Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Yes, I agree. But I would put the percentage of knowing, the opposite of yours.
And therein lies mans arrogance. they're just theories my friend. At least it would seem that he tries to be honest.

So the problem must be in how we are saying it.
I thought I was pretty clear that mans microcosm (planet Earth) is infinitesimal with respect to the macrocosm (Universe totality). I would say that his microcosm is all that he's capable of truly knowing. That is once he's capable of understanding himself (the nature of consciousness & thought.) Until such time that he's capable of truly understanding himself (C&T), he'll only be spitting into the wind to see where it splatters (have theories).

I do not exclde myself from my propositions.
I believe that all humans, that at least see this much, that 'truly' try and be honest, 'attempt' to do as much.

Somehow, I feel that I know what you are saying: and I agree, in that it is internally consistent. But because I know what you are saying it is evident to me that you do not understand what I am saying. Thus I seek to find to find an argument which is capable of breaking my truth. But no one as of yet is that patient, or what I see as capable of being 'honest' enough, to understand what I'm saying. What happens, invaribly, is they 'stop' searching and assert as truth and then argue that truth.
If it is a question of everyone having faith, of believing their own truth, then indeed it should be as I proposed eariler: let's call it a 'comfortable truce'. Let's call the Absolte Truth relative Truth.

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Yes, I agree. But I would put the percentage of knowing, the opposite of yours.
And therein lies mans arrogance. they're just theories my friend. At least it would seem that he tries to be honest.

So the problem must be in how we are saying it.
I thought I was pretty clear that mans microcosm (planet Earth) is infinitesimal with respect to the macrocosm (Universe totality). I would say that his microcosm is all that he's capable of truly knowing. That is once he's capable of understanding himself (the nature of consciousness & thought.) Until such time that he's capable of truly understanding himself (C&T), he'll only be spitting into the wind to see where it splatters (have theories).

I do not exclde myself from my propositions.
I believe that all humans, that at least see this much, that 'truly' try and be honest, 'attempt' to do as much.

Somehow, I feel that I know what you are saying: and I agree, in that it is internally consistent. But because I know what you are saying it is evident to me that you do not understand what I am saying. Thus I seek to find to find an argument which is capable of breaking my truth. But no one as of yet is that patient, or what I see as capable of being 'honest' enough, to understand what I'm saying. What happens, invaribly, is they 'stop' searching and assert as truth and then argue that truth.
If it is a question of everyone having faith, of believing their own truth, then indeed it should be as I proposed eariler: let's call it a 'comfortable truce'. Let's call the Absolte Truth relative Truth.

Lance to tell you the truth I don't believe you're being 'honest' with me either. I've read some of your posts in other forums/threads and believe that you've in fact already made up your mind and are somehow intent on my conversion. Which will never happen. Simply because it was the Universe that came first. It is in essence our father and mother. We are it's children. The truth lies not in our twisted thoughts but in it's essence. PERIOD! It begot us, we did not beget it, the absolute truth lies within it. We shall eventually come to terms with it's truth if our twisted thoughts don't cause our demise.

But if in all seriousness you need my help with respect to anything, including being your sounding board, I will be more than happy to comply. I will just expect one thing. And that's your complete honesty.

In several of your previous posts it would seem that you were deliberately contradictory with the aim of entrapment.

And this one below followed by an unusual extended absence seemed to have me in it's crosshairs

lancek4 wrote:I Absolutely agree with you synopsis ans analysis. And it is more than contradictory: it is absurd.

Yes, 'somehow' i still want to complain "there is an Absolute Truth" of the matter, and that it is not relative. How absurd.

All your cards on the table, please!

Again, if you seriously need my help with anything, I will help you, because you have been there for me, to profess my version of truth.

Thank you for that much at least kind sir.

I would sumit that it is a mutual arrogance; hence a truce. We caanot argue Absolute and communicate. My cards have been played; we split the pot. Humbly : you have indeed helped me.

lancek4 wrote:I would sumit that it is a mutual arrogance; hence a truce. We caanot argue Absolute and communicate. My cards have been played; we split the pot. Humbly : you have indeed helped me.

OK in closing, if that's your choice, I would have to say that if in fact you've been honest with me from the start then it would seem that we have a serious communication gap because quite a bit of my words have obviously been misconstrued. I've noticed it time and time again. I've said something and you've taken it the wrong way. I never tried to purposely mislead you so it would seem that our methods of relating information are not very compatible.

Oh well, it was an honest attempt on my part. Thanks for your time Lance.

I do not believe () that I have misconstrewed what you said. Partly,yes, the textualizing thing sometimes gets in th way. But on the whole our definition is pretty clear- and your posts likewise.
Mine is simply this, and I wonder how u could misconstue it: if there is an Absolute truth, how do you know ? You seem to use your knowledge to argue that your knowledge is True. You say its obvious that the universe is such a way and use scientific 'proofs' to back it up. I understand these proofss; I ask how can I know These? For it seems our reliance upon them as Absolute, by an implicit extrapolation for them allows us purchase for what we argue.

