What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

quote="Mark Question": do I have to be a bird so I could really know what is to be a bird? do we have to be the essence of truth so we could really know what is to be the essence of truth, which is absolute? or is absolute truth only imaginary goal to us humans like heaven is to atheists? so you are seeking common ground that existed prior humans? if truth is correct view or judgement and there were no viewers or judges then there were no truths.

quote="SpheresOfBalance":Not true, truth exists without humans, there just was no knowledge of it. The lack of human knowledge does not negate a truth. Just because we started not knowing, such that we got everything wrong, until one day someone noticed, and realizing there was in fact a version of their knowledge, that was actually the real state of existence, giving birth to the concept of truth, does not mean that it didn't exist on it's own or requires judgement a correct view or otherwise. Truth always existed without our knowledge until one day we took notice. Truth is all that actually exists

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does (by definition). If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does anyone know it made a sound? Of course not!

quote="Mark Question": Truth as defined as actual existence, in which criterion of truth?

quote="SpheresOfBalance": Truth: is all that actually exists; is the state of being in accord with fact or reality. Truth criterion are theories by which one tests if beliefs are in fact truths thus giving way to knowledge.

quote="Mark Question": None of us KNOW JACK SHIT? if it is true then it is not true.

quote="SpheresOfBalance"This kind of statement is not clear, elaborate please.

P.S. I lied, I actually know Jack Shit, he lives one street over, it's a cul-de-sac.

SpheresOfBalance responds in blue

It is indeed ironic that you and Chaz seem to be saying the same thing. And that its taken this long for me to see ytour meaning.
Thank You, the last thing I'd ever want, is to be compared to Chaz in any way, with certainty.

I suppose my issue is : if the actual is the True, can we know of it?
I believe we can and we will, that is, as long as our not knowing, doesn't give way to self destruction, before we do. Unfortunately I see mankind a truly stupid animal that would allow his desires in cheating the in

--STOP--

I just had an epiphany, I finally understand mans problem a bit clearer, I knew it was death related because of a somewhat recent sociopsychological study based upon the Pulitzer Prize-winning book: Denial of Death written by the Cultural Anthropologist: Ernest Becker. The findings of that study were made into a documentary titled: Flight From Death: The Quest for Immortality (2005), remember lance I gave you that HULU link. Anyway, the epiphany is that: on our current course, man is going to kill himself off because of his fear of death. All this time man has waged wars because of his fear of death which to me is COMPLETELY absurd! But I guess we're talking about a really oblivious animal here, or so it would seem!!! His greed and power mongering is also manifestations of this fear. He's so absorbed in his personal little microcosms designed to facilitate the denial of the inevitable, that the implications of the 6.8 billion and growing, doing the same, macrocosm escapes him, at least with respect to this fear that has plagued him since the beginning of his time. Religion, Global warming, Global economic breakdown, Global energy depletion, disparity of the haves and have nots, the middle east crisis, etc. are all manifestations of this fundamental fear. It all makes perfect sense now! Mankind is fearing of death himself to death! I know it may sound silly to some, but check out that link and your minds eye shall be opened. I know you'll understand Lance, I can't speak for anyone else, Bill and RON yeah definitely RON, he'll get it, that is if I understand the brunt of his site correctly. Wow it's always wonderful when a realization has dawned. I knew I had mankind's twisted psyche pegged, and that was the final declaration unfolding my friends! It's kind of weird doing it in a forum though. God I'm just so excited! And it's not actually just death, because I'm not really afraid of death, I think we'll all agree that its dying that we're afraid of. We have to find some way of SERIOUSLY ERADICATING this fear from our psyches, otherwise we shall manifest our greatest fear on a global scale, because we fear it. What twisted psyches we have, wow! It blows my mind! We're like, the most oblivious animal on the planet, due to the fact that we think we're not.

Here's that link again for any that cares to be enlightened.

