Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

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.'

lancek4 wrote:SpheresOfBalance is in blue and purple
All other colors are highlights of lancek4's text.

<snip>

Before we get into this, understand that I’m not picking on you in any way, so please don’t take offense. As far as I’m concerned, your and my participation is all about understanding, and is purely academic.

Communication I see, as someone using words to try and convey an idea such that it’s understood by another. It can fail, leading to assumption or confusion, if either the incorrect words are chosen by the transmitter, that does not faithfully portray the idea, or the words are not understood by the receiver, giving way to a false or partial understanding of the idea.

...And I was pondering how I might be more clear so far as Socrates...

I offer this to more closely define what I mean by 'orientation', so as to I have accused you (SOB) of being orientated upon the Object, and you have likeiwse and correctly placed me from the Subject:

I am intact. My Being that is myself is intact, it is Whole; there is nothing that I do not know. If there is something that I do not know, then I know it, and this is exactly what Socates states: "I know that I do not know".
I don’t think that is what he’s saying at all.

You didn’t know that a transmutational thermocoupling Cyano-organism parallels transmogrification of the genotypical homogenous reciprocal of an interstellar quotient by the antidisestablishmentarianism of the forces of the sub-universe of dimension x. You didn’t know that I would say this idea existed, that it would be real or that it was fantasy. You are just now finding, that you are being made aware of it, that you were never made aware of it before, and that before this moment you couldn’t have been aware that you would now, or not now, be made aware of it.

Notice what I highlighted in red and green above. You can say that: I only know, what I know. Or that: I don’t know, what I don’t know. These make perfect logical sense. They may go without saying, and are self-evident, but they are logical. Notice in the highlighted text above the green in that sentence. Something and it are pronouns and the way you have written the sentence they’re understood to be one in the same thing. Using the comma as an equal sign the assertion to the right does not equal that of the left, but is in contradiction of that on the left. You are saying that it is not known on the left and that it is known on the right. You can say that: I know that there are things that I do not know. But you do not know what those things are.

Let’s substitute actual nouns for those pronouns in your sentence: If I do not know the essence of the mind, then I know the essence of the mind.That is not what Socrates was saying.

I sometimes see your explanations as discombobulated. I understand what you’re doing as there was a time when I did the same thing. It was around the time I was in school. And I’m not saying that there is no use for it, it can be sound, but as you’ve said: ‘you must go slow,’ because when using such forward and reverse logic it’s easy to become discombobulated. If you’re writing at the increasingly growing edge of your understanding of vocabulary, it’s easy to make a mistake when dealing with complex proofs, we’re only human!

Whatever it is that I may not know, it is found in the defering my Self from my Self into the substantiability <-- here did you mean “substantiality” of the Object.
I will translate:
Whatever it is that I may not know, it is found in the delaying of my Self from my Self into the essence of the Object.
To me this makes no sense. Do me a favor and do as I have done, deconstruct the ORIGINAL sentence by using the dictionary to compose either an increased number of smaller words or more common easier to understand words, meaning the same as you intended.

That’s enough for now. Let’s take it step by step. And if you believe this to be too large a step, please advise. I have addressed two issues, we could just take on the one until it’s clear, then address the second. If you believe that only addressing misunderstanding of your original text is one sided we may concurrently address that of my original text.

Such deferment I call 'denial'; it is the act of no admitting my self to my self as the totality of all that can exist: I cannot know of something that does not exist. If I know it, then the condition of my Self that is this not knowing is exactly informing the totality that is my intact, Whole, Being. If I do not admit this, as if humanity, including myself, have nerely 'opinions' and are thus 'distorted' in our/my presentation, my 'coming upon the scene', my 'placement in the state of affairs', then I/Us is that distortion, in so much as I am attempting to come upon the Truth of the Objects that are informing me of what may be True, which is exactly, the denial of that which is the wholeness of myself.

This is why I said earlier: It may be difficult for those who have been 'acted upon' or have lived a life 'asserting themselves upon another', upon the world, to admit to themseves the totality of thier Being - because such an individual has had trauma or success in thier enagement with the Objects that is telling them who and what they are. They are thus forced, 'thrown into' a relationship with themselves that is oriented upon the Object. This is to say, those who were abused as a child do not wish to admit that thier abuse in intimately and innately configured into exactly who they are, and likewise those who have asserted themselves such that they come upon success in life will not admit that thier success was not because of the Objects. Both justifications of ones Being relies upon their orientation upon the Object. Both look to relating Objects to Objects in order to find a definition of Objects and the World, 'out-there' by which to justify and reconcile thier experience to what they wish to know as themselves, all the while 'missing' themselves in the deferement, in the denial. Knowledge, and thus Absolute Truth, is always saught after, is always defered into the Unknown - because in denial, the individual always remains unknown to itself.

