What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[creativesoul]

sounds like both of you are hunting the same after all: the most accurate understanding of the world?

Perhaps.

sounds like theres still lots of integration to do between many different abstraction models or worldviews?

In order to accomplish what... exactly?

how much integration different views can take, without loosing their differences?

Between each other, I'm presuming? Depends upon the views.

is it going to be heaven or hell if we start to think same way, same thoughts, same views?

Do you think all integration equates to losing differences?

what will be philosophy then? if we share same thoughts and living styles and clothes and all? talking only about weather and sport news? sounds hell to me.

I don't see how integration must lead to such a thing.

theres only one little bump on the road to that new autobahn of yours, leading to the new brave one-eyed world: in which worldview or abstraction model the judge sits judging, which is the most accurate worldview or abstraction model?

Firstly, the "autobahn" belongs to you, not I. Secondly, that second question is part of what philosophy is all about.

should judges own view be also the most accurate? how can we know, without the most accurate view, who is the most accurate judge?

Why should we suppose "without the most accurate view"? All people judge using the same skeleton.

do we also have to have the most accurate view?

We do in order to "have" it, we do not in order to get along with/in life.

do we need that judge at all? what if all worldviews or abstraction models are the most accurate to them? what if they all have their own different explanations and views to these questions of mine?

What if?

[Mark Question]

Perhaps.

dont you know what you are doing?

Do you think all integration equates to losing differences?

do you think not?

I don't see how integration must lead to such a thing.

are you talking about some kind of mental blindness?

Why should we suppose "without the most accurate view"? All people judge using the same skeleton.

why not? do all people have "we have the same skeleton"-view? or is it just your view?

We do in order to "have" it, we do not in order to get along with/in life.

do all people have that same view of yours? do they say the same words, think the same as you?

do we need that judge at all? what if all worldviews or abstraction models are the most accurate to them? what if they all have their own different explanations and views to these questions of mine?

What if?

was that your explanation and view? do you have any?

Mark points toward the problem of epistemic regress. How do you know that you know.

thanks for making me to point at least somewhere. i feel like a statue with a mighty sword. or gigantic middle finger. hard to say what these modern artistic views shows to us, isnt it? waiting frendly birds or some spray paint..

[creativesoul]

dont you know what you are doing?

It's not a matter of my knowing what I am doing. It is a matter of our knowing the following...

1. The correct answer to a question regarding two people's intentions requires knowing at least one other person's intention.
2. (1) requires that one must trust his/her own judgment about another's intention.
3. All judgment is rendered upon pre-existing belief.
4. Confidence in one's own judgment corresponds to the amount of times the unconscious mind has revisited and reconfirmed the individual beliefs which comprise that specific set of judgmental grounds.
5. (4) cannot be quantitatively proven, and varies from individual to individual.

Do you agree with the above?

[Mark Question]

dont you know what you are doing?

It's not a matter of my knowing what I am doing. It is a matter of our knowing the following...

1. The correct answer to a question regarding two people's intentions requires knowing at least one other person's intention.
2. (1) requires that one must trust his/her own judgment about another's intention.
3. All judgment is rendered upon pre-existing belief.
4. Confidence in one's own judgment corresponds to the amount of times the unconscious mind has revisited and reconfirmed the individual beliefs which comprise that specific set of judgmental grounds.
5. (4) cannot be quantitatively proven, and varies from individual to individual.

Do you agree with the above?

fine abstraction model that is? when you look at the dark side, careful you must be. For the dark side looks back.
sounds quite an byreaucratic way of talking with other people? do i have to sign that? you can fax it to me. why it is a matter of knowing the following...5 steps with two(1,4) backsteps, if it is not a matter of knowing what we are doing? why not dancing and making grand jetés from rooftops instead? size matters not. Look at me. once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.

[Mark Question]

Kinda like our insecure movie projector does.

by the way or river, does the technology change philosophy too? if the one uses ridiculously small mobile phone to write like a god or book writer in jail, those small sentences where small words like people or woman gets what those small ones deserve? and changing that ridiculously enormous flat-tv and pc-display from back of the library hall where it stands side by side with socrates head, to be home theater-projected on the nearest houses walls, makes those philosophical sentences and its subjects and objects more like gods or hellenic teutons who watch over what their artistic writer has to say about them or neighbours?

[creativesoul]

Are 1 - 3 true, false, or neither?

[Arising_uk]

Wittgenstein passed over much of it in silence, princess. ...

