The Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:It sounds like your category of ethics is aligned with Ab Truth; it sound like you are saying that there is an Actual unniverse (our def) that is True. Then we have human knowledge, some of which is actually true, and some distortion of the truth. And then that this actual universal truth that we are learning of conincides with what is good for humanity, and thus the actual truth is found through education which will lead to a harmonious, ethically good and right, humanity.

Is this an accurate synopsis of your (sob) assertion?

I believe that proper ethics is aligned with the absolute truth, of course!

The absolute truth is what has transpired since the dawn of time and has given birth to humanity (life; all life). This birth of life was subject to the balancing of many things; it happened within a particular window of opportunity composed of specific conditions. Where 'chance?' has given way to these specific conditions that allow for life, enter human kind, the only life form to challenge this absolute truth of our existence, and therein lays the danger. We must remain within the laws of the balance, the absolute truth of our existence; otherwise we run the risk of killing ourselves off by this upsetting of the balance. It’s easy to see the importance of the balance as you look to other lifeless worlds, and the ramifications as seen in the human body after experiencing the space beyond our atmosphere (biosphere). Why have we strayed and can no longer sense this absolute truth? Because during our course we have allowed selfish and meaningless, from a universal perspective, wants, desires, and lusts to dominate our legacy built in time on the actions of generation after generation, which today, forms the current construct. You can see it as a fork in the road that we passed thousands of years ago, and mankind has unfortunately chosen the wrong path, it was the one of golden idols, of power and greed, the wants of some to dominate others so as to live a life of luxury at the others expense. This following of the wrong path is responsible for ‘all’ our socio- psychological as well as economic problems and effects our civilizations very infrastructure as seen in starvation, murder, global warming, and the list goes on and on. As far as I’m concerned the use of the word civilization, is a far cry from what we have.

Chaz made light of my point about the absolute truth of our teeth earlier, but it’s only because he failed to understand its significance. And that is, that the so called most intelligent animal on the planet, the one that is supposed to be most capable, happens to primarily have the teeth of a herbivore. I didn’t mention the implications as with its correlation with cholesterol, saturated fats and heart disease as I thought it was self evident. I like the fact that my vagueness has allowed for the uncovering of one incapable of working the problem, anyone can remember facts as that of a parrot. But this is not meant to beat him up, really. It’s really more about the point of seeing how the puzzle pieces of absolute truth come together to paint a picture of how human life should be, a blueprint, if you will.

So yes, the Absolute Truth of our birth, which is that of the entire universe, lends to the understanding of what we are, and how we should precede (live), once all the pieces are in place. And I submit that through its understanding, we shall eliminate our problems. We are in fact one as the Buddhist claims, which to me is the only established religion that makes any sense, primarily because it has more balance than the rest.

But I’m not here to push a religion either. I guess I’m really only here to find some truth. And I thank you for the opportunity to exercise my mind a little, as it was overdue.

Ii think it is extremely fortunate for humanity that the absolute actual truth of the universe is aligned with what is best for humanity, as this amounts to what is ethicalkly good and right.
It is not fortunate, as it could be no other way. What part of the 'fact' that the universe has given way to (birthed) us don't you understand. It's like you're on cloud nine.

I have to assume that you cannot miss how your position argues for God.
No what you mean to say is that, what I say, to you, resembles what it is, that you believe, is parallel to the belief, of those, that have created their god. And I say that any seeming similarities of my ideas to those, of those that have created their god, in the book of genesis (mans god), is purely coincidental.


For the idea that the Ab truth of the universe beiong eqilellent to what is good, right and beneficial for humanity argues that we are a priviledged organism,
You see this is the problems humans face, they seem to only be capable of assimilating that which they have already formed preconceived ideas, as if that's all that can be, which is ludicrous.

It's like in the past when I've downplayed capitalism, and people full of presumption, called me a communist. I think, are you people f****** stupid or something, as if those two supposedly opposing ideas are the only two that can f****** exist in the entire infinite universe, what do you have, f****** rocks in your f****** head?

People are just plain f****** stupid to bring their f****** presumptions of what can be, to the table as if that's all there can possibly be? They are absolute fools as most humans are stuck in their little pathetic box of preconceived ideas, and have absolutely no idea of what thinking outside the box really means. Duuuhhh, I gotta swim with the other fishes, or else I'll be ostracized; never mind the dolphins, gannets and whales picking at the shoal until it's f****** history.

