What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
lancek4
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm

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

Post by lancek4 »

I too admire MQ's english using.

SOB It seemms the basic problem between us may be : how do we account for the apparent separation that allows us this true and false.

So that leads me, reflecting upon our positions, to suggest that it may be a problem of discursive arenas. In so much as the meaning of 'assumptions' is further aggrivating the discrepancy between posts.

This is what I mean wheb I say 'how we speak': that we have not laid a common definition between us.

For example: 'assumption' could mean the individual's assumption, as reflected in opionion, or 'distortion' as you have put it; or it could be referring to mankind's assumptions, as reflected in what it seems you refer to as the Absolute, as I think MQ is framing it. ( If I am incorrect in my appraisal of you MQ, feel free to correct me).
zinnat13
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: India

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

Post by zinnat13 »

Hello friends,

As this thread was started well before my entry so I decided to go through it completely to understand all perspectives before any comment.

Let me start from a recitation from Socrates that "I only know that I know nothing."

Just look at the words. He would have said simply that “I do not know anything” but he had chosen his words very carefully. If we put “still “or “yet” before the second “I”, the statement will reflect its true meaning.

In my opinion Socrates was trying to say that; in spite of that I know a lot according to me and as well as in comparison to the others, yet my acquired knowledge is so small comparing to the total sum of knowledge that it appears as I know nothing.

This is can not and should not be a statement of a philosopher in a true sense. Have you ever seen a modern philosopher so uncertain about his knowledge? Everyone wants to shout so loudly that only his voice could be heard. So, why Socrates is sounding so different? One can easily argue that it is his humbleness or limited knowledge but it is not the case. He is just stating what he felt.

As I never studied philosophy or read any book about it so I was not familiar with this statement but as I read it, words became vocal. The statement of Socrates is actually pointing towards the scope and the limits of philosophy. He is saying that his philosophy is not leading him further anymore and standing there, at the very end of his philosophy, he is having the glimpses of the entire unknown in its enormity and compelled to say that “I only know that I know nothing.”

This brings us to examine philosophy. I want to explain it as I understood.

In my opinion, philosophy is just an act of thinking but in its true sense. I do not think it requires more than these words to define but it is not as simple as it looks.

Let us take thinking first. The most common way of thinking is in first person. No need to in detail in front of such intellectuals as all of you. The second way is to look at the things from the other’s point of view and that is empathy or perceiving in second person. Till now, philosophy is not in the picture. As soon as we start thinking in third person, philosophy becomes alive.

As we all know thinking in third person means to look at the things in totality like a bird’s eye view and objectively too. Now the thinking must be free from all biases and even any predefined conclusions. This is essential as generally we tend to commit a mistake by finding arguments those support our personal assumptions instead of realty.
In broad sense, third person and thinking within is defined. But philosophy, in its true sense, starts from here. I used the world “objectively” and by that I mean freeing our mind not only from the assumptions but our personal emotions like anger, love, ego, affection, eagerness, hesitation, hate, sympathy and even empathy also as they all could influence our mind and we may not come up with correct finding. The only quality that can help philosophy is perhaps patience. This stage is difficult to achieve. We tend to get angry very easily whenever we face criticism and easily fall in the trap and immediately focus ourselves to proof the other one wrong. This causes us to manifest unwarranted arguments as the defeat would hurt our ego.

An argument is of no use neither for philosophy nor for philosopher if it is manifested only for the sake of argument. A true philosopher should not feel ashamed if he finds himself unable to proof his point because no matter who will lose, philosophy will stand as winner in the end.

We have an example of Einstein in front of us. Initially, when he gave the theory of special relativity, it was insufficient to explain gravitation. After some time he put the concept of “cosmological constant” forward to explain the gravitation but failed to convince the scientific community. And when he failed even to convince himself,then he publically accepted his failure by writing an article saying that he was wrong. How many philosophers have the courage to do that? Although my knowledge about philosophers is very limited but they look very rigid in their stance. That’s why I rate Einstein one of the greatest philosophers of all times.

Let me take one more example. We are witnessing many forums in Philosophy Now related to the difficulties of the people of US and European countries. It is evident that we all have sympathy with them and as a human being there is nothing wrong in it but, in my opinion, even if it looks inhuman, is not a true philosophical view. An approach of a bird’s eye view is missing here as we are not able to see things in totality.

