What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

I would say that my post is a good statement of what I am let to see of Ab Truth also. It supplies that by which I negotiate life, the condition of knowledge.
Yet I would say that this is a mere mythology, relative in nature, not Ab Truth in the 'sense' that we 'know' of it.

My querry involves 'being'. If in include my knowledge, my self knowing as I do, in the 'actual things of the universe, I come upon the problem:
As I aatempt to 'escape' from this phenomenon of my self knowing, and looks to the things 'out there' that is of my above synopsis, I am left with the curious element that it is really just me in my knowing that allows me to process the object, as above in my synopsis. I am left with a paradox.

So I ask: what is This that I come upon a paradox?

Let me think about your query and get back to you I will paste a copy on my desktop and review it daily until such time that I've decided I understand exactly what it is you're searching for. I think it's the escaping part.

I'll let you know, unless you care to expound.

The 'escape' part is not including the 'universal element', that is, the activity 'thing of the universe' that is thgought, in the consideration of 'actual things' of the universe. The actual 'doing' of thinking as another 'come upon' thing, another 'considered' thing.

I hope that's more clear.

[lancek4]

...Maybe a symbolic mathematical type presentation of the paradox:

What I know equals the set that is what I know and what I don't know :

X= [X+Y]

[SpheresOfBalance]

...Maybe a symbolic mathematical type presentation of the paradox:

What I know equals the set that is what I know and what I don't know :

X= [X+Y]

Come on Lance, I have more faith in you that this. Your equation is obviously incorrect.

If:

X = what you know
Y = what you don't know
Z = everything there is to know

Then the proper equation is:

Z=(X+Y)

Y is an unknown value (your solving for Y)

The problem with a math approach is that X and Z are difficult to quantify.
But it was sufficient to clarify your question.

I know you want it all now my friend, but you're just going to have to wait. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news but there will unfortunately always be a bit of Y out there that you'll never know because your lifetime will not allow. Y will reach zero(0) when we can travel from one end of the universe to the other, better yet, when we can create existence and non existence Y will finally be at zero(0).

[lancek4]

...Maybe a symbolic mathematical type presentation of the paradox:

What I know equals the set that is what I know and what I don't know :

X= [X+Y]

Come on Lance, I have more faith in you that this. Your equation is obviously incorrect.

If:

X = what you know
Y = what you don't know
Z = everything there is to know

Then the proper equation is:

Z=(X+Y)

Y is an unknown value (your solving for Y)

The problem with a math approach is that X and Z are difficult to quantify.
But it was sufficient to clarify your question.

I know you want it all now my friend, but you're just going to have to wait. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news but there will unfortunately always be a bit of Y out there that you'll never know because your lifetime will not allow. Y will reach zero(0) when we can travel from one end of the universe to the other, better yet, when we can create existence and non existence Y will finally be at zero(0).

The equasion you pose has no paradox represented.
I meant exactly: X=[X+Y] , which corresponds with the meaning of the previous posts you requested of me.
Hence, as you attempt to solve for any of the variables the equasion infinitely reduces upon itself.
This solution, of being, as I have indicated in earlier posts, is offensive and will not be admitted in the mythology of the object

And, I gather from your post here above, the same stalemate of our discussion.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...Maybe a symbolic mathematical type presentation of the paradox:

What I know equals the set that is what I know and what I don't know :

X= [X+Y]

Come on Lance, I have more faith in you that this. Your equation is obviously incorrect.

If:

X = what you know
Y = what you don't know
Z = everything there is to know

Then the proper equation is:

Z=(X+Y)

Y is an unknown value (your solving for Y)

The problem with a math approach is that X and Z are difficult to quantify.
But it was sufficient to clarify your question.

I know you want it all now my friend, but you're just going to have to wait. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news but there will unfortunately always be a bit of Y out there that you'll never know because your lifetime will not allow. Y will reach zero(0) when we can travel from one end of the universe to the other, better yet, when we can create existence and non existence Y will finally be at zero(0).

The equasion you pose has no paradox represented.
I meant exactly: X=[X+Y] , which corresponds with the meaning of the previous posts you requested of me.
Hence, as you attempt to solve for any of the variables the equasion infinitely reduces upon itself.
This solution, of being, as I have indicated in earlier posts, is offensive and will not be admitted in the mythology of the object

And, I gather from your post here above, the same stalemate of our discussion.

My point is that your paradox as presented by the equation is an illusion, because the equation I present, is accurate. If you honestly believe your equation is correct allow for "all that there is to know" as Z and reconstruct the equation with it's inclusion. Unless I'm missing something, are you saying that Z doesn't exist?