It f****** makes me laugh!

little overly wound automaton tin soldiers marching off the cliff of oblivion, distracted with their pretty shiny golden trinkets.

Closed minded dipshits is what they are!

Sorry, surely I digress. Or is it a pertinent sidebar?

Meanwhile:

Answer these questions.

Are we born of, and kept by, the universe?

If you say no then you are of the billionth parallel antimatter universe of ehb, and thus of shadow essence.

Now do you consider that a good thing, that is, that life exists?

If you say no, then prove it by making it right, pick up a gun and shoot yourself in the head. Aaah, so it is good, right?

If it is absolutely good to be alive and the absolute universe has brought that life into being then the universe is absolutely good as well.

The universe is absolutely true, it is absolutely true that it created us, it is absolutely true that we love our life (believe it's good), thus it is absolutely true that the universe is good. Therefore if we follow the absolute truth of the good universe, that is fully responsible for us, we do good absolutely. Such that if the universe created all this symbiosis it is good, and if we turn our backs on it, that is bad, and shall definitely lead to our demise, pure and simple, as we are of the symbiosis.

Life on this planet is the balance of all organisms and as such is really one organism and if we kill off any part of it, we make it unstable, and as we make it all the more unstable, eventually, it shall be us that we are killing off, and for what, the desire for a pretty gold colored rock? How f****** absurd, ludicrous, stupid, moronic, idiotic, dumb, unenlightened, short sighted and selfish. But the funny thing is that the SELFISHNESS in only of the interim, as it can only be short lived. Killing ourselves to live, beyond our means, we are!

I can't believe I have to lead you by the hand on these absolute truths that are absolutely self evident. It's got to be that you're testing me, yeah, that's got to be it!

that the universe exists for us,
This is your presumption!

thaty we have come about in and as a capacity, a universal capacity, to be able to gain the truth of our being in the uiniverse, as if the potential which is inherent of the actual universe is the human potential to know it; which is, for your position, the fortune of humanity, the unbiversal exception that is humanity.
It's neither a fortune nor an exception, it is as it should be, the only way it can be, as we are of the universe, and the universe if of us. Your separation of which you speak is manifest of your current inability in seeing the absolute truth, as mankind's arrogance has you in it's grips. Chaz is long lost, but for you, there is still hope, because you sense their is an absolute truth and wonder how you can know it!

Sounds very Chriistian to me.
This is your presumption, that you've projected upon my meaning in your ignorance, denial and fear of it! I expect this from Chaz, but not Lance.

And for the last time, "I ABSOLUTELY HATE MANS GOD," and have absolutely nothing to directly do with any religions pertaining to him." if I believe in the possibility of creation via a purposeful intellect, then it is "the creator" and NOT mans 'god' that is responsible.

But don't get me wrong, if time travel were possible, Jesus of Nazareth is definitely on my list of people I'd look up, especially during those times when he supposedly performed miracles.

Mark Question wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You sound like a fanatic, so what does that make you? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Sounds are in the ears of the beholder and say more about them than it does the object, or in other words we hear what we want to hear, nothing more.

maybe its me, if you sound like preacher to me. sorry. maybe i have heard too much preachers.
As you say below, we each see what we want to see. What is the difference between preach and state?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I'm sorry but you've failed to understand my point, you seem to be full of sarcasm, fueled by your lack of understanding of my meaning, I can't help you! Reread if you care to, that's the best I can do for you.[/color]

maybe "full of sarcasm" is "in the ears of the beholder and say more about them than it does the object, or in other words we hear what we want to hear, nothing more"?
maybe i failed to understand your point. maybe its me again.
but if you say that you only know that you know nothing, then is your knowledge how big in scale 0-100%? 0.000..%? if "nothing" is endlessly big number and "only know" one is one? do you see my point here?
by the way, are you some kind of believer of realism if you believe there is something out there, whole world, universe or something, with or without humans or human thinking? is realistic thinking your point? sorry my poor english again.
Obviously 'nothing' is the place from which we should always start any quest, which is what I mean. 'Nothing' is kinda where we are when we successfully kill off our preconceived ideas to allow the new to penetrate our defenses of preconception. Then after it's examination we can again consider our preconceptions to mediate actual solution. And yes, I believe in a version of realism.


ps. notice that your newest golden rule hangs in your absolute truth and your realism or what you call it, your assumption, no, your strong belief theres universe, with or without human thinking.
Cause and effect, starting with at least H2, and look at us now, voila!
jesus with his old golden rule believed god as a creator of all. your golden rules creator is universe, so you think? whats the big difference if comparing jesus and you? do you have long hair, beard?

