not much has changed ,
but we do know some truths , so heres a question for you fundy's ,
does the truth we know so far ,
support or discredit religion in your view ,,,???

SpheresOfBalance wrote: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 f*** with people. If so then GO f*** 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?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: 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.

Mark Question wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: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 f*** with people. If so then GO f*** 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?

calm down and be logical. sorry that i dont buy your children without test driving them for real. do i have to buy if "Of course not!"? yes, no, yesno? do you think you know why i come here if "To f*** with people"? if so then "I'm not here only for you enjoyment, I'm here for mine too." i "came here to find wise humble people that I may learn from." and you came "to share my ideas, and to find like minded people."? l think theres enough room for two in this forum, do you? and maybe more than two, i hope. why i am hard also to simple car dealer if he has family and all? if i want cheap and good car then i dont want two cars. i dont want two truths from you, if i ask "What's stopping us from seeing the truth?", honest and good like sanjay? thank you and sorry.
Look Mark it would seem that you're insulting me on a regular basis, can't you make a point without condescension? If I am incorrect and it's merely a function of our language differences, then I apologize. If not then I stand firm, I do not mesh well with those that like to argue by attacking each others persona. Sometimes this can snowball/escalate due to misconception. I'm sorry that I can't speak your language and would ask you to bear with me as I try and make heads of tails of your meaning. I would also ask that you try and use verbiage that does not sound as though you are attacking my person. I do sympathize with your position because I have tried, unsuccessfully, to learn French. In the interest of effective argument, let us try and be civil.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: 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.

are you speaking more true than some others, are you thinking better than some others, according to whom? you? like-minded? your idols? masses? are you humble man, honestly? why you see that ideas have to be verifiable to be true? do you see that we have to see it too, like honest fanatical islamists or militant christians see their god and try to save us or help us to f*** off? or do you like to talk in the church of the like-minded or in the same ideas club? or do you think again?
In computer programming, a constant is an identifier whose associated value cannot typically be altered by the program during its execution (though in some cases this can be circumvented, e.g. using self-modifying code). interesting. could you self-modify your "truth"? does that sound like learning?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_(programming)

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Those that believe in Theism know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in Atheism know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in the Object know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in the Subject know not truth, necessarily.
If we do not self extinguish, which is likely, the truth shall eventually be revealed as the reality of the universe unfolds. Only then shall any of those previously mentioned truly know anything about truth other than their potential ignorance of it.

You can talk about it, to death, but it still stands of it's own accord, because that's the definition of truth. It is that which is actual, the ultimate understanding of reality, that which pre/post exists us, That which does not require our understanding or knowledge that cannot be swayed to our belief. It is the final solution, the answer.

-->>>



It is out there and not in here, because in here was born of out there. Out there is believed to date back about 14 billion earth years and nothing only existing a mere 200 thousand years could possible have a clue, especially considering we were only able to see the smallest fraction of it a mere 500 years ago, and that man has only haphazardly navigated from 356,400 km to 406,700 km of the 93 billion light years of the 'observable' universe. Do you actually have any idea of the disparity?

It is premature, arrogant, impatient, and absurd for any human to even consider for a nanosecond that they have the definitive answer as to the truth of the universe. All one can truthfully say is to echo Socrates, when he said: 'I only know that I know nothing.' Only when considering this can you begin to finally understand anything else.

Wher I have inserted ">" above is where I see the discepancy actually occurring. Before >, I follow how that much can be said to be a good synopsis of what we may know as Absolutely true.

After >, is where the discrepancy is revealed by opposing view, is where actual belief operates.
Lance, all of what I said is belief, and I assert that your line delineates your personal need to go no further. That you desire not to go beyond that line in agreement, for what could be, many different reasons. You could simply be as hard headed as I am, the SOB that I am. I respect your right and need to stay there. Who the hell am I anyway?

But I submit that I can prove it to you eventually...

The issue is see then is whether such Ab truth can be found thhrough the 'actual' object (how you describe post >) or not. That is, through what means of knowing will the AT be found?