Clear?

And so I say: such an extrpolation likewise is not Absolutly true, it is relative. So I say 'somehow' I still think there is an Absoluute that is not relative. And: what is this? How can this be so?

My tenetive hypothesis is, so I have to test it by engaging with others, is:
If our knowledge is held by its own limit, and science tends to exemplify this limit, how might it be that this limit informs me of itself?
- it must be that we art not really 'knowing any Absolute Truth' but are really merely cought in a universally constant 'illusion of our own pre-eminence' if you will, that we know as knowledge.

Yet , if This is True, how can we know This?

I think you both should explain to each other in your own terms, what happens in the real world or in the content/context of the other, so that he can check that up close and see if you were right.

Then you can compare and decide who did a better job.

( And if you want to improve our reading experience as well, then please apply your spelling checker before you hit Submit.)

.






Spell checker is, my tenetive hypothesis, so I have to test it by engaging it with others:
My knowledge is held by its own limit, and spell checker tends to exemplify this limit, how might it be that this limit informs me of itself?
- it must be that I am not really 'knowing any Absolute Truth' but I am really merely cought in a universally constant 'illusion of my own pre-eminence' if you will, that we know as knowledge.



Just run you posts by the membership here at the Philosophy Now Forums and I think we will disrupt your illusion of your own pre-eminence.



It's true. That's how you can know it.




.

lancek4 wrote:I do not believe () that I have misconstrewed what you said. Partly,yes, the textualizing thing sometimes gets in th way. But on the whole our definition is pretty clear- and your posts likewise.
Mine is simply this, and I wonder how u could misconstue it: if there is an Absolute truth, how do you know ? You seem to use your knowledge to argue that your knowledge is True. You say its obvious that the universe is such a way and use scientific 'proofs' to back it up. I understand these proofss; I ask how can I know These? For it seems our reliance upon them as Absolute, by an implicit extrapolation for them allows us purchase for what we argue.

Clear?

And so I say: such an extrpolation likewise is not Absolutly true, it is relative. So I say 'somehow' I still think there is an Absoluute that is not relative. And: what is this? How can this be so?

OK Lancek4, I'm going to do it. It's going to be a lot of work and take time, but I'm going to do it in the interest of our (lancek4's and that SOB's ) little bit of time spent here. Because this exchange of little tidbits really goes no where. Once I've assembled it all I shall post it in it's completion. So keep your eyes on the prize, revealing itself in this thread, because this is where it shall be given. I just hope I can effectively condense it down and organize it, such that it shall be allowed to be posted, because I fear that it may exceed some yet to be seen limit on message size.

I shall impart an incomplete excerpt below, although it shall probably be long and run-on.

The concept of truth was merely an attempt by serious humans to see past the untruths (distorted truth, as reported by fellow humans for what ever their reason) and come to know the absolute truth (that which exists without applied human distortion), so that they could address real problems born of humans (understanding and knowledge). At this point some might try and argue for relative truth, seeing that those serious humans (seeking absolute truth) are just one more in a sea of plenty of truths, but actually it only indicates a need for cutting through the smokescreen born of all these humans professing their different versions of what they believe to be truth. As an example of absolute truths actual existence and to set a baseline, look as the universe, it’s easy to see absolute truth, as all you have to do is envision a time that predates humans. There are no potential billions of beliefs of truth just the one truth of actual existence. At this point one could say, “wait a minute, there is not just one absolute truth, there are two truths, the one absolute and the one of the observer. OK, that’s true but at this point I have achieved my goal of delineating the absolute truth. It is ‘all’ the absolute particulars that could ‘ever’ be absolutely attributed to the actual universe without and despite that single observers sensing, comprehension or ability to articulate. The absolute truth is independent of human thought. At this point all the humans that do actually exist would probably want to know how we can come to know all these absolute particulars of the universe. And I would say, be patient, because the universe is over 13.7 billion earth years old and it has taken us over 199,000 earth years to come to know that our planet is a sphere, and that the universe is quite possibly infinite and the furthest we have traveled through it is from between 356,400 to 406,700 kilometers to the moon, and that was by few for an extremely short period of time. We don’t know all the particulars of our own solar system, let alone the totality of the entire universe.

(much more to come which shall be better formulated, as succinct as I’m capable, and hopefully leave little to question.)

It shall be my goal to deliver a complete version as soon as I can.

lancek4 wrote:I would sumit that it is a mutual arrogance; hence a truce. We caanot argue Absolute and communicate. My cards have been played; we split the pot. Humbly : you have indeed helped me.

Actually Lance I was generalizing, although I can see where you may have seen it as pointed at you.

Ron de Weijze wrote:I think you both should explain to each other in your own terms, what happens in the real world or in the content/context of the other, so that he can check that up close and see if you were right.

Then you can compare and decide who did a better job.