A point you appear to have missed mary. As its not that he has things that he could say but passes over in silence but that there are things that cannot be said but only shown. As he says, if a thing can be said it can be said clearly, another point you appear to miss.

[Mark Question]

Are 1 - 3 true, false, or neither?

in witch context? and i dont have that short memory. or was it short-term memory? at least about that 5 stones. i mean, do you have more stones to reveal in the name of unspeakable, the context? oops! by the way of the red sea, theres rumors that moses had more than ten!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAtRCJIqnk

[creativesoul]

Would you, or would you not agree with those three claims?

[Mark Question]

Would you, or would you not agree with those three claims?

should i? why?
would you, or would you not stop neglecting your wives, if theres a formula for your problem:
The Emperor had his Empress, three senior consorts, nine wives, twenty-seven concubines, and eighty-one slaves, a total of 121 women, and he was expected to sleep with every one of them over a period of fifteen nights. The mathematicians would soon have realised that this was a geometric progression - a sequence of numbers in which each succeeding element is a constant multiple greater than the previous one. In the case of the harem, the constant multiple was 3.

What was the rota thought up by the imperial mathematicians? Well, on the first night, the Emperor would bonk his Empress. On the second night, he would service the three senior consorts. Night 3 would find him with his nine wives. Nights 4-6 would find him wading through an assortment of his 27 concubines, nine on each night. And finally, nine nights were reserved for his eighty-one slaves, nine each night in rotation.

The object was to procure the best possible imperial succession. The rota ensured that the Emperor slept with the ladies of the highest ranks closest to the full moon, when their yin - or female essence - was strongest, and matched his yang. Fun, eh? As du Sautoy quips:

Being the Emperor certainly required stamina. A bit like being a mathematician.

[creativesoul]

Is it that hard to admit and/or understand that you asked me a question that I cannot confidently answer, and that that lack of certainty does not stem from my not knowing what I am doing?

"Perhaps" Satyr and I have the same aim... for him/her - I cannot speak.

[creativesoul]

creative:

Do you think all integration equates to losing differences?

Mark:

do you think not?

I do not think that integration requires losing all differences. I do think that all integration requires losing some difference(s).

[creativesoul]

do all people have that same view of yours? do they say the same words, think the same as you?

No. No. Yes.

Viewpoints are a matter of pre-existing thought/belief working in conjunction with one another. A worldview(viewpoint) is the sum total of thought/belief about one's own life experience(the belief system). However, because specific belief varies with experience, individual viewpoints vary accordingly. It is for this reason that we must look at what it takes in order to be able to experience anything. We must look at that which all viewpoints are equally contingent upon, that which is common to all. Thought/belief is one such element. Viewpoints require thought/belief about the world and/or ourselves. Given the fact that thought/belief happens autonomously - the elements which when combined constitute being thought/belief - cannot depend upon pre-existing thought/belief, because that does not yet exist. So, we can know that initial thought/belief formation requires something beyond itself.

So the question becomes, what constitutes thought/belief?

[Mark Question]

So the question becomes, what constitutes thought/belief?

but, i like big buts and I can not lie
you other brothers can't deny
pre-existing beliefs telling facts about their elements is
like a round thing in your facelifts?

I do not think that integration requires losing all differences. I do think that all integration requires losing some difference(s).

when x and y are integrated as z, then they both are z? and z is z without differences?

Is it that hard to admit and/or understand that you asked me a question that I cannot confidently answer, and that that lack of certainty does not stem from my not knowing what I am doing?

was it hard to ask about those 5 steps? or about my wives and stamina? so, do you know less or more what you are doing without those 5 steps? or are they no use at all when doing with people? are those 5 steps related to your knowledge about how to gain knowledge from people and about people, how to do people? sorry my english.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Here we are..


This thread started out over two months ago.

A simple picture. No words.

Almost three hundred posts later and I'm not sure we have breached any truth or even any significant truths...



And I think the truth is all around us.

The truth travels through us.

But the truth cannot be captured in our minds.



Like the Zen Buddhists who sit in seaming silence.

They admit, that they do not know the truth.


They work to become the truth.




I'm not sure we, as humans, are meant to understand or become the truth of our reality for any measurable amount of time.



Like this thread, our personalities, our egos, get in our own way of knowing or becoming any type of significant truth.



But that search, our reaching, does construct scaffolding that, somehow, makes our lives here on earth, better.








..........................................




One of the hardest truths to understand, a truth that even undermines this sentence, is that associated thought will never lead us to THE TRUTH.






and there it is...



.