What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[chaz wyman]

I would say: One is....

..... becoming. - but never arriving. When you finally is, then you are dead.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Ecce Homo:

Sec 9:

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

Sounds to me Nietzsche was obviously already over the edge when he wrote this. Delusional fantasy.

Actually this is perfectly logical. Think about it!

You either is or you ain't. If you don't know what you is, then how can you become? Are you becoming another thing, or are you continually becoming?
Is you is, or is you ain't?
The quote might do well in context.

I agree with you that context 'could' change things, but as it stands "remotest suspicion' refers to your knowledge of what you is, while "is" clearly refers to any particular time (moment) of your being, along your life's time-line. What is you at one day old, as compared to what you is at 52 years old? So I see that it is knowledge over time, so it is continually ongoing; that one is continually becoming, and never arrives.

[chaz wyman]

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

Sounds to me Nietzsche was obviously already over the edge when he wrote this. Delusional fantasy.

Actually this is perfectly logical. Think about it!

You either is or you ain't. If you don't know what you is, then how can you become? Are you becoming another thing, or are you continually becoming?
Is you is, or is you ain't?
The quote might do well in context.

I agree with you that context 'could' change things, but as it stands "remotest suspicion' refers to your knowledge of what you is, while "is" clearly refers to any particular time (moment) of your being, along your life's time-line. What is you at one day old, as compared to what you is at 52 years old? So I see that it is knowledge over time, so it is continually ongoing; that one is continually becoming, and never arrives.[/quote]

Then we agree, I think.

[chaz wyman]

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

Sounds to me Nietzsche was obviously already over the edge when he wrote this. Delusional fantasy.

Actually this is perfectly logical. Think about it!

You either is or you ain't. If you don't know what you is, then how can you become? Are you becoming another thing, or are you continually becoming?
Is you is, or is you ain't?
The quote might do well in context.

I agree with you that context 'could' change things, but as it stands "remotest suspicion' refers to your knowledge of what you is, while "is" clearly refers to any particular time (moment) of your being, along your life's time-line. What is you at one day old, as compared to what you is at 52 years old? So I see that it is knowledge over time, so it is continually ongoing; that one is continually becoming, and never arrives.

Then we agree, I think.

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresOfBalquote="lancek4"]Bal. "lancek4"]

I think you should ask the originator of this post to answer that question.

What's stopping us from seeing the truth? He/she implies by this statement they have the knowledge of what "the truth" is. I have answered the question as it was posed.

I would suggest there are those who need no 'mental stillness' for their truth.

and would that be you?

No, it would not be me. but there would be some.

But let me offer something from
Ecce Homo:

Sec 9:

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

If I have to question facets if my thinking, I am avoiding the very fact that it is the faulty thinking that I am using to appraise my thinking, as if I can segregate my self from my self. This feature or ability posits itself into reason and justifies the incompletion of its self for the sake, not of finding a whole ness or solution , but exactly for the sake of problem.[/quote]
CHAZ's post: This whole line of thinking presupposes time and thus growth.[/quote]

Lk4's post: Indeed. But what is occurring of this 'growth'?
Coming to an understanding of things, as there are multitudes of things to consider, and it is 'impossible' to consider them all, the first day we pop out of the womb. With each day of life we add to our understanding of what it is in being human, that of sensing the totality of our environment, we 'become' what we are, as a direct result of the specifically random order, timing, strength, combination, etc, of unique experience, this then yields the differences between us, yields what we become, and in any normal person it is continually ongoing. So of course no one, at any particular time knows what they are in it's totality, as we are always evolving, learning, and while it's improbable that any individual shall know themselves in their totality, there are varying degrees of this knowledge. So again I don't see a requirement to say such a thing, with the inclusion of "remotest suspicion," which is what disqualifies the assertion from bearing any fruit, as in truth he speaks from his own life's experience, it is impossible for him to speak for others with any degree of certainty. Of course no one shall know everything, it's ridiculous to even consider it, but that does not qualify "remotest suspicion."

What part of this process you have described is willed? (crossed threads. We can return it to the AC thread, but it also seems appropriate to this one also )



What solution is posited by a faulty premise ? How is this contradiction 'solved' ? By 'growth'? Seems paradoxical; no ?[/quote]


Edit: removed P.S. as it does not apply, wrong thread [/quote]

[lancek4]

Ecce Homo:

Sec 9:

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

Sounds to me Nietzsche was obviously already over the edge when he wrote this. Delusional fantasy.

I'm sure thinking that your thoughts are bad is even more indicative of fantasy. And from your first statement one might gather you are delusional. So, besides being capable of smarty pants quips, what exactly are you saying ?

[reasonvemotion]

You either is or you ain't. If you don't know what you is, then how can you become?

but if you do know who you "is" then you have discovered the meaning of truth and is this what seeing the truth means? Enlightenment. But if you dont know what you "is"..... is this what is stopping you from seeing the truth. Ignorance.

