Once again I will have to show you your own personally made assumptions, which are causing you to go in a completely wrong direction, and HOW the conclusions that you are deriving from those assumptions are totally wrong. I have to waste time doing this first, before I can even begin to spend time clarifying what it is that I am explaining. But hopefully you are progressing with each and every post I make.
Londoner wrote:I have no idea whether Truth (upper case) exists, because I still have no idea what you mean by it. I'm not sure you do.
Obviously you have no idea whether Truth exists. I have explained the only way that I know of how to obtain Truth, and thus know whether It exists or not, but you refuse to even look at that way, let alone to try that way. Unless you already know of, or you discover, another way, then not until you at least try the way that I suggest you will ever know whether Truth exists or not.
Instead of just saying,
"I have no idea what you mean by it [Truth (upper case)]. I'm not sure you do." can you please explain why you did not just ask Me a very simple, straight-forward, clarifying question like, "What do you mean by 'Truth'?' If you just did this, then you would discover and know exactly what I mean by Truth, as well as, you would not have to ponder whether I have an idea or not.
Can you see just how easy just asking clarifying questions is?
If you had asked something like that question, then I would have replied with something like:
Truth IS what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing. (I am pretty sure I have explained this to you already. But if I have not, then you now know what you could have done earlier).
Can you now see how by just asking clarifying questions, how easy clarity, knowledge, and
understanding can be obtained?
I have started this post with my definition of 'Truth' clearly and boldly stated, so that you can stop whinging and complaining, and saying things like, "I do not know what you are talking about."
Unless of course you actually
still do not know what I am talking about. But, then I would hope that you have finally come to realize and understand that the best thing for you to do is to just ask clarifying questions. Hopefully from now on asking for clarity and information is what you will do instead of just complaining you do not know some thing.
Londoner wrote:ken wrote:
Once again you have completely and utterly misinterpreted Me, misunderstood Me, misconstrued Me, and missed my point.
If a person makes no assumptions, does not believe (in) some thing, and does not disbelieve (in) some thing, then they are truly open. A truly open person knows how to discover the Truth. If I claim to know how to discover, and/or know, the Truth, then how exactly would that mean that I can not be nor remain open?
So do you know how to discover 'the Truth', but have not discovered it?
NO.
Why oh why do you continue to persist with making assumptions? And, why oh WHY are they so continuously WRONG?
Please STOP assuming things.
Londoner wrote: In which case, how do you know, that you know how to discover it?
AGAIN, you make an assumption, jump to the conclusion that that assumption is right, and then proceed making yourself look foolish. You are leading no where and thus you are wasting your time by continuing on. I am also wasting my time fixing up your wrong conclusions. How many times have I got to request for you to stop making assumptions, and instead just ask for clarification first. This will save us both time and energy.
Please oh please just read my quote again and see if you can notice that if you had just answered the clarifying question I asked of you, instead of assuming some thing, then we would not be in this predicament.
I ask clarifying questions with the hope that they get answered. On the very rarest of occasions that they do get answered it is very, very refreshing. If, and when, human beings really start noticing just how many clarifying questions I pose and how many of them actually are responded to I think they will be utterly surprised.
What is also truly surprising is how many times I ask nicely for human beings to just ask Me clarifying questions instead of making assumptions and how infrequently that actually occurs.
Again, please just ask for clarity BEFORE you make an assumption and jump to a conclusion. Obviously you can not know a conclusion without clarification, SO please just ask for clarification before you do anything else. But I will say you are persistent, which is much more than most human beings, they usually just give up. With your persistence, and if you really would like to know the Truth, then I know you will succeed.
Londoner wrote:Knowing the Truth, and having beliefs are two entirely different things. Believing (in) any thing means you are NOT open. If a human being claims to know the Truth, then just means they claim to know the Truth. Either they are right or they are wrong. But I can for example claim to know the Truth but still refrain completely from believing and disbelieving (in) any thing what so ever, which is what I do do.