Now, with this in mind; how is it that I may be able to see such 'orientation'? This is what I seek to explain; to me, this is philsophy - not the method which would propose, suppose, to discover the Object.

zinnat13 wrote: I sensed that Socrates is saying exactly as I understood.
The sense of both of them is very clear. They are saying that there are two types of knowledge.

One is about this physical world which we acquire through our physical organs. It goes to the mind routed through our physical brain.

lancek4 wrote:Hey SOB; I didnt see this last post of yours when I started this last.
Ok, we will re-begin.
I have to goto work right now though.
Maybe ill attempt something on that dadburn blackberry.

Oh, just a quick one;

If I do not know something, about that thing I know that I do not know. This space in my Self, as a total, whole Being in-ltself, is exactly taken up concerning that 'thing' with thing=do not know. If I do not care about such a thing then it doesnt matter: it is not a part of my reality nor my existance. The fact that you may be out of work did not effect me, was not a part of the Wholeness of my Subject until you let me know it. Now that I know it, I surely 'dont know' you, but I 'know' you as I do. My Being is not dependant upon what knowledge I do not know (except as that 'space' to my knowledge which is effectively 'not known'): such knowledge is exactly, for my existant Being: not known. It does not exist. This is not subjectivism by virtue of the fact that I am involved with the 'actual' universe and because who I am and what I do in life had nothing to do with that which I may not know. i act regardless. I am regrardless and regarding of what I do not know. But such a state is difficult to speak about because of the nature of our particular type of discourse. Terms are 'loaded' and it is difficult to really 'know' what another person is saying when we begin to want to speak about such things. This is why I wish also to go step by step, to see where our definitions diverge.

And also, this is why I say: philsophy is not about method of living; I do not speak of 'a philsoophy of brushing my teeth, or a philosophy of living'. For me, philsophy is about what may be True.

Peace.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: 'Always ask questions, Question everything.'

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Hey SOB; I didnt see this last post of yours when I started this last.
Ok, we will re-begin.
I have to goto work right now though.
Maybe ill attempt something on that dadburn blackberry.

Oh, just a quick one;

If I do not know something, about that thing I know that I do not know. This space in my Self, as a total, whole Being in-ltself, is exactly taken up concerning that 'thing' with thing=do not know. If I do not care about such a thing then it doesnt matter: it is not a part of my reality nor my existance. The fact that you may be out of work did not effect me, was not a part of the Wholeness of my Subject until you let me know it. Now that I know it, I surely 'dont know' you, but I 'know' you as I do. My Being is not dependant upon what knowledge I do not know (except as that 'space' to my knowledge which is effectively 'not known'): such knowledge is exactly, for my existant Being: not known. It does not exist. This is not subjectivism by virtue of the fact that I am involved with the 'actual' universe and because who I am and what I do in life had nothing to do with that which I may not know. i act regardless. I am regrardless and regarding of what I do not know. But such a state is difficult to speak about because of the nature of our particular type of discourse. Terms are 'loaded' and it is difficult to really 'know' what another person is saying when we begin to want to speak about such things. This is why I wish also to go step by step, to see where our definitions diverge.

And also, this is why I say: philsophy is not about method of living; I do not speak of 'a philsoophy of brushing my teeth, or a philosophy of living'. For me, philsophy is about what may be True.

Peace.

I decided to finally break it down because I can see how one could be confused as to which was the current state of your mind.

I don’t know (I’m not aware of), what I don’t know (That which could one day be in my head but is not currently in my head). Sure, it’s redundant, but that’s the point. In it’s redundancy it reminds us to not necessarily believe that we know now, because there could be more future truths to consider that shall modify that which we believe we know now.
It’s analogous with “Don’t count your chickens before their hatched.”

I don’t know how many chicks I’ll have, even though I can count the eggs, because what I don’t know is how many shall not hatch due to complications.

OR, I don't know, what it is, that I don't know.

Now do you see, That's what Socrates was alluding to, as far as I'm concerned. Which also alludes to the fact that you should continually ask questions in order to uncover those truths that are hidden that once known shall alter what it is that you think you already know.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: 'Always ask questions, Question everything.'