If we place a true philosopher at the moon and ask him to look at the world from there and then about his analysis of the difficulties of the people, then instead of talking about the happening of Wall Street first, he would discuss the living standard of people living in Somalia, Uganda and likewise where people are dying, starving, and even not have enough and hygienic water to drink for years. But, we did not do that simply because they (people at the Wall Street) belonged to us so sympathy overshadowed the thinking. It is not the case that we do not know the condition of the people of Africa but it did not strike our mind when we saw people at Wall Street protesting in anger and disgust. We simply flew with our emotions.

A philosopher should think like a judge sitting on the hot seat in the court. Hearing all
arguments; giving a fair and enough chance to every thought before pronouncing a verdict. It is an established practice that if any relative of the judge or jury appears in the court for trial, then the concerned jury member or judge keeps himself away from the related trial because his opinion could be biased. The same is with philosophy. If we are not capable of keeping our personal assumptions and emotions away then we cannot come up with a right conclusion.

So, we see philosophy is just thinking but in its true sense. As soon as we do anything more or else than thinking, philosophy takes a back seat immediately.

But, it is still not complete. Socrates is not talking about all this. When he says the aforesaid statement, he has taken all these stages for granted. He is talking beyond that. But, here at this juncture, we must understand that philosophy ends here. What happens beyond this has nothing to do with philosophy. The veil start from here and it is impossible to penetrate it with the tools of thinking only as it demands something more than that.

To some extent, I am able to understand what he means simply not because am too intelligent but because of my personal experiences.

The phenomenon is something like that; When one became able to think in the third person regularly and for longer times like a few hours, doing nothing but thinking, over and over, the level of the concentration becomes very high. Mind itself becomes a thought. Then sometimes, one is able to see his thoughts as we do in third person; witnesses them to flow, coming in and out, manifesting and vanishing. This state distinguishes the seer from the seen. This is a similar state which one attains during a sincere meditation. There is no difference because the key is the concentration. Concentrated subject does not play any role in it. Even if we think of having sex, the result will be the same. The only condition is that the whole of our mind should involve in it.

This is the starting point of the journey to see the unseen. Reaching this stage one can starts to understand how mind works and how emotions take control of our mind. Books lost their relevance here. If one has enough patience and concentration, the veil starts fading and the unseen tends to unfold. But, I have to mention again that there is no instant way. The traveler has to go step by step. Socrates is taking about these stages as reaching there and even crossing many of them, he is still feeling that it is not going to end soon and he does not even know how much and what is left. So his words are stating his surrender to the ultimate.

No one knows exactly how much is there and in which form is there. These are the stages talked by Buddha, Mohammad, Mahavira and Zen monks and many religions. There is no need to stretch the list.

Now we must go back to philosophy otherwise it may feel lonely.

I feel that philosophy is an analysis so it must a sequel not a prequel. Analysis cannot be done before the event. If we try to analyze the event, without knowing exactly how it will unfold, then we will come up only with unrealistic assumptions. Though I feel that I am making a too generalized statement. There may be exceptions as I did not give it a deep thought.

Before summing up I want to make one thing very clear that it is absolutely fine to have a faith. There is no harm in it. On the contrary, it benefits us numerous ways. So we should stick to our version but there is no other way of knowing the unseen instead of travel on it, all by oneself. It is such a phenomenon that should be experienced otherwise one could not believe it. It may be discussed but not before witnessing a glimpse of it.

One more thing I want to say that; up to now from a philosophical point of view, Satyr clearly stands tall from others. I do not have any hesitation in saying that his writing skill is best on the board. It appears that writing is just a piece of cake for him. He must be born with a pencil holding in his hand but I do not subscribe to his perspective simply because he does not like to carry the rubber in the other hand. Absence or rubber forced him at the stage of standstill. But, having said that I must admit that he is extraordinarily intelligent and informed. He is absolutely right in his opinion that he derived from his observation but I know that the reality is beyond of that stage because i felt it in person. He has reached there where the intelligence can enable a person to the maximum. That is his compulsion and this is my compulsion.

