Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:48 am**

I absolutely know what you mean SOB.
But Again, the question: how do you Know this?

What is it that allows You to know what a cube is vs a sphere?

First, I would like you to explain to me so I know also what exactly a cube is. Tell me exactly without using diagrams or pictures, and i will see if I may totally understand exactly what a cube is from your definition/ explanation. Assume that I have never encountered a cube before, and I will see if I can understand you.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 3:45 am**

Can you imagine a square? If not can you imagine four equal lines? If so take one line and add another line to one end at ninety degrees. Add the next line at ninety degrees and in a direction that makes it parallel to the first line, then add the last line to the two open ends of the lines thus enclosing a space or area. This shape is a square. Now imagine that shape as solid with a small depth, we call this a sheet. Imagine you have six equal sized sheets or squares. Pick one and to each of its four edges attach a sheet upright at ninety degrees to the bottom sheet. Put the last sheet on the open end of the four upright sheet, thus enclosing a space, this shape is a cube.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:23 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
lancek4 wrote:I am sorry for your bit of rough road.
Yes; absolutly I agree with your post.
I too am cought in denial of what I don't know.
In this spirit, since you offered, I would like a chance to clear up what you have seen of my contradictory-ness.
I absolutely value our exchange. Don't ever think I resent it or you. Such exchange is what I need and what I enjoy. Thank you.
I shall work at their assemblage. The way in which you were in conflict was the actual argument opposed to your stated position. I blew it off as though you had gotten confused and stated the opposing view by mistake, but in the back of my mind I saw the possibility of deception.

They go back quite a few pages so it shall take me a little bit of time to complete, bear with me!
OK

If you will see, in the post from me just prior to yours, that I feel I have argued an example of your proposition. And I have said as much earlier, I understand what you are saying about Abolute Truth, and indeed, I use such 'position' to make arguments myself.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:27 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
lancek4 wrote:More soon. Usually means I'm on my blkbry and am kinda busy

I read Socrates as I put it earlier:
I am intact; what I 'know' is me; it is all there is. The entirety of that which is me cannot be communicated, yet somehow it is Absolute. What can be 'known' as 'out there' can be communicated and thus in Its entirety is mitigated by the individuals communicating, so it is relative, since not everyone else is like me in the ability to communicate at max only partly the Absolute.

Rough and somewhat vague but I'm on my blkbrry.
I don't agree with your assertion: I don't believe that anyone's necessarily intact. Because to say so would indicate they are able to rationalize thus come to terms with the first 5 years of their life when their psyche is formed,
I ask: in what way is this statement just prior here simlar to "stars existed before life sustaining planets"?

which is, pretty much, impossible, because during that time we don't know that which is required in order to reason the implications of the particular inputs we are exposed to, such that later we cannot remember what those inputs were. Memory then it would seem is a function of psyche formation. We cannot internally adjust our psyches formation, it is a product of external forces beyond our control and reason. He cannot see and/or communicate his entirety for this reason, yet he 'supposes' it is absolute (a leap of faith).

I would argue that what one knows of anything is only partial, nothing is known by anyone as complete. of course you would argue this; it is consistent with you position..

Considering this, can knowledge be incomplete or does it's incompleteness lend better to belief? Belief is what there is prior to truth testing. If knowledge is incomplete how could it have really passed truth testing to be called knowledge? Some of the incompleteness could change it's understanding such that you'd have to ask if that incompleteness disqualifies it as truly knowledge. What do we actually know? It could be illusion born of limitation.

Unless you're unusually interested in what this tired old mind comes up with next. I don't mind a slower pace as dictated by your access to a Computer Workstation. I don't know how you do it. i couldn't use one of those little things to write all this. Each to their own, what ever you're comfortable with.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:36 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
lancek4 wrote:More soon. Usually means I'm on my blkbry and am kinda busy

I read Socrates as I put it earlier:
I am intact; what I 'know' is me; it is all there is. The entirety of that which is me cannot be communicated, yet somehow it is Absolute. What ca be 'known' is 'out there' can be communicated and thus in Its entirety is mitigated by the individuals communicating, so it is relative, since no everyone else is like me in the ability to communicate at max only partly the Absolute.

Rough and somewhat vague but I'm on my blkbrry.