( And if you want to improve our reading experience as well, then please apply your spelling checker before you hit Submit.)

I tink dis iz wat we wrrrr tryink 2 du.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.






Spell checker is, my tenetive hypothesis, so I have to test it by engaging it with others:
My knowledge is held by its own limit, and spell checker tends to exemplify this limit, how might it be that this limit informs me of itself?
- it must be that I am not really 'knowing any Absolute Truth' but I am really merely cought in a universally constant 'illusion of my own pre-eminence' if you will, that we know as knowledge.



Just run you posts by the membership here at the Philosophy Now Forums and I think we will disrupt your illusion of your own pre-eminence.



It's true. That's how you can know it.




.

Thank Buddah-Zen master; I can always rely on you for your insightful posts.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I do not believe () that I have misconstrewed what you said. Partly,yes, the textualizing thing sometimes gets in th way. But on the whole our definition is pretty clear- and your posts likewise.
Mine is simply this, and I wonder how u could misconstue it: if there is an Absolute truth, how do you know ? You seem to use your knowledge to argue that your knowledge is True. You say its obvious that the universe is such a way and use scientific 'proofs' to back it up. I understand these proofss; I ask how can I know These? For it seems our reliance upon them as Absolute, by an implicit extrapolation for them allows us purchase for what we argue.

Clear?

And so I say: such an extrpolation likewise is not Absolutly true, it is relative. So I say 'somehow' I still think there is an Absoluute that is not relative. And: what is this? How can this be so?

OK Lancek4, I'm going to do it. It's going to be a lot of work and take time, but I'm going to do it in the interest of our (lancek4's and that SOB's ) little bit of time spent here. Because this exchange of little tidbits really goes no where. Once I've assembled it all I shall post it in it's completion. So keep your eyes on the prize, revealing itself in this thread, because this is where it shall be given. I just hope I can effectively condense it down and organize it, such that it shall be allowed to be posted, because I fear that it may exceed some yet to be seen limit on message size.

I shall impart an incomplete excerpt below, although it shall probably be long and run-on.

The concept of truth was merely an attempt by serious humans to see past the untruths (distorted truth, as reported by fellow humans for what ever their reason) and come to know the absolute truth (that which exists without applied human distortion), so that they could address real problems born of humans (understanding and knowledge). At this point some might try and argue for relative truth, seeing that those serious humans (seeking absolute truth) are just one more in a sea of plenty of truths, but actually it only indicates a need for cutting through the smokescreen born of all these humans professing their different versions of what they believe to be truth. As an example of absolute truths actual existence and to set a baseline, look as the universe, it’s easy to see absolute truth, as all you have to do is envision a time that predates humans. There are no potential billions of beliefs of truth just the one truth of actual existence. At this point one could say, “wait a minute, there is not just one absolute truth, there are two truths, the one absolute and the one of the observer. OK, that’s true but at this point I have achieved my goal of delineating the absolute truth. It is ‘all’ the absolute particulars that could ‘ever’ be absolutely attributed to the actual universe without and despite that single observers sensing, comprehension or ability to articulate. The absolute truth is independent of human thought. At this point all the humans that do actually exist would probably want to know how we can come to know all these absolute particulars of the universe. And I would say, be patient, because the universe is over 13.7 billion earth years old and it has taken us over 199,000 earth years to come to know that our planet is a sphere, and that the universe is quite possibly infinite and the furthest we have traveled through it is from between 356,400 to 406,700 kilometers to the moon, and that was by few for an extremely short period of time. We don’t know all the particulars of our own solar system, let alone the totality of the entire universe.

(much more to come which shall be better formulated, as succinct as I’m capable, and hopefully leave little to question.)

It shall be my goal to deliver a complete version as soon as I can.

If th 'absolute truth is independent of human thought', then how do we 'think' of it? How fo we know it? What, exactly is it that we are knowing, as to this absolute, when our knowing is a distortion? Are we learning more of what is actually distorted and so one day will understand what this 'true truth' is? If not, then what is the point of talking about what may be absoltely true?

It would seem then that to posit this absolute one is advocating a particular agenda, that is, a particular 'truth' that everyone should realize if ... If what? We are to gain a more 'harmonious humanity' ? Peace? Not that these are not noble ideals but can you tell me what might this endeavor which sees an absolute lead?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I would sumit that it is a mutual arrogance; hence a truce. We caanot argue Absolute and communicate. My cards have been played; we split the pot. Humbly : you have indeed helped me.

Actually Lance I was generalizing, although I can see where you may have seen it as pointed at you.

Yes. Cool beans. Understandable likewise.

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I would sumit that it is a mutual arrogance; hence a truce. We caanot argue Absolute and communicate. My cards have been played; we split the pot. Humbly : you have indeed helped me.

Actually Lance I was generalizing, although I can see where you may have seen it as pointed at you.

Yes. Cool beans. Understandable likewise.

Am I sensing anger and frustration, or is it just me?