Though I am not competent enough to comment but it look to me that the assumption of SOB is not missing the target by much.

Sorry if I offend anyone.

With love,
sanjay
User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

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

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.



Sanjay what you have just written is AMAZING!


You are dead nuts on in your observations and you have expressed your thoughts beautifully.


I am humbled and overjoyed at the same time and I am so thankful that someone like you has blessed our forum here at Philosophy Now.


I wish that you could tweak your last post somehow and re-present it in the General Philosophy board.

That way you could maintain your own thread instead of having your post end-up here on the back of a rather long, and perhaps worn-out thread.


All the best to you sanjay.


All of us could learn a great deal from you and you vantage point.

.
User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

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

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.


The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
~~~ John F. Kennedy ~~~




.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5594
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

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

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

lancek4 wrote:I too admire MQ's english using.

SOB It seemms the basic problem between us may be : how do we account for the apparent separation that allows us this true and false.
Here I don't quite get your point. What "...separation that allows...?" And, any particular T & F ? Or just generally speaking?

So that leads me, reflecting upon our positions, to suggest that it may be a problem of discursive arenas. In so much as the meaning of 'assumptions' is further aggrivating the discrepancy between posts.
Well i see the meaning a follows, regardless of its associated subject:

assumption [uh-suhmp-shuhn] as·sump·tion  /əˈsʌmpʃən/ Show Spelled[uh-suhmp-shuhn]
noun
1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption. Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory.
2. the act of taking for granted or supposing. Synonyms: presumption; presupposition.
3. the act of taking to or upon oneself. Synonyms: acceptance, shouldering.
4. the act of taking possession of something: the assumption of power. Synonyms: seizure, appropriation, usurpation, arrogation.
5. arrogance; presumption. Synonyms: presumptuousness; effrontery, forwardness, gall.
6. the taking over of another's debts or obligations.
7. Ecclesiastical.
a. (often initial capital letter) the bodily taking up into heaven of the Virgin Mary.
b. (initial capital letter) a feast commemorating this, celebrated on August 15.
8. Logic. the minor premise of a syllogism.

An important distinction here, as far as I'm concerned, is that it allows ambiguity. Such that with communication, one should always attempt to negate assumption with simple clarity.


This is what I mean wheb I say 'how we speak': that we have not laid a common definition between us.
I agree with you 100% ;-)

For example: 'assumption' could mean the individual's assumption, as reflected in opionion, or 'distortion' as you have put it;
Yes!
or it could be referring to mankind's assumptions, as reflected in what it seems you refer to as the Absolute, as I think MQ is framing it. ( If I am incorrect in my appraisal of you MQ, feel free to correct me).
The only thing I've ever meant to attribute as absolute was truth, that's it, surely not 'mankind!' The only thing absolute with respect to humankind is our birth and death.
lancek4
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm

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

Post by lancek4 »

zinnat13 wrote:Hello friends,

As this thread was started well before my entry so I decided to go through it completely to understand all perspectives before any comment.

Let me start from a recitation from Socrates that "I only know that I know nothing."

Just look at the words. He would have said simply that “I do not know anything” but he had chosen his words very carefully. If we put “still “or “yet” before the second “I”, the statement will reflect its true meaning.

In my opinion Socrates was trying to say that; in spite of that I know a lot according to me and as well as in comparison to the others, yet my acquired knowledge is so small comparing to the total sum of knowledge that it appears as I know nothing.

This is can not and should not be a statement of a philosopher in a true sense. Have you ever seen a modern philosopher so uncertain about his knowledge? Everyone wants to shout so loudly that only his voice could be heard. So, why Socrates is sounding so different? One can easily argue that it is his humbleness or limited knowledge but it is not the case. He is just stating what he felt.

As I never studied philosophy or read any book about it so I was not familiar with this statement but as I read it, words became vocal. The statement of Socrates is actually pointing towards the scope and the limits of philosophy. He is saying that his philosophy is not leading him further anymore and standing there, at the very end of his philosophy, he is having the glimpses of the entire unknown in its enormity and compelled to say that “I only know that I know nothing.”
From one angle this is a thoughtful opinion. In that you have no studies philosophy - does this mean that you have not read Plato? Because it seems you have the an opinion of philosophy similar to my sister of ideas in general, who read Marquis de Sade and was offended, and when I explained what he was talking about, she said: "Well, thats what reading is for, everyone can have thier opinion. Your is no more correct than mine".