I'm still stuck on this peculiar distinction you make between claiming to know 'the Truth' yet not
believing that you know 'the Truth'. If I didn't believe I knew something, I wouldn't claim I knew it. Not unless I was bluffing someone.
First let us just take out what
you sometimes do things. If
you want to bluff others, then that does NOT mean that is what
I would ever do. What
you are inclined to do is NOT necessarily what others would or want to do.
Now, what appears "peculiar" to you does NOT necessary make it peculiar in of itself, nor make it peculiar to others. Your own personal subjective perspective, as we are all well aware of, will not shine light on objective Truth. So, what appears peculiar to you is in no way reflective of what could well be the actual and real Truth.
If I claim to know the Truth, or know absolutely anything, then it is really rather very simple and easy to also not believe (and not disbelieve) that I know the Truth, nor know absolutely anything. In fact if would be rather foolish of Me to do other wise. For example if I say I claim to know that the sun revolves around the earth, just like so many human beings did previously, then that would have been a very foolish thing of me to do, because if I were to do that, then I would not have been
open to the Truth, which just may well actually be different from what I were believing was true. Have you ever wondered before why the Truth of this took so long to come about?
Also, just as foolish a thing to do would be for Me now to
believe that the earth revolves around the sun, just like so many human beings are doing nowadays, because if were to do that, then I would not be
open to the Truth, which just may well actually be different from what I were believing was true. Have you ever wondered before why the Truth of Everything has taken so long to come about?
As I stated clearly before, "Truth IS what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing". Therefore, I can
know the Truth, which is what everything could accept and agree upon, but there is absolutely no purpose in believing (nor disbelieving) I know the Truth, for the very simple fact that I might well be wrong, AND, that by the very fact that I am believing I am not open to the Truth. Obviously if the Truth IS what could be accepted and agreed upon by every thing, then only AFTER every thing has provided Me with their view then I would have the clarification and clarity to know, and thus also the verification to know, for sure, if what I know is actually the Truth or it is not.
However, even after all that is done I still would not believe nor disbelieve anything because if I did, then I would stop being and remaining open. If I were to start believing absolutely anything, which obviously includes claiming to know anything, then I would not be open, and, if I am not open, then I am unable to discover and know the Truth.
So, I can very easily know some thing but also still not believe (nor disbelieve) (in) it. I would NEVER want to believe (in) anything because if I did, then I would not be open, and, if I am not open, then I am not able to others who may well show and teach Me some thing new.
Londoner wrote:I asked you a clarifying question, and yet once again you did not answer it. What you did do instead was once again make an assumption of what I was getting at, then jump to a conclusion, based on that assumption, and then believe that your own assumption and your own conclusion is true, right, and/or correct.
I cannot tell what you are getting at.
If you can not tell what I am getting at, then surely you must know by now what the best and easiest thing to do is. That is ask for clarification through open-ended questions. Ask clarifying questions instead of making assumptions and conclusions. Tell Me I will not have to repeat this again, please.
Londoner wrote: I try to make sense of what you write but cannot.
Please tell Me, so I know for sure, that you now what to do when you can not make sense of what I write.
I NEVER said what I am saying is easy to understand. I KNOW it can very hard for human beings to take in, comprehend, and understand some thing that is really rather relatively new and that which appears, on first glance, as totally contradictory from what they have only ever known, but what I am saying is really NOT that hard at all to take in, comprehend, and understand, when people are truly open and want to change and learn. In fact understanding the Truth of Everything is so extremely easy and simple once you know-HOW.
Londoner wrote: When I think I detect a meaning you always tell me I am wrong.
I do NOT
always tell you you are wrong, but I do tell you are wrong when I think you are wrong.
The hint here in your quote is when you say 'detect' a meaning. When you 'detect' a meaning, you will jump on that 'detected' or assumed meaning and stick with it, instead of just asking Me for clarification of what it is that I actually mean. I also have 'detect' countless meanings through what you have said but I refrain from making assumptions and responding from those assumptions. The very reason I ask "so many" clarifying questions is so that I do get wrong what it is that you (or others) are really meaning and trying to get at. If I make an assumption, then I could well be wrong, however, if I ask for clarification, and get and honest response, then I can not be wrong.