We cannot possibly say that Socrates didn't know anything if he was a human being, thus we read him and say "ah he was neing deceptive or was moveing with some sort of agenda". Perhaps; but when we read of him I, at least, get the queer (no pun intended) feeling that something else was going on.

When we say S is the father of modern philosophy it is because he was the first we come upon as 'opening the possibility that is the Subject'. Not so much as he proposed the object. The prior greeks, heraclitus, zeno, other schools, were already beginning to investigate and consider the natural world. It is only in the possibility found within the posited Subject that we have 'our' world now.

Considering absolute truth, we cannot be one sided. We cannot consider the object only, we cannnot reduce the Subject to that of an object amoung other natural objects. We can, but the we have negated the possibility of the Subject and relied only upon the object . This negation, I see, is where the problem lay. The problem that is "the Subject as a point of 'nil' in the conflation of objects".
You know it's funny how we tend to merely skim over what the other has said thus negating it's full understanding. I never said he didn't know. Here I'll quote myself:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Because in truth you don't know what you don't know. exactly: what you know of what you don't know is exactly that you "dont know". The 'space' of your not knowing is 'filled' entirely with the knowledge: "dont know". This 'space' is not empty in the Being, such a space informs the wholeness of the Being. To knowledge, this space is "unknown". It is not negative, it is not empty or lacking; only by the definition of 'unknown' or 'not know' that is come upon by the individual which means 'lacking' or 'empty' or 'wanting to be filled' does the individual Being, so oriented upon that 'thing' that the definition identifies in-itself, does the individual indeed 'not know' as if something is lacking of the Self.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I believe that in this phrase he spoke of an approach to the seeking, and something to always keep in mind.
In other words the only way you can actually get to the 'bottom' of anything is to 'constantly' ask questions as if you don't know. it is not 'if you dont know', it is exactly the position that 'knows it does not know'.

Never fall into the trap of believing that just because you asked 'a' question and believe you got 'the' answer that you're done. Not only should you ask the initial question but then question that answer and thereafter each one in turn. In addition you should incite others to ask questions of your answers as it can only serve to strengthen your final resolve, as if it's ever final.

"I only know that I know nothing." to me thus translates to: "Be humble and always question, never be full of yourself because all you can ever 'truly' know is that you don't 'truly' know, because the subject is actually isolated from the object making knowing extremely difficult, so question everything!" I believe that's pretty much what I've always taken it to mean in it's entirety.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:52 am**

Arising_uk wrote:Can you imagine a square?
No; you will have to excuse me if I was not forthwright for this excersize.

If not can you imagine four equal lines?
I have an idea of what four may be, and perhaps what equality is, but what is a 'line'?
If so take one line and add another line to one end at ninety degrees.
degrees?
Add the next line at ninety degrees and in a direction that makes it parallel to the first line,
What is parallel?
then add the last line to the two open ends of the lines thus enclosing a space or area.
What do you mean my 'space'?
This shape is a square.
you have lost me.

.

I realize that what I have done here seems incredibly rediculous.
But I ask for your indulgence, that I might make a point, so that i may learn.
I am attempting to understand what a cube is by your description.
I am not familiar with what a square is. And you have indicated that is has four elements in it.
These elements, a single of which would be called a 'line'.
what is a line?

- i am not going to jump into assumptions of what you may tell me. i am in your hands. I am ignorant. Please tell me what a 'line' is that I might discover the truth of the not-cube Earth.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:10 am**

Dear friends,

One more thought came in my mind regarding the thinking in third person. Anyone can do it easily. I also did not clear myself about seer and seen which was questioned by Arising_uk.

Imagine as if you want to reply to any post. Read the post carefully which is to be answered then think a reply in your mind. Do not write it; just think for a while that what your answer should be. Then leave it for a while.

Come back again about a couple of hours. Again look at the post. This time it will look slight different. Now try to recall your first reply. Judge it again, amend it if you feel necessary and write it down. Then leave it once again.

Now repeat this process 3-4 times and your final draft will be ready. Have a final look from every angle. Up to bottom, right to left.

Ask yourself whether it is what you want to say?
Ask yourself that if it was written by anyone else other than you then what will be your opinion? Is it still worthy?

If your answer is in affirmative, then go for it.
Your answer will reflect the thinking of third person. The more you repeat the process, more precise it will be. This happens because it is difficult to judge our self instantly. It needs time. If we provide enough time to our mind to manifest all thoughts, it will do it for us and we will be able to choose the most appropriate from it. All we need is to be patient and then, more importantly, honest with our mind. That’ all.