I disagree that Socrates meant what you say. It demeans his position to relegate it to a universal relativity. In one way, yes it is as you say, but he was saying much more than that.




.
As soon as we start thinking in third person, philosophy becomes alive.
OK. thats nice.
As we all know thinking in third person means to look at the things in totality like a bird’s eye view and objectively too. Now the thinking must be free from all biases and even any predefined conclusions. This is essential as generally we tend to commit a mistake by finding arguments those support our personal assumptions instead of realty.
In broad sense, third person and thinking within is defined. But philosophy, in its true sense, starts from here. I used the world “objectively” and by that I mean freeing our mind not only from the assumptions but our personal emotions like anger, love, ego, affection, eagerness, hesitation, hate, sympathy and even empathy also as they all could influence our mind and we may not come up with correct finding. The only quality that can help philosophy is perhaps patience. This stage is difficult to achieve. We tend to get angry very easily whenever we face criticism and easily fall in the trap and immediately focus ourselves to proof the other one wrong. This causes us to manifest unwarranted arguments as the defeat would hurt our ego.
I like this.
That’s why I rate Einstein one of the greatest philosophers of all times.
Indeed; he said "God does not play dice".




But, it is still not complete. Socrates is not talking about all this. When he says the aforesaid statement, he has taken all these stages for granted. He is talking beyond that. But, here at this juncture, we must understand that philosophy ends here. What happens beyond this has nothing to do with philosophy. The veil start from here and it is impossible to penetrate it with the tools of thinking only as it demands something more than that.

To some extent, I am able to understand what he means simply not because am too intelligent but because of my personal experiences.

The phenomenon is something like that; When one became able to think in the third person regularly and for longer times like a few hours, doing nothing but thinking, over and over, the level of the concentration becomes very high. Mind itself becomes a thought. Then sometimes, one is able to see his thoughts as we do in third person; witnesses them to flow, coming in and out, manifesting and vanishing. This state distinguishes the seer from the seen. This is a similar state which one attains during a sincere meditation. There is no difference because the key is the concentration. Concentrated subject does not play any role in it. Even if we think of having sex, the result will be the same. The only condition is that the whole of our mind should involve in it.

This is the starting point of the journey to see the unseen. Reaching this stage one can starts to understand how mind works and how emotions take control of our mind. Books lost their relevance here. If one has enough patience and concentration, the veil starts fading and the unseen tends to unfold. But, I have to mention again that there is no instant way. The traveler has to go step by step. Socrates is taking about these stages as reaching there and even crossing many of them, he is still feeling that it is not going to end soon and he does not even know how much and what is left. So his words are stating his surrender to the ultimate.

No one knows exactly how much is there and in which form is there. These are the stages talked by Buddha, Mohammad, Mahavira and Zen monks and many religions. There is no need to stretch the list.

Now we must go back to philosophy otherwise it may feel lonely.
This is very enigmatic. I am not sure what you mean by "surrendering to the ultimate".

I feel that philosophy is an analysis so it must a sequel not a prequel. Analysis cannot be done before the event. If we try to analyze the event, without knowing exactly how it will unfold, then we will come up only with unrealistic assumptions. Though I feel that I am making a too generalized statement. There may be exceptions as I did not give it a deep thought.

Before summing up I want to make one thing very clear that it is absolutely fine to have a faith. There is no harm in it. On the contrary, it benefits us numerous ways. So we should stick to our version but there is no other way of knowing the unseen instead of travel on it, all by oneself. It is such a phenomenon that should be experienced otherwise one could not believe it. It may be discussed but not before witnessing a glimpse of it.

One more thing I want to say that; up to now from a philosophical point of view, Satyr clearly stands tall from others. I do not have any hesitation in saying that his writing skill is best on the board. It appears that writing is just a piece of cake for him. He must be born with a pencil holding in his hand but I do not subscribe to his perspective simply because he does not like to carry the rubber in the other hand. Absence or rubber forced him at the stage of standstill. But, having said that I must admit that he is extraordinarily intelligent and informed. He is absolutely right in his opinion that he derived from his observation but I know that the reality is beyond of that stage because i felt it in person. He has reached there where the intelligence can enable a person to the maximum. That is his compulsion and this is my compulsion.