The difference is that, I don't want the responsibility. And for the record, the golden rule predates Jesus to the days of Babylon.

lancek4 wrote:ÊËThe entirely of sob proposition is of knowledge, human knowledge; and so that much it is consistent. But, to say that such knowledge reflects an ab true universe,as if we are knowing some ab true unverse argues that we are priviledged, that the functioning of the universe favors the 'good' of us. Is a star blowing up 'good'? How can our educated knowledge equal what is good and right if knowing of such a thing is inherently 'nuetral' to our knowledge? Perhaps an astroid hitting the earth is ethically good?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:ÊËThe entirely of sob proposition is of knowledge, human knowledge; and so that much it is consistent. But, to say that such knowledge reflects an ab true universe,as if we are knowing some ab true unverse argues that we are priviledged, that the functioning of the universe favors the 'good' of us. Is a star blowing up 'good'? How can our educated knowledge equal what is good and right if knowing of such a thing is inherently 'nuetral' to our knowledge? Perhaps an astroid hitting the earth is ethically good?

If a star blows up or an asteroid strikes the planet it can be said to be good, maybe for us, maybe the universe, maybe the planet, maybe some other reason that escapes us right now at this moment. You seem to be confusing what is good for what you want. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean it's not good,

-----LK4: you are being incredibly inconsistent in your postion.
You have proposed an actual abtruth, that we can potentially know of.
And you, at variious times in this post, state some of these.
And you say that the ab truth of the matter has to do with humanity not destroying iitself, and so education is the key.
So far, then, you are saying that as we learn the ab truth of the universe through educatiion, we are in a process of doiing what is ethically right by knowing what we can do to not destroy ourselves.

Then you say, or imply, that a meteor hitting that earth may be good ethically, due to a cruel to be kind cluase, of which elides our ethical truth, so that our ab truth/ethical saving grace of knowledge is naught for what it is absolutly inthat also a star blew up and screwed with our atmosphere to where we all die.

--

SOB:... ever heard of "cruel to be kind." I've been telling you from the beginning that mankind is full of arrogance. Now you can see it for yourself, look into the mirror of what you've said.

-----LK4: but of course you, who are so fortunate to be privy to the Ab truth, are not arrogant in the very way you propose..



SOB: What if our dying off due to an asteroid gives way to those that care of the earth such as I do, yet beyond even my conception, then our annihilation could be said to be good from the universal perspective (the absolute truth).

----LK4: so then waht is your point about knowing an abT through education so we don't destroy ourselves?
What is the use of saying there is an AbT consistent with what is best for humanity?
It appears you are asserting that there iis really 2 AbTruths.




SOB:And we'll be there, maybe not our consciousness, but surely our physical constituents. And who actually knows, as it is yet to be tested (observed), depending upon the absolute truth of our consciousness, it may survive, though enlightened!

Neither you nor I, are qualified to speak for the absolute truth of the universe, only from our selfish perspective, can we truly speak.

---LK4: you're the one who is proporting Ab Truith !?!


And yet you have obviously misunderstood me again, as I was talking about seeking the absolute truth of the universe to use as a road map of how to proceed, such that we are not the victims of our own folly. In your selfishness you have reversed it.

---LK4: what? How to proceed? If we are knowing of an ab truth that turns out not to be abtruth, what the hell is the use of talking about an actual abTruth? You are essentially admittiing that what you propose as AbT is not Ab T. ! What?
Makes no sense.


The universe does not answer to us, it is we that answer to the universe, well that is if we start by opening our eyes.
---LK4: once again; perhaps look at the above to gain a new response to this question: How Do You Know This?

SOB:We cannot control the universe,
---LK: but we do control parts of the universe, no? ; so what does this mean in light of the above points.?




SOB:and it would seem ourselves as well, prove me wrong, save the planet NOW, not tomorrow, it never comes, NOW!

