What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Actually this is not an accurate account, from my perspective. I see that in this case, as with many humans, you reconstruct only those points, that in such a reiteration, support your defense of self, at the offense of another. This is common with humans. And I see it as an immaturity.

Do you? I see it as immature to not offer your perspective and then spout your psycho-babble.
OK, This is all I'll address because the rest is pretty much the same and I grow weary of fighting, splitting hairs, as to the meaning of groups of words due to a difference in preconceived ideas between people, as to what's specifically contained within them (different languages). This and the fact that we do not agree on so many fronts, for example that the meaning of words is in how the words are taken. This is total bullshit, stupid, selfish, in considerate, full of lies, and actually I see that it's evil, because meaning is in the mind of the wielder of the words, first and foremost. The idea is to effectively convey an idea using words. If in fact a listener finds that the words are abrasive/offensive or are somehow incorrect they have the responsibility to ensure that they are correct, as to what was meant, before they assault the wielder, because otherwise, they, the listener, is responsible for the potential war of intent, due to their jumping to conclusions, before they've gathered all the facts, a war of misconception, born of the listener.

For instance, many years ago, I was amongst both blacks and whites, male and female. A white female was almost always whining and complaining about doing various jobs, she wasn't there all the time, it was during her cross training. Her title, as to this cross training mode of employment was Training Active Reserve (TAR). After hearing one of her whining sessions, I characterized her behavior as being a baby, but for some strange reason I combined the word baby with TAR, such that I called her a TAR baby, a Training Active Reserve that was acting like a baby. Now, upon post delivery, the only reason I could think of, that I put those two together, was because of a children's book I had read to my child many years prior, having to do with a character called bur rabbit. In the story it was either he or another character that caused the Tar and Feathering of another younger character and they characterized the end result as a tar baby. The book had pictures to go along with the story, and I had laughed as I read it to my child, thinking it was cute and funny due to the expression on the victims face and the way the imagery was composed. At no time had I found it slanderous. This was the only time I had been aware of the phrase tar baby, and found it innocent. Well it just so happened that a black male walked by, and after hearing my utterance complained to his supervisor. I was called into the supervisors office to be held accountable for my words, and asked to apologize for using "tar baby" because apparently, historically it had been used as a racial slur against blacks. I refused to apologize, because I was TOTALLY UNAWARE that "tar baby" was a black racial slur, and after all I hadn't said that, I had said "TAR baby" or actually "T.A.R. baby," if you will, and she whom I spoke of was in fact white, she never complained. It was a black passerby that was essentially eavesdropping on a conversation that wouldn't necessarily understand in what context the words had been uttered. There was no way in hell I was going to apologize in such a situation. The meaning of words is contained in the intent of their wielder and no where else. I'd be damned if I'd be raked over coals due to someone else's unwarranted fears. Actually it just so happened that the black male in question was only present in that particular environment due to disciplinary actions, he was continually screaming, black this, or black that, claiming everyone was cheating him because he was black, he was actually a bigger baby than she was. It would eventually lead to his expulsion by the employer.

You're 100% incorrect, and I don't care whom you quote, the meaning (intent) to be found in anyone's words, rests with the wielder of the words, that a simple question or two by the listener would assure complete understanding, before they go off half cocked, because it's absolutely absurd to insist that one is responsible for their ignorance. There are those that can recite a dictionary, verbatim and those that can't understand one word in it, and hundreds of thousands of differing percentages of understandings in between. Your absurd notion would have everyone of a lower tier of dictionary knowledge, answerable to those immediately higher and above, for any misconception, another form of elitism, as 'everyone' once knew of no words in the dictionary. And who better to untangle the misconception than those more familiar with a dictionaries contents, they shirk their responsibility with your way of thinking. What the hell do you think knowledge is anyway, just another weapon for you to wield against those of a lessor understanding? That's pure evil, whether a club with a spike in it, an atomic bomb, money or words. To use anything against another is selfish and elitist, unless it's self defense.