this statement and....
Though I am not competent enough to comment but it look to me that the assumption of SOB is not missing the target by much.
..this statement seem nonsequiter to me. I will explain..
Sorry if I offend anyone.

With love,
sanjay
It seems as if you are saying that philosophy is a process of one attempting to attain the 'ultimate'. Then you go one to describe some sort of esoteric transformation. I do not know what you are saying here. Maybe I have some idea of what you are saying: are you saying that in moving through stages of higher and higher analysis that some 'experience' happend to you? I am not totally sure of what you mean by 'analysis'. Or 'prequel' or 'sequel'. to what? to the experience you had?
to the 'event? the 'event' that one may analyze?

I would say that philsophy occurs 'upon' the 'event'.

Interesting essay, but to me there is a disjucture between your idea of Socrates, third person veiw, some 'stages' -- what are these stages?

Please elabrate.

The Oracle at Delphi is said to have has the inscription "Know Thyself". Socrates, having heard from the oracle that he was the wisest man in Greece, so he wnet all over the land and spoke to everyone he could, of all stations, in the attempt to fin one who was wiser than he.

I would offer that to "know" is a defined term which references a particular aspect of human existance. When Socrates say "I know that i do not know" he is being ironic. In the first, he is using the first person reference in that "Socrates himself to himself" knows something which will be told subsequently; namely: "that he does not know"; this latter refering to the 'knowledge' which you, Sanjay, put in the realm of things to know, which comes down to opinion, which is why you argue that people should be more patient and less egoistic. Socrates was not saying anything about the relative world; he was saying that "he knows", but in reference to those who proclaim knowledge, such as Protagoras, and all the other philsophers with which he engages, Socrates begins from the position that he, himself, must not really know, since everyone else evendently does.

Sorates references his knowledge by indicating his 'daemon' which tellshim when he should not proceed, and indeed, it is this manner of engaging with life why Socrates accepted his death with such grace: because his daemon did not inform him that it was improper.

I appreciate your essay. It would seem to be saying something significant but it gets vague, as if you are hesitiant to disclose something, so your words and clauses become hazy and merely suggestive. It does not approach th irony that your 'stages' would seem to suggest, and so I would surmise that you fall into the category of 'philosophy' that would find the 'aphilosophy' of Typist (in another thread) quite an interesting and valuable endeavor. That such 'stages' are merely another 'veil' by which you maintain some sort of 'primacy' or some sort of 'learnedness' even while lurking behind a guise of piety.

At root, I would have to say that you are at an early stage in your quest. But then, I have no idea what your stages might be ...
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5594
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

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

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

zinnat13 wrote:quote="SpheresOfBalance" is in blue

Hello friends,

As this thread was started well before my entry so I decided to go through it completely to understand all perspectives before any comment.

Let me start from a recitation from Socrates that "I only know that I know nothing."

Just look at the words. He would have said simply that “I do not know anything” but he had chosen his words very carefully. If we put “still “or “yet” before the second “I”, the statement will reflect its true meaning.

In my opinion Socrates was trying to say that; in spite of that I know a lot according to me and as well as in comparison to the others, yet my acquired knowledge is so small comparing to the total sum of knowledge that it appears as I know nothing.
I take, "I only know that I know nothing," at face value and as a rule steer clear of inadvertently putting words in anyone's mouth, but I believe that in this phrase he spoke of an approach to the seeking, and something to always keep in mind. In addition I believe that it was a clever method to allow those to whom he spoke to find alternate possibilities, seemingly for themselves. What better way than to tell them that 'he only knew that he knew nothing' and then to precede with his 'Socratic Method' of asking complex questions causing the subject of his communication to be potentially stumped thus search for alternative solution. In this way, he could humbly affect change. ;-)

<snip>
I found no means of serious contention and believe you are well centered. Please pardon my judgment, I am no one of significance, and yet just as significant as the next!

With love,
sanjay
Ahhh yes, "With love." "All you need is love," my friend!
I could be wrong but I believe that English is your second language. If so I commend you on your ability to transcend your native language and make yourself understood in a foreign language. This I have not attempted as I have never mastered my own.

Your post provided great insight. I could be wrong but It would seem that you're a Buddhist. If I were to finally choose a specific religion it would be Buddhism, as I believe that it's the most centered, aligning itself with this symbiosis, that is planet Earth. We 'all' do suffer, and may find shelter in the four noble truths.