If we convert this practice into habit then it could be happen in one sitting. This is what I would like to call philosophy. We tend to react at once. It is difficult to be in the mindset of third person immediately seeing any argument.
Now look at me. This thought did not come into my mind when I was writing your reply. All this popped up when I was in the bed tying to sleep. It simply means that the time provided by me to my mind was not enough to manifest all thoughts. If I had been more patient, it will be included in the prior post.

I do not know whether all this is said before by anyone else or not. You and other members are more informed than me but let me explain how I draw this cogitation as it will clear the perspective more.

All this happened many years back, when I start meditating. After some time it became a bit like habit for me and it is still intact. So, when I used to meditate, I found there are many such things in the mind which I do not know. While meditating, I often witnessed irrational and unconcerned thoughts.
It was bit like this- imagine that something important happened 3-4 days back like a heated argument with someone. Apparently, it is looking to me that I am done with it and it has no importance to me at this very moment. My mind is not recalling that event so that chapter is closed forever. But, when I start to meditate, and as the concentration increases, I am again seeing the thoughts regarding that incident. They are still very much alive there. I am trying to avoid them to concentrate on meditation but they are just refusing to leave.
This phenomenon unveiled to me a very important fact that, though I am not able to realize it normally but my mind is still discussing the issue in its loneliness. I am claiming that it is my mind so it should do what I want but it is not the case. It is not in total control of my will. If I do not want to recall that incident then who is that other entity which is overruling my will by dragging me back.
Standing at this very moment, I can clearly see that there are two entities fighting each other to take control of mind. One is my will and the second is who is originating those thoughts. I used to wonder that where the real “I” or “me” has gone.

Is my will is real myself or those thoughts are real myself?
Or the real myself is something else that is existed independently from the other two?

I tried to find the answer in the religious books but did not get any. I found them silent on the issue. But, as time passed I began to understand these things to some extent. Many years later, destiny provided me the opportunity to have a look at religious and spiritual texts once again. But this time, to my surprise, they started chatting. Hence, I understood that they were vocal all the time but my ears were not tuned to their wavelength.

So, Arising_uk, I think that I have myself clear enough at the issue of thinking in third person and as well as about what I meant by seer and seen.

This very stage is the maximum which our thinking or philosophy is able to lead us; not beyond. One needs not to be a religious person or spiritualist up to here. Many scientists fall in this category. I want to mention two names particularly; Einstein and Newton. In my opinion, they are true philosophers. All of their finding is derived by their ability to think in third person. Relativity and curved spacetime are the perfect examples of that.

As I said earlier, our mind is possessed by two entities; we can name them as outer mind and inner mind for our comfort. In general they do not concentrate on a single issue at any given time. But, as they are somehow connected and even influence each other, so if such a state comes when they concentrate on a common issue together, their combine capacity increases manifolds. This is the stage where out of the world concepts like curved spacetime came into existence. This precise moment is the starting point of the journey to the ultimate. Theist or atheist, scientist or priest, feeling this moment, one is compelled to believe that there is something else and beyond me and my mind.

One more thing- I think that if one has the patience of going through all this carefully, then it is easily understandable what Socrates means that he who sees with his eyes is blind. He simply means that the true understanding comes from inside; not from outside, though he is referring stages beyond we discussed.

With love,
sanjay

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:28 am**

Sanjay: interesting, insightful, and pertinent. Thank you.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:52 am**

lancek4 wrote:I absolutely know what you mean SOB.
But Again, the question: how do you Know this?
Education, School.
What is it that allows You to know what a cube is vs a sphere?
Education, School.
First, I would like you to explain to me so I know also what exactly a cube is. Tell me exactly without using diagrams or pictures, and i will see if I may totally understand exactly what a cube is from your definition/ explanation. Assume that I have never encountered a cube before, and I will see if I can understand you.
Can't be done, because you have already learned via education, school what a cube is. The only way you could possibly tend to your side of this equation is lie. So your point is a lie a falsehood! Only if you never saw a cube before could we perform this test legitimately Don't you know anything about the scientific method?

You forget that a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. In other words it matters not if the concept of sphere came before or after the earth being called a sphere.

Did we create the label sphere, describe what it should be, then see one for the very first time. as your assertion would indicate.

or

Did we see it, describe it, then label it. My assertion.