So clearly, as with words, you can't necessarily know of an offense aimed at you, unless you ask the question, otherwise it shall be you that is the offender.

So now, here is your original quote that you interjected into a conversation that you had not been a part of, up until that point:

... Where does the 'truth' of modern philosophy stand?

Where it should, in Formal and Symbolic Logic.

Clearly, we can see that everything to the left of the comma is uncalled for and lends absolutely nothing so as to be informative. Everything to the right stands on it's own merit as information so as to answer the question I posed. Since the left most part in not required, in any way shape or form, as to the factual information, it can only be seen as sarcastic so as to demean me for not already being aware of such information. If not, explain how it's pertinent to the information at hand. Admit it, it is sarcasm left over from previous instances of our entanglements, such that I responded, in my defense:

Sorry but the word "should" as used, from my perspective, is an opinion, and in this case is merely self ego stroking, therefore it's useless, to anyone but you.

What I say here is 100% correct. As to where something necessarily 'should' be, is not for anyone to say, as should, in this case, means that there can be no other place where it could be, and that's a falsehood, because your placement is with that of time, and time is always ticking, such that modern philosophy shall be elsewhere tomorrow. Additionally I 'know' that it is impossible for you to actually know where it was at that particular moment, in my asking, as books and magazines are behind the time from 6 months to a couple years, such that it would take someone that was omnipotent, so as to peak over the shoulders of every single philosopher across the globe, at that very instant of my asking, to see what they were writing, in order to provide factual comment on where modern philosophy should be found. Finally, my question could have been rhetorical, which would require no response at all, instead it would require ones thinking as to my point. In fact I had meant it as rhetorical.

All of the preceding you failed to consider before responding, as to where it should be. It is obvious that you were being sarcastic, so like I further said, it my quote above, it's inclusion was only for your sake, so that you could pat yourself on the back, stroke your ego, demean your opponent. Which shows me that you are obviously, not a true philosopher, or at least not a very mature one. Because of this attitude you display, you don't know what philosophy is, or at least you don't live it. Because it is in the seeking of the actuality, truth if you will, of ALL things, yes even when approaching a conversation, one can practice philosophy, in the way one proceeds, so as to make things clear and actual, factual, during the exchange, and requires unbiased listening, questioning, and constructive explanations, or one is merely an elitist, in it purely, for their egoism.

I'm not saying I'm flawless, not guilty of the very same thing, but I for one am currently trying to change so as to display a little more wisdom in the exchange, except for those few, that are too far gone, those deranged few, that require no introduction.

QUESTION: Who's the bigger fool, the one that words their proposition in such a way that is not conducive to any particular persons approach, as if they could necessarily know each and every permutation of approach, for the entirety of the worlds population, or the one that is incapable, or to lazy, to apply the knowledge of their approach, so as to sense a foreign formulation, not compatible with theirs, such that, instead of asking questions, in order to clarify, they end up making assumptions, and blindly running with it, and then warring with the wielder (author), due to their misconception?

ANSWER: I say, it's definitely the latter, because while the wielder of words doesn't necessarily know everyone's approach, the listener should surely know their own, and be able to question until such time that they bridge the incompatibility gap, or at least one would think so, if the listener is truly, either as intelligent, or more intelligent, than the wielder!

<snipped redundancy>

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think the 'what' of the OP can be illustrated from the experiment of blindsightedness re the 'Did not see the Gorilla' experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY

Humans being are programed and conditioned by their own set or perspectives of truths. This program is a fundamental and primal impulse which is inherent in all human beings.

Since human beings has similar generic properties, there are generic truths, e.g. the Sun rise in the morning and set at the end of the day, but even this has rare exceptions. Due to the similarity in properties with variations in environmental and nurturing factors, there are a variation in different sets of shared-truths.