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Example: John Buck asks John Doe: What is the moon made of? John Doe replies green cheese. John Buck says No, it's a man, see the eyes, its flesh. John Doe says, no it's like Swiss cheese, those are the air pockets.
Neither story is absolute truth, both are falsehoods because many years later man goes to the moon and analyzes, measures and samples it and finds that it is like that of rock and dust, they are able to find what it actually is in it's totality; it's absolute truth. It is now, it was when the two Johns argued it's truth, and it was before man ever existed.

zinnat13 wrote:Dear lancek4,

I really appreciate your answer from the bottom of my heart.
why, thank you.

Going though your answer, in the context of all we discussed up to now, it is very much evident that you have thought it hard and more importantly, honestly and without being influenced even by yourself. This is the real essence of philosophy. We are almost there and go for the final leap. I am not sure what you mean by 'leap'. Have i made it already, or am I goin to make it?

I would like to discuss in the tone of science as it is easier to conceive.

The reasoning behind it that sometimes, when we discuss subtle things, we mistaken the language of mind as our verbal languages and consider them to be competent enough to express everything. But, sometimes they fail too, just because the language of mind is different from our invented ones. The very common examples of this fact are animals. Their mind is also able to think but without any formal language.
I am not so sure about this. When my mind is not thinking, there is no lanaguage that is going on. I have no language of my mind that is not the language of my thoughts and speaking.
and, What every animals do for thier being life, it is only thinking in reference to my/our/human definition of what thinking is.

The scientific scenario is that, in realty, there are basically two dimensions of existence. One is that we experience from our physical senses as they send information to the mind routed through the brain. This covers our whole universe as we saw and understand it in physical terms.
I am not so sure of this either.

The second dimension is also our universe but in the subtle sense. In the same way our existence is divided in two dimensions to correspond both of them. One of it is physical dimension and it includes human body and mind. The second one is subtle one and it consists of subtle body and mind. It operates in the subtle dimension just as we relate ourselves to this physical dimension. We use to call it as sprit or soul. It is not a godlike or inconceivable entity as it is generally perceived. It has all the characters of humans except that it has made of finer and subtle matter. It takes birth and dies and has all emotions like humans.
I do not know how to make this distinction. I believe that you are saying that, in effect, we have two 'bodies', a 'universal' one, and a 'subtle' one. i am not sure I see things in this way.

Actually, the humans are just like a mini version of their counterpart. are you referring here to the two bodies?

One other major difference, besides the matter, is about time as time runs very slowly in subtle dimension in comparison to ours hence, the life span of subtle entities is very large. Our life span is just like some months for them, not even years. But, by all means, they are mortal. This is the very dimension to which all deities and different gods are related, those are mentioned in the religious texts. The spread of subtle dimension is enormous. if this is the case, it is unknown to me. i tend to want to see that you are speaking 'mythologically', as if 'this is the area where people belived that Gods and such existed; or, that you are making an analogy, like, 'in this subtle realm of language, the realm that human language typically does not expose, is where people used to posit Gods.' If there are such Gods, then I have not need to speak of them. If they function in my life, then they do; they do not require of me acknowledgement.


The spread of the world inhabited by humans is not even comparable but very unique and important. Both of these dimension of matter (universe) and self (ours) runs parallel and simultaneously.
hhhmmmmm....Im sorry, SJ, this is a bit to speculative and metaphysical for me. Any knowledge that I may come by is immediately taken up by knowledge itself. There can be no knowledge that is somehow separate from another knowledge, unless through knowledge we segregate one arena from another. This segregation is what i propose is responsible for the Object and the Subject-Object, the 'actual' of which SOB and I defined, I submit, is a knowledge that is based in segregation. I have proposed that there is a 'knowledge' that is 'of me to myself', and that there is also a 'knowledge' of 'out-there', but these, I think, do not reduce to your scheme. I mean that somehow I have knowledge of an Absolute Truth, yet the world 'out-there' is relative. A problem then exists between my expression and the expression of the 'Objective' world. I do not hold that what is 'myself of myself' is anything more than knowledge, it does not have a configuration or a mode of existence that is 'separate' from the world. It is merely me existing in the dualistic world that emphasizes the Object. That is all. There may indeed be an Object there which does exist, but it is entirely designated for knowledge by knowledge.