I thank you for your time, with much consideration.

PEACE my friend!
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5594
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

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

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



Sanjay what you have just written is AMAZING!


You are dead nuts on in your observations and you have expressed your thoughts beautifully.


I am humbled and overjoyed at the same time and I am so thankful that someone like you has blessed our forum here at Philosophy Now.


I wish that you could tweak your last post somehow and re-present it in the General Philosophy board.

That way you could maintain your own thread instead of having your post end-up here on the back of a rather long, and perhaps worn-out thread.


All the best to you sanjay.


All of us could learn a great deal from you and you vantage point.

.
Yes bill it may be worn out in terms of being informative to everyone else other to those that continue to find if stimulating. I have learned much during my time here, Thanks for the topic!

PEACE, my friend!
User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

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

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.


THANK YOU SpheresOfBalance for adding so much to this interesting philosophical concept.

I am looking forward for your engagements upon many threads to come.

You are an exceptional member of this forum.


I mirror the kind thoughts that sanjay shared about you.




.
lancek4
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm

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

Post by lancek4 »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
lancek4 wrote:I too admire MQ's english using.

SOB It seemms the basic problem between us may be : how do we account for the apparent separation that allows us this true and false.
Here I don't quite get your point. What "...separation that allows...?" And, any particular T & F ? Or just generally speaking?

]
If the universe is the totality of all that exists, then, how is it that an 'existant' that is of the totality, is able to have a sufficient amount of separation from the universe (by which it has gained its existance) in order to gain purchase about what may be true or false of the universe?

How can something that is 'of' the universe, intimately and inherently part of the universe, be able to 'not be a part' of the universe such that the 'former something', the 'existant that is a part of the existing universe', may be able to 'know' what may be actually or absolutly True of the universe.

this is to say: my skin cannot 'know' the truth or fallacy of its skinness; an identity cannot know of itself; it cannot have pruchase upon what itself may be: there muct be a sufficient separation for any object to have another object.

So I ask: how do you account for the separation that allows you an ability to come to what is true or false about the universe?

What is this separation?

It Is frustrating but not in a bad way: am I communicating to you what I mean now?

What has granted me the abillity to know of what may be true or false? My brain? Is not my brain a part of the True universe? What if I come upon a falsity? What is this falsity? How can my brain that is a True element of the True Absolute universe, generate something that is false? How can a peice of the True universe come upon something of the True universe which is false? How can my True brain develop an idea of what is false of the True universe?

What does this process say of my existance? what does it say of what I might propose, as to our definition of what is Absolutly True, actually true, as Absolutly True?

How can something deny something of itself, in an absolute sence? would not this merely suggest that the denial, the Falsity, is faise in itself? Becuase what has been denied is still there? Is not Itself patent? How can there be something that is not of Itself yet still be itself?


User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5468
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

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

Post by Bill Wiltrack »

.



How can something that is 'of' the universe, intimately and inherently part of the universe, be able to 'not be a part' of the universe such that the 'former something', the 'existant that is a part of the existing universe', may be able to 'know' what may be actually or absolutly True of the universe?



Excellent tact.


I think you have concisely articulated the essence of this entire thread and the dilemma of What's stopping us from seeing the truth.


Great post and I thank you for all of the work that you have produced in the progression of this, apparently rich, philosophical question, What's stopping us from seeing the truth?




.
User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

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

Post by Kayla »

Bill, when you write 'truth' do you mean truth in general or your truth

How do you tell the two apart
lancek4
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm

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

Post by lancek4 »

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



How can something that is 'of' the universe, intimately and inherently part of the universe, be able to 'not be a part' of the universe such that the 'former something', the 'existant that is a part of the existing universe', may be able to 'know' what may be actually or absolutly True of the universe?



Excellent tact.