IMO, shared-truths prevails and there is no 'the truth' (Truth), i.e. an absolute truth.
This is reflected in the philosophy of,
Nietzsche - 'there is no absolute truth, there are only perspectives.
Foucault - truth is relative to the games of truths, and regime of truth, e.g. scientific framework, common sense, etc.

There are also many philosophical theories of truth, i.e. correspondence, coherence, etc.

The question of why a person or group is inclined toward one set of truths rather than another can be inferred from the 'no gorilla' experiment above.

[attofishpi]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

BOOKS.

[chaz wyman]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

BOOKS.

A book is not an active agency and can't STOP you doing anything, unless you believe in it.

[attofishpi]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

BOOKS.

A book is not an active agency and can't STOP you doing anything, unless you believe in it.

Agreed. However, what is the truth that Bill is alluding to? As a theist searching for God, only life experience, pushing those infallible buttons will result in knowing God. You will not find the Truth of God in books...unfortunatly. The most you could hope for is more faith.

[chaz wyman]

]Agreed. However, what is the truth that Bill is alluding to? As a theist searching for God, only life experience, pushing those infallible buttons will result in knowing God. You will not find the Truth of God in books...unfortunatly. The most you could hope for is more faith.

You can reach for your delusion as you will, books, experience, whatever. God is not the truth. Searching for god is like searching fro red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours.
TO know the truth you have to just look. If you look for a thing you will only find that thing, whatever it is; the things you uncover will only be seen as evidence of that thing, even thought that thing does not exist.

[attofishpi]

Agreed. However, what is the truth that Bill is alluding to? As a theist searching for God, only life experience, pushing those infallible buttons will result in knowing God. You will not find the Truth of God in books...unfortunatly. The most you could hope for is more faith.

You can reach for your delusion as you will, books, experience, whatever. God is not the truth. Searching for god is like searching fro red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours.
TO know the truth you have to just look. If you look for a thing you will only find that thing, whatever it is; the things you uncover will only be seen as evidence of that thing, even thought that thing does not exist.

God exists..all atheists including those atheist philosophers that you espouse to are wrong.
We all carry the same torch, the only difference between an atheist and everyone else is that when the word God is mentioned, the atheist turns the torch off.

[chaz wyman]

Agreed. However, what is the truth that Bill is alluding to? As a theist searching for God, only life experience, pushing those infallible buttons will result in knowing God. You will not find the Truth of God in books...unfortunatly. The most you could hope for is more faith.

You can reach for your delusion as you will, books, experience, whatever. God is not the truth. Searching for god is like searching fro red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours.
TO know the truth you have to just look. If you look for a thing you will only find that thing, whatever it is; the things you uncover will only be seen as evidence of that thing, even thought that thing does not exist.

God exists..all atheists including those atheist philosophers that you espouse to are wrong.
We all carry the same torch, the only difference between an atheist and everyone else is that when the word God is mentioned, the atheist turns the torch off.

All you are doing is smelling your own shit. Keep it to yourself

[mtmynd1]

You can reach for your delusion as you will, books, experience, whatever. God is not the truth. Searching for god is like searching fro red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours.
TO know the truth you have to just look. If you look for a thing you will only find that thing, whatever it is; the things you uncover will only be seen as evidence of that thing, even thought that thing does not exist.

You state: "God is not the truth" as if you have discovered this on a personal pilgrimage and had an awakening. Is that 'true'? Is this why you also added the search is akin to "searching fro [sic] red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours"? It says to me that you have searched for (a) god but failed at finding this god you searched for. Yes?

Again, you state: "TO know the truth you have to just look." What would you expect to see by looking if you are seeking god? Surely you have some 'thing' in mind before you begin the search, would you not? You understand that this 'god' is a visible entity that resembles ... what?