It is the second existence who operates in the dream. Our dreams do not have any co-relation with us (humans) or our psychology as predicted by Freud and others. Our dreams are just a routine life of our soul but, through a mechanism, those were transformed and shown to human mind in such and symbolic way, thus we can relate them to our life to understand their meaning. Hence, contrary to general perception, dreams are more real than our awakened life.
I disagree. Dreams are intricately and inherently a part of our whole life; one has only more importance or significance depending upon how we are orientated in knowledge.

So, we can see that there are two types of knowledge and as well as information. Scientific books provide information about physical dimension while religious texts enrich us with the second one. I am beginning to see that your proposal is likewise based in a segregated knowledge. Scientific books and religious books are speaking about the same thing, but are seen a segregate because of the segregated knowledge that is imposed upon them by the knowledge tha finds itself through segregation.

Acquiring knowledge in the both cases is once again subjected to experience. I am not saying that all information, provided by religious texts, must be considered completely authentic. There may be some intrusions here and there but, in essence, all of them are in right direction. But, we must remember that it is still information. Thus, it is capable of creating belief or faith but not knowledge. again I would say that knowledge is informed by our faith.

In the case of physical world, if one can acquire a set of information regarding any particular issue, then it could be said that he has acquired some knowledge, if not complete. But, in the case of spirituality this procedure does not work. This is a very important phenomena and perhaps, the only difference between science and spirituality.
I have a huge problem with the term 'spirituality': to assert a spirituality is to open the door to all sorts of speculation that cannot be verified. i doubt all things, including my own experience. If I have gained a knowledge of something through some spiritual experience or venture, I have to doubt what it tells me. Science, on the other hand, is verifiable by more than just me. Thus as I doubt it, science, I have reference to what may be a 'spiritual' experience and can thus verify what may be true by the comparison and doubt which arise from the experience that is basically me. Together, what may be a 'spiritual' type of knowledge and what may be a 'scientific' type of knowledge, i am informed of who and what I am at all times. I can deny nothing, but I can doubt everything.

The science deals with physical things, so it is possible to test any new theory as anyone can repeat the same procedure using the same means told by the inventor and get the same results. But we often miss a very important point here that the others can use the new invention successfully without going through the process of inventing it. Each and every one of us uses electricity and phone without understanding the principles behind them.
In simple words one need not to be a scientist to use the inventions of science but the same is not applicable for religions or spirituality as they use one’s mind and consciousness as their tools.

Let me take an example. Every mathematician is familiar with Pythagoras theorem of a2 + b2= c2 and he uses it to solve problems. He can carry on successfully from this theorem further inventing many new theorems, but his knowledge is incomplete; just because of a simple reason that he has borrowed Pythagoras theorem and many other established formulas for his work without going through the process of inventing those, so the effort and pain taken by his predecessors is missing from his experience. But, still he can acquire further knowledge. Here lies the difference between science and spirituality.

In spirituality one cannot use the work done by others previously to move on to the next stage like science. We have to go through the whole process by ourselves. Borrowed knowledge or information does not work here. Spirituality is the science of soul and the laboratory of this science stream is also placed within our mind and consciousnesses so one cannot go other’s laboratory to show how he or she performed the experiment. One can only tell other that B comes after A and then comes C and so on, but even if we know the whole sequence of alphabets up to Z, it does not help much because we cannot start journey from any mid-placed alphabet. Everyone has to start from A because in spirituality, we have to feel and experience the knowledge. This is the only way of knowing it. The information in religions is helpful as it tells the way of knowing. This is the biggest difference between science and spirituality.
This is the very reason why Buddha says- go by yourself.
I very much agree with this idea. And it forms the basis for the problem of duality and knowledge of the Object that indicates progress. Progress is based in an assumption that what has informed us from the past is true, even as it may be false, since in its falsity it informs us of what we have, and so can 'progress' into future. The probelm is that the knowledge of the past is not a fixed, Absolute True, element, and is constantly changing to comply and adapt for the knowledge of the present; this change is denied in the knowledge of progress. One must start at the beginning, not in the middle.

So, we can see that we humans, in totality, are the sum of two different entities. Both have different bodies and minds as well. But, they are connected and influence each other. The subtle mind is wiser and more knowledgeable than the human one, just because its life span in very large. When we concentrate sincerely enough, then the subtle mind is also forced automatically to join the thinking. But in general, the subtle mind uses to remain focused at the proceedings of the other dimension. I might see this as an indication of cultural difference. For my Western-bred mind, I could easily translate the 'subtle mind' to mean some 'God-head' or 'sub-conscious' mind. I do not believe that such an element exists as such. Only in knowledge do things exist. Thus, it is not so much that perhaps my consciosness does work this way, but more that the fact that it does work this way regardless of what terms I use to attempt to define it leaves it out of the realm of the speakable, since I could easily say that "my mind has a pizza center, and from it are emitted pepperoni rays of frosty snow, and this contributes to my being as a wholeness...etc..."