Notice that seeing it comes first because it existed before us, then one day we took notice of it, then we described it, then we gave it a name. Do you see how we came at the end of the chain. A sphere by any other name is just as spherical. I believe the Gluck Glucks from the 2000th dimension in the gazillionth perpendicular universe of invisibility call our sphere of an earth a huhufffffttttsnshegdte but you know whats funny they say it has the exact 'same spherical properties' well, at least what we call spherical.

It being in the shape that it's in has absolutely nothing to do with sight, touch, smell, hearing, taste, consciousness, thoughts, humans, gluck glucks, animals, plants, philosophy, psychology but has everything to do with the particular physics of our universe. Humans just try and make sense out of their limited sensors.

I submit to you that if you took a fully sensing human baby and locked them in a closet and never spoke to them or told them anything at all for twenty years pertaining to sphere-ness that they would be able to see a sphere for the very first time and without so much as an explanation from one of us could again point out it's particulars without ever being taught any language at all

Here I got one for you, imagine you've never gone to school, you are illiterate now explain Socrates.

OK, seriously, please stop with the silly questions with the silly conditions, and just simply argue my points in plain easy to understand English. I don't believe you can. Don't ask me how I know, tell me how I can't know.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:22 am**

lancek4 wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
lancek4 wrote:More soon. Usually means I'm on my blkbry and am kinda busy

I read Socrates as I put it earlier:
I am intact; what I 'know' is me; it is all there is. The entirety of that which is me cannot be communicated, yet somehow it is Absolute. What ca be 'known' is 'out there' can be communicated and thus in Its entirety is mitigated by the individuals communicating, so it is relative, since no everyone else is like me in the ability to communicate at max only partly the Absolute.

Rough and somewhat vague but I'm on my blkbrry.

We cannot possibly say that Socrates didn't know anything if he was a human being, thus we read him and say "ah he was neing deceptive or was moveing with some sort of agenda". Perhaps; but when we read of him I, at least, get the queer (no pun intended) feeling that something else was going on.

When we say S is the father of modern philosophy it is because he was the first we come upon as 'opening the possibility that is the Subject'. Not so much as he proposed the object. The prior greeks, heraclitus, zeno, other schools, were already beginning to investigate and consider the natural world. It is only in the possibility found within the posited Subject that we have 'our' world now.

Considering absolute truth, we cannot be one sided. We cannot consider the object only, we cannnot reduce the Subject to that of an object amoung other natural objects. We can, but the we have negated the possibility of the Subject and relied only upon the object . This negation, I see, is where the problem lay. The problem that is "the Subject as a point of 'nil' in the conflation of objects".
You know it's funny how we tend to merely skim over what the other has said thus negating it's full understanding. I never said he didn't know. Here I'll quote myself:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Because in truth you don't know what you don't know. exactly: what you know of what you don't know is exactly that you "dont know". The 'space' of your not knowing is 'filled' entirely with the knowledge: "dont know". This 'space' is not empty in the Being, such a space informs the wholeness of the Being. To knowledge, this space is "unknown". It is not negative, it is not empty or lacking; only by the definition of 'unknown' or 'not know' that is come upon by the individual which means 'lacking' or 'empty' or 'wanting to be filled' does the individual Being, so oriented upon that 'thing' that the definition identifies in-itself, does the individual indeed 'not know' as if something is lacking of the Self. I can't believe you don't get the point

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I believe that in this phrase he spoke of an approach to the seeking, and something to always keep in mind.
In other words the only way you can actually get to the 'bottom' of anything is to 'constantly' ask questions as if you don't know. it is not 'if you dont know', it is exactly the position that 'knows it does not know'. The purple highlighted above is simply a mistake where was trying to say that it's never ending.

Never fall into the trap of believing that just because you asked 'a' question and believe you got 'the' answer that you're done. Not only should you ask the initial question but then question that answer and thereafter each one in turn. In addition you should incite others to ask questions of your answers as it can only serve to strengthen your final resolve, as if it's ever final.

"I only know that I know nothing." to me thus translates to: "Be humble and always question, never be full of yourself because all you can ever 'truly' know is that you don't 'truly' know, because the subject is actually isolated from the object making knowing extremely difficult, so question everything!" I believe that's pretty much what I've always taken it to mean in it's entirety.

Obviously we're getting tired. Forget about it. We need a break! Later!