[reasonvemotion]

I'm sure thinking that your thoughts are bad is even more indicative of fantasy. And from your first statement one might gather you are delusional. So, besides being capable of smarty pants quips, what exactly are you saying ?

I would suggest to you, why dont you contribute some "unique" thoughts for a change.

[lancek4]

You either is or you ain't. If you don't know what you is, then how can you become?

but if you do know who you "is" then you have discovered the meaning of truth and is this what seeing the truth means? Enlightenment. But if you dont know what you "is"..... is this what is stopping you from seeing the truth. Ignorance.

Ah. So are you saying in your initial statement that you see the truth of yourself and it's f'd up?

Philosophically, your statement here may make sense in it self, but I am not sure how it correlates with your initial statement.


And, on another note; 'enlightenment' is a very suspicious term; it reeks of a particular religious creed. What is I were to say that one needs to be 'born again in Christ'? What would you say ? Would you say that the truth we are being stopped from seeing is relative?

[lancek4]

I'm sure thinking that your thoughts are bad is even more indicative of fantasy. And from your first statement one might gather you are delusional. So, besides being capable of smarty pants quips, what exactly are you saying ?

I would suggest to you, why dont you contribute some "unique" thoughts for a change.

'enilghtenment' is unique?

[reasonvemotion]

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

One would not say that Dr. Martin Luther King jr. was a Nietzschean figure. He had to have been energetic and driven to achieve what he did achieve, and he belonged to a very different intellectual tradition than Nietzsche. However there seems to be at least one common thread: becoming what one is.

King's most famous speech, “I Have a Dream, an address delivered at the March on Washington on 28 August 1963. King’s conception is a communal reformulation of Nietzsche’s individualist becoming what one is. Nietzsche’s becoming what one is became with King becoming what we are.

from Becoming what we are

[MJA]

Enlightenment is to enlighten or uncover the truth of Oneself by simply removing everything that is not true. Once the untruth obscuring One's true self is removed, only what is true, or what is remains.
And once One uncovers the truth of Oneself, his true self,
One finds the same truth is equally One as is All.

IS

[chaz wyman]

You either is or you ain't. If you don't know what you is, then how can you become?

but if you do know who you "is" then you have discovered the meaning of truth and is this what seeing the truth means? Enlightenment. But if you dont know what you "is"..... is this what is stopping you from seeing the truth. Ignorance.

If you stop to see the truth, you have failed. Life is becoming. You only arrive when you are dead, then it is too late.
There is no "the truth" to see. It s just a dream.

[chaz wyman]

Enlightenment is to enlighten or uncover the truth of Oneself by simply removing everything that is not true. Once the untruth obscuring One's true self is removed, only what is true, or what is remains.
And once One uncovers the truth of Oneself, his true self,
One finds the same truth is equally One as is All.

IS

Good luck with that!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think you should ask the originator of this post to answer that question.

What's stopping us from seeing the truth? He/she implies by this statement they have the knowledge of what "the truth" is. I have answered the question as it was posed.

I would suggest there are those who need no 'mental stillness' for their truth.

and would that be you?

No, it would not be me. but there would be some.

But let me offer something from
Ecce Homo:

Sec 9:

"the fact that one becomes what one is, presupposes that one has not the remotest suspicion of what one is ".

If I have to question facets if my thinking, I am avoiding the very fact that it is the faulty thinking that I am using to appraise my thinking, as if I can segregate my self from my self. This feature or ability posits itself into reason and justifies the incompletion of its self for the sake, not of finding a whole ness or solution , but exactly for the sake of problem.

This whole line of thinking presupposes time and thus growth.

Indeed. But what is occurring of this 'growth'?
Coming to an understanding of things, as there are multitudes of things to consider, and it is 'impossible' to consider them all, the first day we pop out of the womb. With each day of life we add to our understanding of what it is in being human, that of sensing the totality of our environment, we 'become' what we are, as a direct result of the specifically random order, timing, strength, combination, etc, of unique experience, this then yields the differences between us, yields what we become, and in any normal person it is continually ongoing. So of course no one, at any particular time knows what they are in it's totality, as we are always evolving, learning, and while it's improbable that any individual shall know themselves in their totality, there are varying degrees of this knowledge. So again I don't see a requirement to say such a thing, with the inclusion of "remotest suspicion," which is what disqualifies the assertion from bearing any fruit, as in truth he speaks from his own life's experience, it is impossible for him to speak for others with any degree of certainty. Of course no one shall know everything, it's ridiculous to even consider it, but that does not qualify "remotest suspicion."

What part of this process you have described is willed?

(crossed threads. We can return it to the AC thread, but it also seems appropriate to this one also )
Yes I agree with you Lance, that it's appropriate to both threads, if you would like to see it moved, be my guest, I will follow.

What solution is posited by a faulty premise ? How is this contradiction 'solved' ? By 'growth'? Seems paradoxical; no ?