Yeah I know... The animal is full of it's selfish greed, I thank the universe I'm not like most, in that instead of dictating to the universe, I carefully listen to it, and like all that are like me, I want to know it all, and right now! I'll just have to wait, like the rest of us, but I shall do everything I can to ensure my movements are as pure as they can be, in not doing anymore damage to this beautiful symbiosis that is planet earth, so that I'll have the opportunity to 'try' to understand it all, till the day I die.

lancek4 wrote:The AbT actual universe.

The ethical AbT.

Is there a difference?

What are we learning through education?

How are the human ethical Abt and the actual universe AbT related?

In what way does my knowledge of the constistency of saturns rings help me to decide whether I should recycle?

In what way does The AbT of human not able to live long on ocean water diet contribute to the AbT of my not dooing violence to another human being?

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:ÊËThe entirely of sob proposition is of knowledge, human knowledge; and so that much it is consistent. But, to say that such knowledge reflects an ab true universe,as if we are knowing some ab true unverse argues that we are priviledged, that the functioning of the universe favors the 'good' of us. Is a star blowing up 'good'? How can our educated knowledge equal what is good and right if knowing of such a thing is inherently 'nuetral' to our knowledge? Perhaps an astroid hitting the earth is ethically good?

If a star blows up or an asteroid strikes the planet it can be said to be good, maybe for us, maybe the universe, maybe the planet, maybe some other reason that escapes us right now at this moment. You seem to be confusing what is good for what you want. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean it's not good,

-----LK4: you are being incredibly inconsistent in your postion.
No, your non-understanding is extremely consistent!

You have proposed an actual abtruth, that we can potentially know of.
And you, at variious times in this post, state some of these.
And you say that the ab truth of the matter has to do with humanity not destroying iitself, and so education is the key.
So far, then, you are saying that as we learn the ab truth of the universe through educatiion, we are in a process of doiing what is ethically right by knowing what we can do to not destroy ourselves.

Then you say, or imply, that a meteor hitting that earth may be good ethically, due to a cruel to be kind cluase, of which elides our ethical truth, so that our ab truth/ethical saving grace of knowledge is naught for what it is absolutly inthat also a star blew up and screwed with our atmosphere to where we all die.
Lance grow up, we all die eventually, and as long as it's natural, it's in keeping with Abs Tru, then it's OK, At mans hands is not OK, sheesh!
--

SOB:... ever heard of "cruel to be kind." I've been telling you from the beginning that mankind is full of arrogance. Now you can see it for yourself, look into the mirror of what you've said.

-----LK4: but of course you, who are so fortunate to be privy to the Ab truth, are not arrogant in the very way you propose..

Arrogance: Offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride. In this case human greed over life on planet earth. You have to get your vision checked, I never said I was privy to the Abs Tru.


SOB: What if our dying off due to an asteroid gives way to those that care of the earth such as I do, yet beyond even my conception, then our annihilation could be said to be good from the universal perspective (the absolute truth).

----LK4: so then waht is your point about knowing an abT through education so we don't destroy ourselves?
What is the use of saying there is an AbT consistent with what is best for humanity?
It appears you are asserting that there iis really 2 AbTruths.
You're not reading thus deserve no explanation, as it's already been stated.



SOB:And we'll be there, maybe not our consciousness, but surely our physical constituents. And who actually knows, as it is yet to be tested (observed), depending upon the absolute truth of our consciousness, it may survive, though enlightened!

Neither you nor I, are qualified to speak for the absolute truth of the universe, only from our selfish perspective, can we truly speak.

---LK4: you're the one who is proporting Ab Truith !?!
No, keep track please, you're the one proposing the universe has a duty to us, it's the other way around, we've been given life.

And yet you have obviously misunderstood me again, as I was talking about seeking the absolute truth of the universe to use as a road map of how to proceed, such that we are not the victims of our own folly. In your selfishness you have reversed it.

---LK4: what? How to proceed? If we are knowing of an ab truth that turns out not to be abtruth, what the hell is the use of talking about an actual abTruth? You are essentially admittiing that what you propose as AbT is not Ab T. ! What?
Makes no sense.
Your convoluted method of seeing things has left you dizzy!

The universe does not answer to us, it is we that answer to the universe, well that is if we start by opening our eyes.
---LK4: once again; perhaps look at the above to gain a new response to this question: How Do You Know This?
It's a "no brainer," open your eyes!


SOB:We cannot control the universe,
---LK: but we do control parts of the universe, no? ; so what does this mean in light of the above points.?
Name one thing of the universe that feeble men control, except their own lives, via how they treat each other/them selves/the planet.