I bring this up, Chaz, because there is absolute confusion amongst hu'manity as to what god ('God') is... i.e., this 'god' is more often than not referred to as 'He', at least in our common language. That would indicate 'God' as having a gender, specifically male. The Bible is said by those who have been well indoctrinated that the book is 'the word' of God and even written by 'Him'. This belief would insist on 'god' having not only gender but a mouth and even hands to write with. Is it no wonder skeptics and atheists abound in our world? How many logical and rational thinking people could possibly believe such a thing?

Take away these initial ideas of gender and hu'man qualities. What are we left with? Is that proof enough "God" does not exist? Why does a profound atheist even believe in the non-existence of this god? Is it because their initial religious indoctrination illogical... so illogical that the atheist cannot possibly believe in such an imaginary being. But is that alone evidence enough that there is no 'God"? If our encyclopedia never had the word, "Teotihuacan", would that mean that place did not exist?

The experience of knowing is an ongoing journey for all. Along this journey we each, as individuals, have our interests that spark our curiosities and we generally pursue them if we are fortunate enough. The journey to find or even understand what we've all been told exists, i.e. "God", is not a journey for the faint of heart. Yogananda wrote that a full 80% of seekers of God end up lost or even crazed, so dangerous a journey it truly is. So why would anyone risk their health and sanity for that search? Once you can understand that, perhaps you will realize there is indeed a presence that brings a state of freedom from all that we know and believe that it truly is the Greatest Gift of all. There is no conclusive word for that experience as each individual experience which has had that 'meeting' comes away with a meaning as individual of the person their self... and that is called enlightenment, awakened to Truth.

Ateists, Agnostics and any other non-believer of such an experience fall into the category can be lumped together into confused... unable to grasp the reality of an Absolute they come up with absurdities on such an existence actually being without a clue as to what they are talking about... disseminating false information to anyone who would listen them in hopes of finding like-minded folks to cuddle up to and talk to about all those people who actual believe there is a "God." When it is those same folks that are simply misinformed and perpetuating that belief of misinformation wherever they go.

Do not over-use the mind for it is only a tool. Mind is nothing more. Use it wisely but give it a rest occasionally and experience the joy of surrender.

Peace...

[chaz wyman]

You can reach for your delusion as you will, books, experience, whatever. God is not the truth. Searching for god is like searching fro red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours.
TO know the truth you have to just look. If you look for a thing you will only find that thing, whatever it is; the things you uncover will only be seen as evidence of that thing, even thought that thing does not exist.

You state: "God is not the truth" as if you have discovered this on a personal pilgrimage and had an awakening. Is that 'true'? Is this why you also added the search is akin to "searching fro [sic] red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours"? It says to me that you have searched for (a) god but failed at finding this god you searched for. Yes?

Again, you state: "TO know the truth you have to just look." What would you expect to see by looking if you are seeking god? Surely you have some 'thing' in mind before you begin the search, would you not? You understand that this 'god' is a visible entity that resembles ... what?

I bring this up, Chaz, because there is absolute confusion amongst hu'manity as to what god ('God') is... i.e., this 'god' is more often than not referred to as 'He', at least in our common language. That would indicate 'God' as having a gender, specifically male. The Bible is said by those who have been well indoctrinated that the book is 'the word' of God and even written by 'Him'. This belief would insist on 'god' having not only gender but a mouth and even hands to write with. Is it no wonder skeptics and atheists abound in our world? How many logical and rational thinking people could possibly believe such a thing?

Take away these initial ideas of gender and hu'man qualities. What are we left with? Is that proof enough "God" does not exist? Why does a profound atheist even believe in the non-existence of this god? Is it because their initial religious indoctrination illogical... so illogical that the atheist cannot possibly believe in such an imaginary being. But is that alone evidence enough that there is no 'God"? If our encyclopedia never had the word, "Teotihuacan", would that mean that place did not exist?