...I submit that all one has to do, is look to history to view the future. To a cave man this is the future as was the classical Greek period. To the classical Greek period, those days of the cave man was history and today is the future. Once, man did not know of rubbing two sticks together to yield fire (abs T). How did he come to know this absolute truth? Well it's no doubt that fire first came to man from the 'heavens,' (history/belief) or rather the 'thunder clouds.' (future/abs T). It's easy to see a 'God' (belief) from that caveman's perspective. But by the time of the classical Greek period, two sticks rubbed together to yield fire (future abs T), was a no brainer. He probably noted that the heat that radiated from the fire to keep him warm was the same as that of rubbing two things together (friction/abs T) and that the amount of heat produced was variable, directly proportional to the speed and force applied (abs T) and concluded that this relationship might yield enough heat to create a fire, as it was one of the components of fire, and that the wood was what the fire burned (empirical evidence, of an abs T). Today we have little plastic (future abs truth) containers with a liquid fuel that is converted to a gas as pressure is reduced (future abs T) via a mechanical valve (future abs T) when a rough steel wheel is rubbed against a piece of rock (flint), which is actually quite an old technology, not very future at all, from our perspective. If you want to argue that potentially there are other components that are as yet unseen that may contribute to these abs T's I've referenced, then I submit that as a part of the whole of it, they do not negate the parts that we already know, they shall just be appended.

So it is only obvious that we shall continue in this way until we come to know all of the absolute truth, no matter the amount of time it may take, unless of course we kill ourselves off/or some other catastrophe spells our end first.

It may be that I lack patience in the way of the object, but if one understands what sartre, levinas, and hiedegger, amoung others, are saying, then I think I have the utmost patience

Well Lance it's true that I have not yet read any of those people. But even thought I haven't I'm sure you'll agree that just because someone writes something and is recognized for it does not necessarily mean that they are correct in their findings, which I'm sure you understand, is not to say they're not either.

I shall say this though, that one of the most valuable bits of knowledge that some of my professors related to me was that what is taught from books in college is not only about what one should embrace but some is all about what one should not embrace. And I understood that it's not always spelled out for you. Sometimes you have to rely on simply making the right choice. I'm sure you realize this. Look at how many schools of thought their are on a specific topic. Here are a few of their names: Empiricism, Idealism, Rationalism, Constructivism, Infinitism, Foundationalism, Coherentism, Foundherentism, Correspondence, Coherence, Constructivist, Consensus, Pragmatic, and the list goes on. Which is right, and which is wrong; which should be merged with which, if at all, to arrive at the abs truth?

I have not read these men to know of their thoughts and ideas. At this point though I believe they may modify some minor points but I seriously doubt that they'd change my mind altogether. Of course I could be wrong. But what I've found is that it would seem that at least some philosophers cared more about their own personal wealth and providing data for continued university funding than they did answering the questions of philosophy. Oh mind you they sell you a veritable convoluted journey through the intricacies of language. Some even seemingly create new words that have actually already been acknowledged so as to give illusion of something new. I'm not saying your guys are those guys, I don't know!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Those that believe in Theism know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in Atheism know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in the Object know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in the Subject know not truth, necessarily.
If we do not self extinguish, which is likely, the truth shall eventually be revealed as the reality of the universe unfolds. Only then shall any of those previously mentioned truly know anything about truth other than their potential ignorance of it.

You can talk about it, to death, but it still stands of it's own accord, because that's the definition of truth. It is that which is actual, the ultimate understanding of reality, that which pre/post exists us, That which does not require our understanding or knowledge that cannot be swayed to our belief. It is the final solution, the answer.

-->>>



It is out there and not in here, because in here was born of out there. Out there is believed to date back about 14 billion earth years and nothing only existing a mere 200 thousand years could possible have a clue, especially considering we were only able to see the smallest fraction of it a mere 500 years ago, and that man has only haphazardly navigated from 356,400 km to 406,700 km of the 93 billion light years of the 'observable' universe. Do you actually have any idea of the disparity?