Londoner wrote:You could NOT be further from the Truth, even if you tried to be.
But you are only
claiming that, and presumably don't
believe your own claim, so I cannot feel too bad about it.
As an adult you choose how you feel, so that is your choice.
You have to understand exactly how the word 'believed' is being used by Me and in what context to understand this fully. It appears that the way you use the word 'believed' and/or the context you use it is allowing two opposing views to be obtained.
I will put it this way, and please answer the two questions;
1. Would you believe in some thing if it were not true?
2. If what you believe were not true, then would you really want to hear it?
Londoner wrote:Me: Nor does giving truth a capital letter turn it into a thing in itself.
Never said it did. That, my friends, was once again, just another example of how making assumptions can really show the Truth of what human beings can really do to themselves. I will suggest, once again, to stop making assumptions, and, just become and remain open. It is not really that hard a thing to do, is it?
It is unavoidable if you won't tell me what 'the Truth' is.
Please explain how if I do not tell you what the Truth is, then that means it is unavoidable for you to not be open, nor remain open?
We seem to be two completely opposing things, (which is another Truth, but some thing only to be discussed at a later date). I, in fact, do become more and more open the less human beings tell Me. I do this because I become more and more inquisitive, and when I become more inquisitive I become more open. I want to learn and discover, (what they are hiding), and the only way to learn and discover (what the Truth is) is by being and remaining open.
Londoner wrote:Does anyone else see the absolute ridiculousness of this statement? Is the statement 'There is no 'Truth' true or false?
No they don't.
Just curious, HOW many are you referring to? HOW are you able to speak for all of those? And, HOW do you KNOW this, are you absolutely sure of your answer?
You are either saying that some thing is true, or you have an idea of some sort of metaphysical entity that has the proper name 'Truth'. You need to explain which.[/quote]
Do I really
'need' to?
Just asking nicely would have sufficed. Some thing, is the answer, for now. Because, with your views, to answer the other one we will be here for eternity.
Londoner wrote:Me: Truth relates to propositions and since you have not framed one nobody can know what you are talking about
Three things here;
1. Just because you can not know what I am talking about, which once again is because of your assuming, your jumping to conclusions, and your beliefs, this in no way means that no one else can not know what I am talking about. I am pretty sure human beings WILL slowly but surely start to know what I am talking about, even if you remain never knowing. (By the way I never said human beings in this day and age will know what I am actually talking about. It may well be another few hundred years or so before human beings really start to know and understand exactly what I am talking about. But I have faith in human beings that it will be much earlier than that.)
And your proposition, the thing that is true/'the Truth', and we will all one day understand being...what?
Seriously do you still not know what It is?
Being and remaining open IS how the Truth is discovered, AND, the Truth, Itself.
Only by being and remaining open IS the Truth, Itself, AND, how the Truth is discovered.
Londoner wrote:2. Once again you have completely missed my proposition, AND, what my point has been throughout this. What makes this more ridiculous is you were the one who asked Me for clarity of a proposition. You asked Me;
"Can you give an example?
Some thing that you understand completely objectively, that you know as 'what it actually is'?"
3. I did give you an example therefore I actually did frame a proposition for you. I replied with something similar to;
Remaining open allows you to discover the Truth.
So the proposition which you claim is true, or possibly 'the Truth', is:
Remaining open allows you to discover the Truth.
YES.
(By the way you told me something about to read the whole post before I respond because sometimes you have already answered my question in your next response. Is this somethinglike what you have done here and what has happened here.)
Londoner wrote:We could write that as 'If X then Y'. We can assume that this is true. As it happens, you give the meaning of 'Y' the name 'the Truth', but do you understand that the truth of the proposition is in the relationship of 'Y' with 'X'?
YES I totally, fully, and completely understand that.
There is nothing wrong so far, so let us continue.
That a proposition is not true because it happens to contain the words 'the Truth'?
I certainly do not understand this.