[lancek4]

Yes yes. My point with the math was not to get into debate over math. I know algrbra.
It was to give an analogous representation of the paradox of my synopsis
And ironically, Z, in my context, would amount to the solution, which would be then God, or some outside element.

[lancek4]

Z would then be Absolute.
But it does not escape the paradox, because if Z equals x and y, the set, and I know this set as it constitutes all that exists (remember I do not exclude from the actual universe the act of knowing it) then the question is begged: what is Z?
It thus amounts to, which is the point of my position, nothing we can speak about, since what is being spoken about is the issue.

Thus, my position: there is no absolute.

But yet I still 'believe' there is an absolute. And hence the paradox.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



It's beyond us.


It's beyond our physical or theoretical comprehension.


.

[bobevenson]

"The evil that lurks in the minds of men is manifested in the collective evil of the beast. Understand the man and you cannot be deceived by his institutions."
-From "The Ouzo Prophecy" (http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf)

[SpheresOfBalance]

Z would then be Absolute.
But it does not escape the paradox, because if Z equals x and y, the set, and I know this set as it constitutes all that exists (remember I do not exclude from the actual universe the act of knowing it) then the question is begged: what is Z?
It thus amounts to, which is the point of my position, nothing we can speak about, since what is being spoken about is the issue.

Thus, my position: there is no absolute.

But yet I still 'believe' there is an absolute. And hence the paradox.

I'll have to think about it. try and wrap my head around your words and extrapolate your meaning. No doubt I'll have questions.

Unfortunately, to know the true essence of your dilemma, I'd have to get inside your head. If only it were possible. Things would be easier if not more complicated if you couldn't exclude certain data. Wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, because of fanciful transients.

At this point, until I can sense what it is exactly that you mean, I'd say to reevaluate those terms that seem to be consistent that are possibly not. Keep Ockham's razor in mind.

I just wanted to let you know I'm still here, I will honestly get back to you, just busy right now.

[lancek4]

Z would then be Absolute.
But it does not escape the paradox, because if Z equals x and y, the set, and I know this set as it constitutes all that exists (remember I do not exclude from the actual universe the act of knowing it) then the question is begged: what is Z?
It thus amounts to, which is the point of my position, nothing we can speak about, since what is being spoken about is the issue.

Thus, my position: there is no absolute.

But yet I still 'believe' there is an absolute. And hence the paradox.

I'll have to think about it. try and wrap my head around your words and extrapolate your meaning. No doubt I'll have questions.

Unfortunately, to know the true essence of your dilemma, I'd have to get inside your head. If only it were possible. Things would be easier if not more complicated if you couldn't exclude certain data. Wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, because of fanciful transients.

At this point, until I can sense what it is exactly that you mean, I'd say to reevaluate those terms that seem to be consistent that are possibly not. Keep Ockham's razor in mind.

I just wanted to let you know I'm still here, I will honestly get back to you, just busy right now.

No problem.

Here is another attempt:

In our discussion, we had issue over 'thoughts' being included in the 'actual'. You excluded them as potentially 'distortion' of the actual truth. I proposed that 'the effects of consciousness ( thoughts, etc ) are likeiwse actual existents of actual truth'.
And then we ventured into the possibility of determinism.

Setting aside for a moment what reaction one may have for choice, and that debate,
Consider:

When I (a person) come upon reality, I only do so through knowledge. There is no experience that is still human aside from knowing it. Any such experience that I might think is separate from knowledge is still situated in knowledge as 'separate from knowledge', or what some would call 'simple experience'. I submit that no such moments occur for what is human.
The razor would be found in this simple excersize: communicate to me what this experience is that is not bound by knowledge.
I submit that you cannot without resorting to knowledge. In fact, I submit that you cannot even convey what such an experience means to yourself with out knowledge.

So there is something about being human which is entirely uncommunicable that limits our ability to be human. This might be called the 'opposite' of knowledge; we cannot say it is 'experience' because then we are lead into qualifying such experience by more knowledge which nullifies the 'simple experience' itself. We can only say that such juxtapositioning allows knowledge to be situated in the known universe, the actual universe, such that 'knowledge' becomes another 'thing' of the universe.