It is premature, arrogant, impatient, and absurd for any human to even consider for a nanosecond that they have the definitive answer as to the truth of the universe. All one can truthfully say is to echo Socrates, when he said: 'I only know that I know nothing.' Only when considering this can you begin to finally understand anything else.

Wher I have inserted ">" above is where I see the discepancy actually occurring. Before >, I follow how that much can be said to be a good synopsis of what we may know as Absolutely true.

After >, is where the discrepancy is revealed by opposing view, is where actual belief operates.
Lance, all of what I said is belief, and I assert that your line delineates your personal need to go no further. That you desire not to go beyond that line in agreement, for what could be, many different reasons. You could simply be as hard headed as I am, the SOB that I am. I respect your right and need to stay there. Who the hell am I anyway?

But I submit that I can prove it to you eventually...

The issue is see then is whether such Ab truth can be found thhrough the 'actual' object (how you describe post >) or not. That is, through what means of knowing will the AT be found?

...I submit that all one has to do, is look to history to view the future. To a cave man this is the future as was the classical Greek period. To the classical Greek period, those days of the cave man was history and today is the future. Once, man did not know of rubbing two sticks together to yield fire (abs T). How did he come to know this absolute truth? Well it's no doubt that fire first came to man from the 'heavens,' (history/belief) or rather the 'thunder clouds.' (future/abs T). It's easy to see a 'God' (belief) from that caveman's perspective. But by the time of the classical Greek period, two sticks rubbed together to yield fire (future abs T), was a no brainer. He probably noted that the heat that radiated from the fire to keep him warm was the same as that of rubbing two things together (friction/abs T) and that the amount of heat produced was variable, directly proportional to the speed and force applied (abs T) and concluded that this relationship might yield enough heat to create a fire, as it was one of the components of fire, and that the wood was what the fire burned (empirical evidence, of an abs T). Today we have little plastic (future abs truth) containers with a liquid fuel that is converted to a gas as pressure is reduced (future abs T) via a mechanical valve (future abs T) when a rough steel wheel is rubbed against a piece of rock (flint), which is actually quite an old technology, not very future at all, from our perspective. If you want to argue that potentially there are other components that are as yet unseen that may contribute to these abs T's I've referenced, then I submit that as a part of the whole of it, they do not negate the parts that we already know, they shall just be appended.

So it is only obvious that we shall continue in this way until we come to know all of the absolute truth, no matter the amount of time it may take, unless of course we kill ourselves off/or some other catastrophe spells our end first.

It may be that I lack patience in the way of the object, but if one understands what sartre, levinas, and hiedegger, amoung others, are saying, then I think I have the utmost patience

Well Lance it's true that I have not yet read any of those people. But even thought I haven't I'm sure you'll agree that just because someone writes something and is recognized for it does not necessarily mean that they are correct in their findings, which I'm sure you understand, is not to say they're not either.

I shall say this though, that one of the most valuable bits of knowledge that some of my professors related to me was that what is taught from books in college is not only about what one should embrace but some is all about what one should not embrace. And I understood that it's not always spelled out for you. Sometimes you have to rely on simply making the right choice. I'm sure you realize this. Look at how many schools of thought their are on a specific topic. Here are a few of their names: Empiricism, Idealism, Rationalism, Constructivism, Infinitism, Foundationalism, Coherentism, Foundherentism, Correspondence, Coherence, Constructivist, Consensus, Pragmatic, and the list goes on. Which is right, and which is wrong; which should be merged with which, if at all, to arrive at the abs truth?

I have not read these men to know of their thoughts and ideas. At this point though I believe they may modify some minor points but I seriously doubt that they'd change my mind altogether. Of course I could be wrong. But what I've found is that it would seem that at least some philosophers cared more about their own personal wealth and providing data for continued university funding than they did answering the questions of philosophy. Oh mind you they sell you a veritable convoluted journey through the intricacies of language. Some even seemingly create new words that have actually already been acknowledged so as to give illusion of something new. I'm not saying your guys are those guys, I don't know!