If, however, you instead wrote, "That a proposition is not
NECESSARILY true because it happens to contain the words 'the Truth'?", then I could certainly understand that. If you added the word 'necessarily', then to Me it would make total sense.
So the truth of that proposition, and the term within that proposition ('the Truth') are two different things. So if '
remaining open' really is a means of discovering '
the Truth',
then your proposition is true.
Londoner wrote:How could we test this? Only by 'remaining open' and - as a result - discovering 'the Truth'.
YES, exactly right.
Londoner wrote:However...you say we can only ever 'claim' to have discovered 'the Truth'.
I do NOT recall ever saying that. But you can refresh my, and other's, memory if you like and point us to exactly where I allegedly said that. If and when you do that, then we can look at that further. But until then let us continue.
Londoner wrote: But in that case, it is not possible to verify your proposition, so you cannot know it is true.
But, it is possible to verify my proposition, so I can know if it is true or not. In fact I already know how to discover the Truth. So, this part has already been verified, to Me. If I can do it, then any one else can do it also, then when others start becoming and remaining open, then more and more will just naturally follow. Then, the more that are doing then the more verifiable, and verified, to them this will become. When ALL are doing this, then whatever else makes up the Truth can then also be verified.
Why do you say it is not possible to verify my proposition?
Londoner wrote:It might instead be that 'remaining open' does not enable you to discover 'the Truth', because any 'claim' to have tested it and discovered 'the Truth' might be 'right or wrong' (as you say in the second quotation from the top).
I do not recall ever saying, any claim to have tested it and discovered the Truth might be right or wrong.
What I would have said and meant was something similar to, any claim may be right or wrong.
Londoner wrote:And we are still no closer to knowing what the term 'the Truth' describes.
Seriously?
Only a few lines back you wrote;
"So the proposition which you claim is true, or possibly 'the Truth', is:
Remaining open allows you to discover the Truth. "
HOW can you now say, "And we are still no closer to knowing what the term 'the Truth' describes".
The term 'the Truth' describes 'whatever thing' that is accepted and agreed upon by every thing. For example 'a thing' that allows human beings to discover new things or the Truth IS being and
remaining open. I think every human being could accept and agree with this.
If there is a human being who could not agree with this, then feel free to argue that.
(Although I think I have not contradicted anything I have said here in this discussion with you with the meanings that I give words, I noticed that I have contradicted something I said a fair while back on another thread in this forum with someone else so I have changed one word here now.)
The Truth can only be obtained by looking from an objective viewpoint, which can only come by looking from Everything's perspective.
Londoner wrote:One example of this not being able to see the Truth, even when It is directly in front of you, is: If you believe so strongly and wholeheartedly, as you appear to do, that your proposition that 'There is no Truth', is True, then how could or does that make absolutely any sense at all?
As you should be well aware by now, you are completely free to answer this in absolutely any way that you like.
I cannot see 'the Truth' directly in front of me, unless by 'the Truth' you mean 'a computer monitor'.
Is this the only assumption you made and the only conclusion you came to with the word 'see'?
Considering the word 'see' has many different definitions and can mean many different things, and considering this includes it is synonymous with
understand, it is very surprising that that was the ONLY conclusion you arrived.
Imagine what would have happened if you asked Me a clarifying question instead of making an assumption and then coming to another WRONG conclusion.
Londoner wrote:I did not say 'There is no Truth'.
Did you or did you not say this, Nor does giving truth a capital letter turn it into a thing in itself.
There is no 'Truth'. Truth relates to propositions and since you have not framed one nobody can know what you are talking about.
If you did, then you did say, 'There is no Truth'.
If, however, you did not say that, then you did not say 'There is no Truth'.
I only had to remain open and go back a few posts to discover the Truth.
Are you still certain you did not say 'There is no Truth'?
Londoner wrote: I said that truth (lower case) is always ultimately contingent.
Truth is always ultimately contingent upon what exactly?
Londoner wrote:I have no idea whether Truth (upper case) exists, because I still have no idea what you mean by it. I'm not sure you do.
Well, hopefully, this has all changed by now.