If it is only our 'knowing' of it, and this is relative, is there a point to discussing what may be 'absolutely true' ? It would seem that the absolute actual and the actual absolute would be mutually exclusive for argument. A 'thing in itself' (a noumena) that is knowable. <-- did you mean 'unknowable.' Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this is what I mean when I say that I believe that you sometimes contradict what I believe to be your point.

But i think this last is what Chaz was indicating.
Hey lance, how are you and yours? Well, I hope!

I thought you had given up on me. I wouldn't blame you, this textual exchange can get tiring. It's apparent that both of us realize that people express ideas differently and that investigation is required in uncovering meaning prior to their judgment, if judgment is ever a good idea, especially in light of the subject matter at hand. I realize that my vocabulary has been narrow thus my comfort zone. I'm sure if I hang in here long enough It'll expand such that it will get easier.

Chaz said that truth is relative, not human knowledge! If he had said human knowledge, I would have agreed from the beginning. I Guess I should have stated the meanings of the words as I understand them from the beginning.

[SpheresOfBalance]

We have to find some way of SERIOUSLY ERADICATING this fear from our psyches, otherwise we shall manifest our greatest fear on a global scale, because we fear it.

OK actually, "seriously reconciling" is more appropriate.

[lancek4]

I think it was Frued that posed man's 'death drive'. And it is what I indicate in an essay I wrote which I linked on the 'aphilosophy' thread,which may de defunct now, and which was discussed there.

The essay is called 'a philosophy to die for'.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think it was Frued that posed man's 'death drive'. And it is what I indicate in an essay I wrote which I linked on the 'aphilosophy' thread,which may de defunct now, and which was discussed there.
I don't know the specifics of Freud's paper but what I'm talking about is specifically that 'humans do harm to other humans because they fear death.'
The essay is called 'a philosophy to die for'.

[lancek4]

I think it was Frued that posed man's 'death drive'. And it is what I indicate in an essay I wrote which I linked on the 'aphilosophy' thread,which may de defunct now, and which was discussed there.
I don't know the specifics of Freud's paper but what I'm talking about is specifically that 'humans do harm to other humans because they fear death.'
The essay is called 'a philosophy to die for'.

The fear of death equates to a denial of death, in that activity is based around an attempt to 'overcome' death, and it is in this effort, based in an ignorance of self, a fear of that whcih establishes self in life (death, as a polemic), that humans create a social manifestation that is driven to its own anihilation, despite its efforts to 'ensure life'.

Oh , I don't know if it really was Frued, maybe it. Was Lacan, not sure who. . But the essay I wrote.

[lancek4]

We have to find some way of SERIOUSLY ERADICATING this fear from our psyches, otherwise we shall manifest our greatest fear on a global scale, because we fear it.

OK actually, "seriously reconciling" is more appropriate.

I submit that the fear is inherent I what we posit as Truth.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Not true, truth exists without humans, there just was no knowledge of it. The lack of human knowledge does not negate a truth. Just because we started not knowing, such that we got everything wrong, until one day someone noticed, and realizing there was in fact a version of their knowledge, that was actually the real state of existence, giving birth to the concept of truth, does not mean that it didn't exist on it's own or requires judgement a correct view or otherwise. Truth always existed without our knowledge until one day we took notice. Truth is all that actually exists

if truth is a word and part of humans language then how you can know is there anything or what is there without language or outside language? humans is also a word. word is also a word. gods and stories are also words. and they existed before man?
What you're saying is not apparent, NOT AT ALL!! Truth is not a word. Rather that word (truth) is a label for something that exists without the distortion of mislabeling. You people that are caught up on language really have some fundamental issues. Take away your language, imagine if you can. Do you see the object? That's because it's 'actually' there, in whatever form by whatever means, is it's truth. No, it is not a figment of your imagination, just because you can't call it by it's name.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does (by definition). If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does anyone know it made a sound? Of course not!

if sun has risen every day, does it rise tomorrow?
Change does not negate truth, if something changes then that's the truth!