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:25 am**

Lancek4, It's obvious that we're getting tired of dealing with one another. We need a break, to regroup if you will.

Until our minds are rested...

Later!

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:42 pm**

What I see as the difference between us SOB, is that, though I repeatedly tell you I understand what you are saying and I agree with the consistency of your position, you are taking my subsequent posts as representing that I don't understand you.

A comfortable truce. For now.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 1:05 pm**

lancek4 wrote:I have an idea of what four may be, and perhaps what equality is, but what is a 'line'?

Can you imagine a flat surface? If so thats called a "plane". Do you know what a point is? It the smallest mark you can make if you use something to scribe that surface. If you know what pencil and sheet of paper are its the mark a pencil makes if you just press it to a sheet of paper. Imagine the plane or surface as covered with them. Now imagine just two anywhere upon the flat surface or plane. Take an object with a straight-edge on it, e.g. a ruler, place the edge so that it touches both points and use something to scribe a line along the edge. Thats a line. You could of course use string, i.e. peg a rope at one point and stretch it as tight as you can to the other point, peg it there and thats a line as well, you could use it to "draw" another line, thats how a chalk-string works.

degrees?

Ninety degrees. Do you know what a circle is? If not imagine standing facing a direction. Pick a direction to turn and turn until you are facing sideways and face that direction, that is a quarter of a turn and depending upon how close you are to sideways will be an angle of ninety degrees. Turn four times in the same direction and you face back to the picked direction. Each turn is roughly ninety degrees, so image the line and you have four of them exactly the same. Place one line on the plane or flat surface, pick an endpoint and lay the next lines endpoint one turn sideways to the line. Go to the end of that line and do the same thing until you run out of lines. The shape made is a square. Because its on a plane, its own shape is also a plane or flat surface.

What is parallel?

If you get the above, then think of two lines on a plane where the end points are the same distance from each other, i.e. imagine two more lines that connect the endpoints of the lines, if those lines are the same length then any point on either line will be the same distance apart from its opposite on the other line. Thats two parallel lines.

What do you mean my 'space'?

If you've got the idea of how to draw a square then its the plane that that describes, on top of a greater plane, what's on the square plane is a "space".

you have lost me.

Hopefully the above has helped.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:18 pm**

Ah - quite helpful. (AUK you are marvelous). For this excersize, I will grant a square as indicating geometry.

When you were telling me what a line is, you mentioned a string. Is the string the same as a line?

And a plane: are the trees and grass also a plane?

Space: I understand how if I etrapolate an enumerable amount of squares next to each other I can come to an idea of the space that might comprise the whole universe in which we act. Is this the same space I find when I make space for a book on my shelf, for what I find between books does not appear to me as what you have shown to be a square. ? It does not have equallity in sides length, the one side is like I made in your direction, two of the sides are also the bindings of books, and the fourth side is wood. And besides, the book I am placing there seems to defy what you have shown me to be the space in the square.

Posted: **Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:40 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Lancek4, It's obvious that we're getting tired of dealing with one another. We need a break, to regroup if you will.

Until our minds are rested...

Later!

Look at the sentiment of this, which was to be my close, for now.

lancek4 wrote:What I see as the difference between us SOB, is that, though I repeatedly tell you I understand what you are saying and I agree with the consistency of your position, you are taking my subsequent posts as representing that I don't understand you.

A comfortable truce. For now.

Now look at the sentiment of yours which followed that of mine. Can you see the difference? I'll say no more!

lancek4 wrote:What I see as the difference between us SOB, is that, though I repeatedly tell you I understand what you are saying and I agree with the consistency of your position, you are taking my subsequent posts as representing that I don't understand you.

A comfortable truce. For now.

Exactly, We never know what we don't know! Do U understand the point now? (it's all about logical inconsistency, not the other way around, it's simply a reminder that you may not have all the facts, that they could be beyond your vision, not that you're incapable, just that you're not privy.)
Also logically you're incapable of saying this in truth, only I can inform you of your understanding of my words. (something you've used in the past)

I really wish you would have left it as thus:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Lancek4, It's obvious that we're getting tired of dealing with one another. We need a break, to regroup if you will.

Until our minds are rested...

Later!

A balanced equation! or in your words, 'A "truly" comfortable truce.'

Philosophy Now Forum

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Re: What's stopping us from seeing the truth?