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Those that believe in Theism know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in Atheism know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in the Object know not truth, necessarily.
Those that believe in the Subject know not truth, necessarily.
If we do not self extinguish, which is likely, the truth shall eventually be revealed as the reality of the universe unfolds. Only then shall any of those previously mentioned truly know anything about truth other than their potential ignorance of it.

You can talk about it, to death, but it still stands of it's own accord, because that's the definition of truth. It is that which is actual, the ultimate understanding of reality, that which pre/post exists us, That which does not require our understanding or knowledge that cannot be swayed to our belief. It is the final solution, the answer.

-->>>



It is out there and not in here, because in here was born of out there. Out there is believed to date back about 14 billion earth years and nothing only existing a mere 200 thousand years could possible have a clue, especially considering we were only able to see the smallest fraction of it a mere 500 years ago, and that man has only haphazardly navigated from 356,400 km to 406,700 km of the 93 billion light years of the 'observable' universe. Do you actually have any idea of the disparity?

It is premature, arrogant, impatient, and absurd for any human to even consider for a nanosecond that they have the definitive answer as to the truth of the universe. All one can truthfully say is to echo Socrates, when he said: 'I only know that I know nothing.' Only when considering this can you begin to finally understand anything else.

lancek4 wrote:Wher I have inserted ">" above is where I see the discepancy actually occurring. Before >, I follow how that much can be said to be a good synopsis of what we may know as Absolutely true.

After >, is where the discrepancy is revealed by opposing view, is where actual belief operates.
Lance, all of what I said is belief, and I assert that your line delineates your personal need to go no further. That you desire not to go beyond that line in agreement, for what could be, many different reasons. You could simply be as hard headed as I am, the SOB that I am. I respect your right and need to stay there. Who the hell am I anyway?

But I submit that I can prove it to you eventually...

The issue is see then is whether such Ab truth can be found thhrough the 'actual' object (how you describe post >) or not. That is, through what means of knowing will the AT be found?

...I submit that all one has to do, is look to history to view the future. To a cave man this is the future as was the classical Greek period. To the classical Greek period, those days of the cave man was history and today is the future. Once, man did not know of rubbing two sticks together to yield fire (abs T). How did he come to know this absolute truth? Well it's no doubt that fire first came to man from the 'heavens,' (history/belief) or rather the 'thunder clouds.' (future/abs T). It's easy to see a 'God' (belief) from that caveman's perspective. But by the time of the classical Greek period, two sticks rubbed together to yield fire (future abs T), was a no brainer. He probably noted that the heat that radiated from the fire to keep him warm was the same as that of rubbing two things together (friction/abs T) and that the amount of heat produced was variable, directly proportional to the speed and force applied (abs T) and concluded that this relationship might yield enough heat to create a fire, as it was one of the components of fire, and that the wood was what the fire burned (empirical evidence, of an abs T). Today we have little plastic (future abs truth) containers with a liquid fuel that is converted to a gas as pressure is reduced (future abs T) via a mechanical valve (future abs T) when a rough steel wheel is rubbed against a piece of rock (flint), which is actually quite an old technology, not very future at all, from our perspective. If you want to argue that potentially there are other components that are as yet unseen that may contribute to these abs T's I've referenced, then I submit that as a part of the whole of it, they do not negate the parts that we already know, they shall just be appended.

So it is only obvious that we shall continue in this way until we come to know all of the absolute truth, no matter the amount of time it may take, unless of course we kill ourselves off/or some other catastrophe spells our end first.

It may be that I lack patience in the way of the object, but if one understands what sartre, levinas, and hiedegger, amoung others, are saying, then I think I have the utmost patience

Well Lance it's true that I have not yet read any of those people. But even thought I haven't I'm sure you'll agree that just because someone writes something and is recognized for it does not necessarily mean that they are correct in their findings, which I'm sure you understand, is not to say they're not either.