SOB:and it would seem ourselves as well, prove me wrong, save the planet NOW, not tomorrow, it never comes, NOW!

Yeah I know... The animal is full of it's selfish greed, I thank the universe I'm not like most, in that instead of dictating to the universe, I carefully listen to it, and like all that are like me, I want to know it all, and right now! I'll just have to wait, like the rest of us, but I shall do everything I can to ensure my movements are as pure as they can be, in not doing anymore damage to this beautiful symbiosis that is planet earth, so that I'll have the opportunity to 'try' to understand it all, till the day I die.[/color]

SpheresOfBalance wrote:As you say below, we each see what we want to see.

What is the difference between preach and state?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Obviously 'nothing' is the place from which we should always start any quest, which is what I mean. 'Nothing' is kinda where we are when we successfully kill off our preconceived ideas to allow the new to penetrate our defenses of preconception. Then after it's examination we can again consider our preconceptions to mediate actual solution.

And yes, I believe in a version of realism.

Cause and effect, starting with at least H2, and look at us now, voila!

The difference is that, I don't want the responsibility. And for the record, the golden rule predates Jesus to the days of Babylon.

lancek4 wrote:A couple things men control; space shuuttles. Smart phones. Sink faucets. Cattle.

lancek4 wrote:How do You, sob, distinguish what is good from what You want?

If what one 'wants' does absolutely no harm to any other living thing, then it is good and is in keeping with the absolute truth. The absolute truth I'm looking at here, is that of life's unfolding. Remember we are not talking about what one needs.

What each human needs is: Air, Water, Food and Cover/Shelter from the elements. Everything beyond these are wants and are considered luxury's.

As long as no damage is done, to what the Absolute truth has allowed to be, then you're good. The Absolute Truth I'm referring to in this instance is that of the creation of our planet via the chance of the Absolutely True forces that be, i.e., gravity, matter, electromagnetic energy, etc.

This is not to say that we cannot grow in technology, it's to say that part of its growth, is the conservation of all living things, simultaneously.

You see, I see it like this, humans (all life), are an extension of the absolute truth of the universe, as we were born of it. The chaos of the universe has reached a point of temporary balance, that has allowed life to flourish. Life can only exist during these periods of balance. We should be able to see this, if not sooner, then at least, as of our understanding of the theory, of a mass extinction of the dinosaurs, due to an asteroid. This should paint an all too clear picture, that should be etched in all our minds, that is the fragility of our life's balance, which necessitates caution, when viewing our path, within this window of opportunity (period of balance). It's only wise to make the 'most' use of this time of balance that the universe has allowed, as it could cease at any moment. The leading animal of planet earth, humans, has the responsibility of seeing the need/value of this fragile balance, in the face of the potential imbalance that chaos affords, and for life's sake, ensure it's maintained, through our actions. This should not be an exploitative venture that stomps on other life forms, for other than needs, as the symbiosis shows us that we are them, and they are we. It's seen in the rain forests for instance. And then of course I would also argue that they have their own right to life, independent of our needs. Just because we have the ability to kill them off, doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do. And we have to dispense with this archaic gold colored rock worship, for the purpose of dominating another (selfishness), as it's responsible for most, if not all of the damage, and is synonymous with a club, and I thought we were supposed to be civilized. Yeah, right!


"...The whole wide world, an endless universe, yet we keep looking through
the eyeglass in reverse.
Don't feed the people, but we feed the machines, can't really feel what international means.
In different circles, we keep holding our ground, indifferent circles, we keep spinning round and round and round.

We see so many tribes - overrun and undermined, while their invaders dream of lands they've left behind..." --Peart--

With his words of the truth of humanity, I sense their psychosis.

lancek4 wrote:Can one question ones own truth?

If you have and have thus come to certain truths, have you stopped there? What of those truths? Are not you simpoly maintaining that which grants you the criteria or quality of truth in order to discern what is true from your initial doubting?
So really you have not questioned your truth but merely reorganized your truth upon different terms so that it appears that you have questiioned your trths. And you can thus be satisfied and justified in yourself against others because you, for them, can have the appearance of critical thinking.

And the exact same thing can be said about you, and yours!

I believe the significant point sob misses is, it is not so much as, for example, 'how do we allow dictatorships and oppressive regimes'. But 'what is it about my knowledge of such that informs me of my existance'.