The experience of knowing is an ongoing journey for all. Along this journey we each, as individuals, have our interests that spark our curiosities and we generally pursue them if we are fortunate enough. The journey to find or even understand what we've all been told exists, i.e. "God", is not a journey for the faint of heart. Yogananda wrote that a full 80% of seekers of God end up lost or even crazed, so dangerous a journey it truly is. So why would anyone risk their health and sanity for that search? Once you can understand that, perhaps you will realize there is indeed a presence that brings a state of freedom from all that we know and believe that it truly is the Greatest Gift of all. There is no conclusive word for that experience as each individual experience which has had that 'meeting' comes away with a meaning as individual of the person their self... and that is called enlightenment, awakened to Truth.

Ateists, Agnostics and any other non-believer of such an experience fall into the category can be lumped together into confused... unable to grasp the reality of an Absolute they come up with absurdities on such an existence actually being without a clue as to what they are talking about... disseminating false information to anyone who would listen them in hopes of finding like-minded folks to cuddle up to and talk to about all those people who actual believe there is a "God." When it is those same folks that are simply misinformed and perpetuating that belief of misinformation wherever they go.

Do not over-use the mind for it is only a tool. Mind is nothing more. Use it wisely but give it a rest occasionally and experience the joy of surrender.

Peace...

God, as defined by attopifish (whazziname) is false.
I know this by seeking, not by seeking god.
If you are satisfied by other people's revelations, then you have to be satisfied with mine.

[mtmynd1]

"I know this by seeking, not by seeking god".

Seeking? What is it you are seeking? The truth or The Truth? Would you recognize what it is you are seeking when you see it with your own eyes?

"If you are satisfied by other people's revelations, then you have to be satisfied with mine.

Who is this directed at..? If it is me what is your revelation that I have to be satisfied with..?

[SpheresOfBalance]

You state: "God is not the truth" as if you have discovered this on a personal pilgrimage and had an awakening. Is that 'true'? Is this why you also added the search is akin to "searching fro [sic] red things with a red torch, you tend to miss the other colours"? It says to me that you have searched for (a) god but failed at finding this god you searched for. Yes?

Sounds like a magic mushroom quest to me, or maybe DMT, which is found naturally in our brains, though it's function is not fully realized, but many believe it attributes to consciousness somehow.

When the human animal undertakes a long journey to find something, especially an arduous one, they're likely to believe anything, because that was the point at the onset, right? I would say that the journey, even for nomads, is not as preferable as setting up camp near a warm fire, with plenty of water, food and shelter, surrounded by a more beautiful nature.

I'm saying that the journey is biased at the onset, and that they find what they 'want' to find, in the face of adversity, anything to end the adversity. The quicker they find it, the sooner they can make back and sit in front of that warm hearth, with their loved ones, peacefully.

In the face of an arduous journey, one can only find peace with it's conclusion.

[mtmynd1]

I would say that the journey, even for nomads, is not as preferable as setting up camp near a warm fire, with plenty of water, food and shelter, surrounded by a more beautiful nature...

(and)

....the sooner they can make back and sit in front of that warm hearth, with their loved ones, peacefully.

You sound like a comfort-seeking homebody, SOB.

Once the restless mind is at rest, so is the body that inhabits the mind.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I would say that the journey, even for nomads, is not as preferable as setting up camp near a warm fire, with plenty of water, food and shelter, surrounded by a more beautiful nature...

(and)

....the sooner they can make back and sit in front of that warm hearth, with their loved ones, peacefully.

You sound like a comfort-seeking homebody, SOB.

Once the restless mind is at rest, so is the body that inhabits the mind.

You think I speak of only me?? I speak of humanity! Oh and by the way unfortunately your mentioning "the restless mind" only proves my point further.

It's true that my body requires more exercise, but my mind gets it here! And so I thank you all.

[Satyr]

This place is a mental exercise for you pedophile?
Wow...you are dumb.

For me it's like a walk in the lithium park.


I saw Truth once; she pretended she did not recognize me.
Fuckin' bitch!!!

I hate women.
No, not you SpheresofBalls...you are just adorable, blazing eyes and all.