I shall say this though, that one of the most valuable bits of knowledge that some of my professors related to me was that what is taught from books in college is not only about what one should embrace but some is all about what one should not embrace. And I understood that it's not always spelled out for you. Sometimes you have to rely on simply making the right choice. I'm sure you realize this. Look at how many schools of thought their are on a specific topic. Here are a few of their names: Empiricism, Idealism, Rationalism, Constructivism, Infinitism, Foundationalism, Coherentism, Foundherentism, Correspondence, Coherence, Constructivist, Consensus, Pragmatic, and the list goes on. Which is right, and which is wrong; which should be merged with which, if at all, to arrive at the abs truth?

I have not read these men to know of their thoughts and ideas. At this point though I believe they may modify some minor points but I seriously doubt that they'd change my mind altogether. Of course I could be wrong. But what I've found is that it would seem that at least some philosophers cared more about their own personal wealth and providing data for continued university funding than they did answering the questions of philosophy. Oh mind you they sell you a veritable convoluted journey through the intricacies of language. Some even seemingly create new words that have actually already been acknowledged so as to give illusion of something new. I'm not saying your guys are those guys, I don't know!

So far as the authors I mentionned, it was not so much that I read them and I belived they were correct, but that reading them confirmed to me that what I had come upon others have also. I have read many authors.

And to your greater point:
It is not that I do not partake in such a reality as you describe, but that I see this situation as a condition of knowledge. You cannot prove to me (actual absoluteness) such things existed except through an assumption of a common humanity. You only prove such things (as you would be using discourse) in reference to the condition of present knowledge.
All this is BS. You are saying nothing, as your argument defeats your argument! You see the problem with playing the Language Joker (LJ) card, which is definitely wild (out of it's f****** gourd wild), is that as well as you perceive it defeating your opponents language it also defeats yours. So that you are absolutely not saying anything of truth that you can prove, for the same reasons you've outlined. That is if I was to buy into your BS. Luckily I know it to be absurd, irrational, silly, ludicrous, and nonsensical!

Reality is not a existing state of knowledge, quite the opposite, knowledge is an existing state of reality. You've put the cart before the horse.

When a lighting bolt comes out of the clouds and strikes a tree and causes a fire, it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with man and EVERYTHING to do with the 'absolute' truth. Whereby this absolute truth is delineated by all the NATURALLY occurring ABSOLUTE TRUTHS that has PRE EXISTED mankind. Humans call it physics, but you can call it what ever you want, Lance.

Explain how the physics involved in a lightening strike, causing fire, is a condition of knowledge or the shared communication of humanity?

Oh, and I don't have to use communication at all. All I got to do is place you at the scene, and you shall see for yourself, this absolute truth.

I'm waiting...........

Could be here for quite a while.........

lancek4 wrote:A lightning bolt may strike and indeed as I partake in this scheme of knowledge (that I cannot but do) it, a lightning bolt which is created when positive and negative ions are aligned in such a way due to the energy created from hot air rushing upwards ( or something like that ), indeed has done so.

To another person it was a spear of Zeus.

Only in our present scheme of knowledge does the spear of zues, and all itsd associated meanings for its scheme, reduce upon our truth. Our knowledge exaplains the ignorance of the zues meaning only in reference to our scheme. Our scheme of our truth taking place right now. There is no 'actual' progression of knowledge, only in our present scheme which instills all meaning for past and future to allow us a present.

And it is absurd, that is why you will not see it- because as I said before: such an idea offends your sense by which you gain identity in the world, so you will not have it, for if it were true, your identity (that which supplies you reality) would be compromised.

No Lance, I understand exactly ('see it') what you're saying, I'm just saying that it's BS. Just because you have evidenced it many sequential times in the past, does not mean that it's perpetual, that it has no end. What you're saying is that because in the past we have mistaken our belief for Abs Tru, that it's a 'never' ending cycle, that shall never conclude with the Asb Tru being revealed, HOGWASH! (To borrow a word from Chaz, I believe, or maybe it was bolderdash). We're not a part of the 'Never Ending Story.' While I can understand a reluctance to finally call an end to a quest that has previously eluded us, that is not proof that indeed we have not reached the end of superstition and belief of that particular quest of knowing.