There are many schools of thoughts about how the knowledge is should be defined. One extreme view is that of hardcore scientific view that we should believe only those things, which can be proved. They are right in their approach. On the other hand there are spiritualists, who are able to experience something beyond like Socrates, who hold that all this materialistic knowledge is useless so there is absolutely no need to get involved in it. I am not sure this is the best way to describe what he was up to.

They are also right because we are related to this world for very short span and at last, it is only spiritual knowledge which is going to be handy. Knowledge acquired related to this world will be of no use when we will lose this body, thus we should concentrate only on that part which is able to serve us for longer time.
If I have a knowlege that my mind is basic and my body is temporal and superflorous, then it is merely an idea that I have of what is true. In as much as I may live here in this world, whether or not I have an eternal soul does not conern me. If I do then I do; if I dont then I dont. It has nothing to bare on what I do in this life. If I speak of a soul, I am usually doing so colloquially.

This argument seems quite reasonable.
I tried many times to find an honest opinion and feel that decision should go in the favor of spiritualists but with the score of 60-40. I mean to say that while remained focused on spiritual knowledge, we should not negate or avoid the scientific knowledge. Knowledge should be considered as pure knowledge, irrespective of its source, process and even use.
If we tend to avoid physical life then the basic purpose of human life would be cheated so we should pay equal attention to it also. This should be the ideal approach.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion, that there must be a point, where science and spirituality can stand together shaking hands. I hope and pray for that day.
I tend to agree with you here, but presently such terms are too 'loaded' with preconcpetions of ethics and metaphysical assertions for anything life you hope for to occur.

We have come so far. The only question remained unanswered is what this thread asked.

Who is stopping us from seeing the truth?

And this is the most difficult one, but I am sure that we will try for it.

With love,
sanjay

Mark Question wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Example: John Buck asks John Doe: What is the moon made of? John Doe replies green cheese. John Buck says No, it's a man, see the eyes, its flesh. John Doe says, no it's like Swiss cheese, those are the air pockets.
Neither story is absolute truth, both are falsehoods because many years later man goes to the moon and analyzes, measures and samples it and finds that it is like that of rock and dust, they are able to find what it actually is in it's totality; it's absolute truth. It is now, it was when the two Johns argued it's truth, and it was before man ever existed.

SpheresOfBalance then responded in blue with red for extra emphasis

The people that attempt to argue with me are not understanding a fundamental point, my 'analogies' are NOT about ANY PARTICULAR 'Truth,' they are about the essence of truth, which is absolute. You've come into the middle of a thread and determined that we are arguing truths NO!!!!!! we are NOT!!!!! My analogies are only meant to find common ground that existed prior to humans that I thought we could agree upon so we can see that truth is absolute. Your arguments I agree with 100%. None of us KNOW JACK SHIT! Have you ever noticed my signature. Have you noticed that I recently argued for Socrates "I only know, that I don't know." In spite of those clues you keep arguing against them as if I'm stating some sort of absolute truth. Maybe you'll finally understand this way:

how do you know that there were no god who turned moon to rock and dust when moon rocket was launched because of mans hubris to fly to the moon or because god had a bad hair day?
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

how do you know it actually and is humans totality only their total knowledge?
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

think about ants total knowledge about rock or rock and roll? are we smaller than ants to gods?
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

do we even know if we see one that we see god or do we even see one? sorry my english.
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

do ants see us?
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

do we exists them?
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

your story sounds like empirical one.
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

i have heard that there is some problems related to verification and falsification theories.
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

if the sun has risen every day then do we know for sure it will rise tomorrow?
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

and if we see a white raven, do we still know that all ravens are black?
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

and empiricism is ism like theism is.
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

empiricist believes that seeing is knowing and theist believes in god. true beliefs?
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

how many times empiricist have to see magicians card trick to be sure that theres actually true magic?
If so then that would be the ABSOLUTE truth!

I DON"T KNOW LIKE EVERYONE DOESN'T KNOW, BUT WHAT EVER THE ANSWER IS, IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!