When this occurs in or for the individual human being, the praradox is revealed:
What I may know as absolute, no matter how I situate it in knowledge or definition, cannot be absolute.
This statement is contradictory. Thus it likewise cannot be true.
Except, that is, if the 'untruth' of its propositioning is 'actually true': which would mean that the Absolute Truth must be something that is relieved from the confines of knowledge: it must be absurd.
And this is consistent with the juxtapositioning of knowledge indicated above.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Lance,

Before you can venture down this avenue of 'thought' being part of the absolute truth. I think you have to make some distinctions. For instance remember I had agreed that the 'act' of thinking (what ever that is) is absolutely true. But the thoughts themselves while they seem to exist independently, I believe are just the replaying of accumulated data. After paying close attention to my children and reading a few psychology books I believe that humans are merely volatile recording devices. From day one we record all that we experience. And that thoughts are merely the replaying of those recordings. What we believe to be new ideas is just the ability to mix them.

Yes I'm saying that we have a recording studio in our head. Our physical sensing organs are the microphones/cameras (input devices), Our brains contains both the recording tape and a mixer, complete with gain controls and faders, such that we can create entirely new ideas from the plethora of recorded data, such that the output is the mixed input to varying degrees. So are the thoughts absolutely true or just carbon copies of that which is absolutely true. Is a picture of a star just as true as the star itself? Sure they are both physical things and they are true in and of themselves, but the true essence of a star can only be found in an actual star, otherwise our energy problems would be over, just take a bunch of pictures to fuel our power needs.

If all of the human race died, they would leave all the things they created behind that took thinking to create, but the thinking would be gone without a trace. If aliens found our planet, they'd see all that we created, but the thoughts used to create, might as well not have existed at all, because there would be no trace. They could sense that we had to have had some sort of plan, method, intention and understanding, but the individual thoughts that gave way to our things would remain a mystery. There would be no way to recover the exact thoughts and how they interacted to give way to a particular thing. For instance the thoughts of some human that created something out of greed and/or the struggle to power might totally escape them if their species had nothing similar. If the aliens were incapable of understanding exactly what the nature of our specific thoughts, plans and intentions were, could they be said to have existed?

Thoughts are not matter, which can neither be created nor destroyed. They're just electro-chemical patterns that each of us can change (cause to disappear) in a second. Nothing else is like that! And then quantum physics has their virtual particles that pop into and out of existence, but I'm not necessarily comparing them, but who knows? Maybe there is a link between them and our ability to think. Where do they go when they're not here? Are they in a parallel universe? Are they then with the force of creation, The thing that caused the Big Bang to bang? But either way the thoughts themselves are just so much illusion IMHO, especially when they're violent (with intent to destroy)! I believe that philosophically, the intent to destroy is self defeating, and negates that which surmises the destruction.

[lancek4]

Yes.

It seems you would be a good candidtate for scientology.
Their 'belief' go like this:
The human being/body is a perfect processing machine;and it records all experiences. The human being is thus 'playing' the recording perfectly given the particular information (experience) given it.
So, if a person finds that their life in unsatisfactory or that they have issues that they don't like about themselves, the reason is because it/he has been given 'faulty' data to work with. This faulty data is equated to traumatic experiences that the adult does not remember but nevertheless are influencing how he thinks and behaves. Thus the individual is 'running' upon a distortion of what is true: the being which processes all decision perfectly because it does not have distorted perceptions based off of faulty data.
The initial purpose of scientology is to remove such faulty data from the individual. Once this has occurred, then no inhibitive emotions or reactions occur, and the individual is free to be his true self, which is the fulfillment of its natural potential

This then lends itself to the second purpose:
When the individual is freed from such distortions, the individual can be said to be existing or being exactly how the universe intends: concordant with the universe's design. Thus the second purpose is for the individual to 'put ethics' upon the universe to bring about a better and more effective humanity.

Do you see anything wrong with this ideal?

[SpheresOfBalance]

"The evil that lurks in the minds of men is manifested in the collective evil of the beast. Understand the man and you cannot be deceived by his institutions."
-From "The Ouzo Prophecy" (http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf)

Goodness Gracious bob, please dispense with your plugging your personal belief system as a commercial. Either join in the discussion at hand or pay for some time on your favorite television network, or better yet place tiny adds in newspapers. There is no separate beast. The beast are those men that would kill for selfish reasons. There is no Focking devil! There are no focking demons. Only focking selfish men! So let me correct your quote:

The beast is manifested in the collective evil born of the selfishness in the minds of men. Understand the psychology of man and you cannot be deceived by his selfishness. "Bosses get talking so tough, and if that wasn't evil enough, we get the drunken and the passionate pride, of the citizens along for the ride."

[lancek4]

I think Bob is the perfect example of your SOB distortion clause:

Just because soemthing makes sense doesn't mean its true -
But try to get those for whom sense is made to see the un-truth of their sense.