I think you have concisely articulated the essence of this entire thread and the dilemma of What's stopping us from seeing the truth.


Great post and I thank you for all of the work that you have produced in the progression of this, apparently rich, philosophical question, What's stopping us from seeing the truth?




.
OMG! Bill; I thank you, since you were the one who proposed this question, this thread.
And I have to say, despite all my quips and silly rebuttalls to your nonsense, I appreciate your input. For we are a totality together in this world, and where would I be if there were not differentation. :)

...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". Whatever it is that I may not know, it is found in the defering my Self from my Self into the substantiability of the Object. 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.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5594
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

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

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

A little something my philosophy professor mentioned that I tracked down.

'Men are four.
He who knows not, and knows not he knows not; he is a fool - shun him,
He who knows not, and knows he knows not; he is simple - teach him,
He who knows and knows not he knows; he is asleep - wake him,
He who knows and knows he knows; he is wise - follow him. -- Arab Proverb

From The Life of Sir Richard F Burton, K.C.M.G., F.R.G.S


Of course my professor stated it this way, without the characterizations:

'Men are four.
He who knows not, and knows not he knows not
He who knows not, and knows he knows not
He who knows and knows not he knows
He who knows and knows he knows

I would say that I and 99.99% of the world are actually of the second assertion (tier 2) above. Socrates understood this!

I would say that their may be a few at the third tier.

I would say that 99.9% that think they are at tier four are actually at tier one and include, mass murderers, dictators, Serial killers, and anyone else of a malevolent nature.

If John Buck said that John Doe deserved to die. According to John Buck It would be the truth. At least if you believed in relative truth.

I see it thus. The absolute truth is that John Doe does not deserve to die, because how does any one qualify 'deserve to die.' Both John Doe and John Buck are children of the universe and as such absolutely deserve to exist. For John Buck to say that John Doe deserves to die is to say that he fully understands the universe and that John Doe is not in keeping with our universe. John Buck is thus deluded and has distorted the absolute truth; the universal truth. What he spouts as truth is actually only belief. He believes that John Doe deserves to die.

People that believe in a relative truth do so to feed their need of self righteousness, their own selfish needs above and beyond all others. It's a sickness. It's led to global warming, over population as well as other problems, can you say economy (money), and every indication is that it shall be our undoing.
Mark Question
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:20 am

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

Post by Mark Question »

zinnat13 wrote: As we all know thinking in third person means to look at the things in totality like a bird’s eye view and objectively too. Now the thinking must be free from all biases and even any predefined conclusions. This is essential as generally we tend to commit a mistake by finding arguments those support our personal assumptions instead of realty.
"free as a bird"? is that true or do we need philosophy now? lets try: do birds seek food and partner or nest place and some materials to build nest? do they look intentionally any signs to get those or do they even have built in reflexes to scare some particular shapes, shapes looking like their enemies? (sorry my english.) are we humans also intentionally looking all the time and do brains and eyes make some filtering, also when we learn, memorize and use philosophical world structures, theory models, thinking tools? if you use hammer to wash your teeth you get very different result? so, who or what is absolute free or absolute objective?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Mark Question wrote: to make false assumptions or decisions is not humans privilege. :)
It's funny that you should say this, because we've done it since the beginning of our time, and it would seem that we shall continue, unknowingly affecting, the end of our time.
sorry, i meant to write that it is not only humans privilege. nature seems to have endless war with endless arms race. new or better predators or competitors puts you in a situation where you need new camouflage or something other new tricks to fight back? like..
many butterflies have eyes on the back. big eyes! (O_O) scaring stupid predators away. flying safely straight to the carnivorous plant like a happy meal.
You and I shall die my friend, by what ever means, we shall die!
if you say so? so, why many butterflies have those large spots on the wings? have you heard fishes who go fishing? The spine is movable in all directions, and the esca can be wiggled so as to resemble a prey animal, and thus to act as bait to lure other predators close enough for the anglerfish to devour them whole.
and do you mean that before humans or any other stupid life form on earth, there was only true beliefs among those who were not there yet? :shock:
There were no beliefs at all, as beliefs were born of humans.
if "There were no beliefs at all, as beliefs were born of humans" then was there "absolute truth" as true belief?
Locked