I know that you realize that initially I had the same side of the argument as you now point out. This does not mean that I have waffled on the idea, quite the contrary, I still believe that your point, and thus my earlier point, is still valid for a great many things, but some things we absolutely know are no longer in contention. For instance, 'The earth is currently in the shape of an ovoid.' as a matter of fact all massive celestial bodies are shaped this way due to either a central point of either pulling or pushing. I believe it to be pulling, and so do most! The shape is absolutely true as per our definition, however the Abs Tru reason for it may be in contention, as per your point.

I totally understand what your point is, 'how can we possibly 'absolutely know' that we are at an end of a particular object of knowledge of Abs Tru? One can only say, that as to a particular, one cannot be absolutely sure, but one cannot say, that it is absolutely impossible to achieve, eventually. I understand that within this conundrum, when and who can say, that we have absolute solution, is a tough one, but again I say that if there is a large enough (massive) framework of supporting evidence that indicates solution, it is safe to assume, understanding that it may only be for a moment in sequence that we may be capable of saying so, thus leaving possibility of continuing the quest if need be, that we have reached a quests zenith. This then, over sequence, shall allow for the eventual understanding of Abs Tru in it's totality, and we shall know that it is the case, once an extremely extended period of sequence does not allow further revision. Of course at that time, it shall be apparent in other ways, as we'll be creating universes.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:A lightning bolt may strike and indeed as I partake in this scheme of knowledge (that I cannot but do) it, a lightning bolt which is created when positive and negative ions are aligned in such a way due to the energy created from hot air rushing upwards ( or something like that ), indeed has done so.

To another person it was a spear of Zeus.

Only in our present scheme of knowledge does the spear of zues, and all itsd associated meanings for its scheme, reduce upon our truth. Our knowledge exaplains the ignorance of the zues meaning only in reference to our scheme. Our scheme of our truth taking place right now. There is no 'actual' progression of knowledge, only in our present scheme which instills all meaning for past and future to allow us a present.

And it is absurd, that is why you will not see it- because as I said before: such an idea offends your sense by which you gain identity in the world, so you will not have it, for if it were true, your identity (that which supplies you reality) would be compromised.

No Lance, I understand exactly ('see it') what you're saying, I'm just saying that it's BS. Just because you have evidenced it many sequential times in the past, does not mean that it's perpetual and that it has no end. What you're saying is that because in the past we have mistaken our belief for Abs Tru, that it's a 'never' ending cycle, that shall never conclude with the Asb Tru being revealed, HOGWASH! (To borrow a word from Chaz, I believe, or maybe it was bolderdash). We're not a part of the 'Never Ending Story.' While I can understand a reluctance to finally call an end to a quest that has previously eluded us, that is not proof that indeed we have not reached the end of superstition and belief of that particular quest of knowing.

I know that you realize that initially I had the same side of the argument as you now point out. This does not mean that I have waffled on the idea, quite the contrary, I still believe that your point, and thus my earlier point, is still valid for a great many things, but some things we absolutely know are no longer in contention. For instance, 'The earth is currently in the shape of an ovoid.' as a matter of fact all massive celestial bodies are shaped this way due to either a central point of either pulling or pushing. I believe it to be pulling, and so do most! The shape is absolutely true as per our definition, however the Abs Tru reason for it may be in contention, as per your point.

I totally understand what your point is, 'how can we possibly 'absolutely know' that we are at an end of a particular object of knowledge of Abs Tru? One can only say, that as to a particular, one cannot be absolutely sure, but one cannot say, that it is absolutely impossible to achieve, eventually. I understand that within this conundrum, when and who can say, that we have absolute solution, is a tough one, but again I say that if there is a large enough (massive) framework of supporting evidence that indicates solution, it is safe to assume, understanding that it may only be for a moment in sequence that we may be capable of saying so, thus leaving possibility of continuing the quest if need be, that we have reached a quests zenith. This then, over sequence, shall allow for the eventual understanding of Abs Tru in it's totality, and we shall know that it is the case, once an extremely extended period of sequence does not allow further revision. Of course at that time, it shall be apparent in other ways, as we'll be creating universes.