Does anyone know if it made a rise when there was no one to see it?
Make up your mind, I thought we were talking about truth, not knowledge.

Look I'm sorry, I become short when I have to reiterate something that I've already painstakingly covered. And it's not your fault. It would seem I'm only marginally better that Chaz at maintaining control of my emotions.

what you mean "(by definition)"?
Scientifically, sound is produced with friction which is a result of a tree impacting the ground. By definition in this case, sound does in fact exist.

Truth: is all that actually exists; is the state of being in accord with fact or reality. Truth criterion are theories by which one tests if beliefs are in fact truths thus giving way to knowledge.

let us test if beliefs are in fact truths: Truth: is all that actually exists; is the state of being in accord with fact or reality. in which criterion of truth truth is like that?
If you mean that the criterion of truth tests and thus gives way to either truth or falsehood, then yes!

None of us KNOW JACK SHIT? if it is true then it is not true.
This kind of statement is not clear, elaborate please.
P.S. I lied, I actually know Jack Shit, he lives one street over, it's a cul-de-sac.

if you know anything about jack shit then it is not true that it is true that none of us know nothing about something called jack shit. or did you mean that if we are not jack shit then we cant fully know jack shit? elaborate please.
We're talking about truth, not knowledge, but we can change the subject for a second.

As I originally used Jack Shit was synonymous with anything, I thought that was self evident. Can you know of something without knowing everything? OK, imagine if you will, that you're a consciousness that has yet to realize consciousness, I say this is true because you are the only thing in infinite space yet you have no sensors what so ever. You are there because I put you there, and are unaware until I implant the thought: "There are things!," You are for the first time conscious, with a single thought in your mind: "There are things." Do you now 'know' there are things? Without knowing absolutely anything about any particular thing?

[lancek4]

I submit for your appraisal:
If we take away language away and then we have the object - itself is a thought experiment based in language. How could you possibly know what there would be left without langage or knowledge? Such an excersize argues its own agenda.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The fear of death equates to a denial of death

('fear' of death = 'denial' of death) do not equate!!! You can say that the fear of death precedes, causes, is associated with, begets the denial of death. Those two words are not synonymous!! Equate means both terms are equal!!! Upon understanding you shall die, after seeing its results, the fear is initial which is why you subsequently deny.

, in that activity is based around an attempt to 'overcome' death, and it is in this effort, based in an ignorance of self, a fear of that whcih establishes self in life (death, as a polemic), that humans create a social manifestation that is driven to its own anihilation, despite its efforts to 'ensure life'.

Oh , I don't know if it really was Frued, maybe it. Was Lacan, not sure who. . But the essay I wrote.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I submit for your appraisal:
If we take away language away and then we have the object - itself is a thought experiment based in language. How could you possibly know what there would be left without langage or knowledge? Such an excersize argues its own agenda.

Incorrect, you say you couldn't possibly know, then you say it argues it's own agenda, make up your mind!

Weren't you ever a baby, without language, from your crib did you not see the mobile hanging above, despite the fact that you knew not what it was? the mobiles truth existed, neither your knowledge nor your belief of it did.

[lancek4]

I suppose I'm refering to the 'state' of being in fear, like Sartre and 'guilt' or 'shame'. Rahther that the emotion we call fear.

When one is in fear it is not something that that one can say 'I am in fear' because at that moment he is 'in fear': he Is fearful, frieghtened, his Being is the quality that is fear. He cannot sperate himslef from fear when he is in fear because he is in fear: it is hiis state of being.
In that someone may be in fear, even if he recognizes it of himself, his whole being, perceptions, attitude, judgements etc. Is conditioned by this fear. In as much as h may point and say ' I am in fear' he is most often in denial of his Being in Fear, because he will not be able to see beyond himself in fear merly by identifying himself as that quality. Fear is a state, not merely an emotion. It is the misunderstanding of this relation that also characterizes this state and is thus the state of denial.

[lancek4]

... Excuse me, fear is also an emotion, but in the way I used it it is a state. So easily discussion gets derailed by disparate definitions.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I suppose I'm refering to the 'state' of being in fear, like Sartre and 'guilt' or 'shame'. Rahther that the emotion we call fear.

When one is in fear it is not something that that one can say 'I am in fear' because at that moment he is 'in fear': he Is fearful, frieghtened, his Being is the quality that is fear. He cannot sperate himslef from fear when he is in fear because he is in fear: it is hiis state of being.
In that someone may be in fear, even if he recognizes it of himself, his whole being, perceptions, attitude, judgements etc. Is conditioned by this fear. In as much as h may point and say ' I am in fear' he is most often in denial of his Being in Fear, because he will not be able to see beyond himself in fear merly by identifying himself as that quality. Fear is a state, not merely an emotion. It is the misunderstanding of this relation that also characterizes this state and is thus the state of denial.

I searched the entire fear page at wikipedia and denial is not even on the page. Denial is an after thought even if split second and does not equate with fear at all it is a common response to it.

[lancek4]

I suppose I'm refering to the 'state' of being in fear, like Sartre and 'guilt' or 'shame'. Rahther that the emotion we call fear.

When one is in fear it is not something that that one can say 'I am in fear' because at that moment he is 'in fear': he Is fearful, frieghtened, his Being is the quality that is fear. He cannot sperate himslef from fear when he is in fear because he is in fear: it is hiis state of being.
In that someone may be in fear, even if he recognizes it of himself, his whole being, perceptions, attitude, judgements etc. Is conditioned by this fear. In as much as h may point and say ' I am in fear' he is most often in denial of his Being in Fear, because he will not be able to see beyond himself in fear merly by identifying himself as that quality. Fear is a state, not merely an emotion. It is the misunderstanding of this relation that also characterizes this state and is thus the state of denial.

I searched the entire fear page at wikipedia and denial is not even on the page. Denial is an after thought even if split second and does not equate with fear at all it is a common response to it.

Well that's one for modern pshychology for sure. Knowledge has come so far in relieving the distortion. I wonder what happened in my childhood that I am in denial of. Come to think of it, scientology works off that basic premise: we are reacting as adults to traumas of our childhood that put us in such fear that we completely removed them (denial) from our memory, yet we still run on them. Perhaps I should be a scientologist. They do a pretty good job at explaining reality in this way.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I suppose I'm refering to the 'state' of being in fear, like Sartre and 'guilt' or 'shame'. Rahther that the emotion we call fear.

When one is in fear it is not something that that one can say 'I am in fear' because at that moment he is 'in fear': he Is fearful, frieghtened, his Being is the quality that is fear. He cannot sperate himslef from fear when he is in fear because he is in fear: it is hiis state of being.
In that someone may be in fear, even if he recognizes it of himself, his whole being, perceptions, attitude, judgements etc. Is conditioned by this fear. In as much as h may point and say ' I am in fear' he is most often in denial of his Being in Fear, because he will not be able to see beyond himself in fear merly by identifying himself as that quality. Fear is a state, not merely an emotion. It is the misunderstanding of this relation that also characterizes this state and is thus the state of denial.

I searched the entire fear page at wikipedia and denial is not even on the page. Denial is an after thought even if split second and does not equate with fear at all it is a common response to it.

Well that's one for modern pshychology for sure. Knowledge has come so far in relieving the distortion. I wonder what happened in my childhood that I am in denial of. Come to think of it, scientology works off that basic premise: we are reacting as adults to traumas of our childhood that put us in such fear that we completely removed them (denial) from our memory, yet we still run on them. Perhaps I should be a scientologist. They do a pretty good job at explaining reality in this way.

L Ron Hubbard was initially a science fiction or was it fiction writer, either way!

What I got from college, books and other sources is that there can be traumatic instances during the first 5 years of life that negatively effect psyche formation. Of course any traumatic experience at any age 'could' lead to denial or in other words result in repressed memories. Of course these can lead to problems.