What is truth ?

@Cyracuz,

...again you miss the point:
What remains to be seen is where does that sentence leads you...once what you chose supposedly arbitrarily... (without a second thought is not at all arbitrary accounting for latest neuroscience)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

On a day to day basis of leading our lives, I think the most any new insight from neuroscience can lead to is new ways to categorize and name our perceptions.

1 Reply

this , that cannot be different than what it is

blk is not wht for instance

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...on that, my only remark is that whether or not we know them, even false categorizations have true reasons to happen...there´s no need to say anything else, really...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

The way you use the word "true" makes it void of any practical meaning.

0 Replies

understanding that somethings cannot be other than they are

0 Replies

@north,

Quote:

blk is not wht for instance

No, thats a fact....truth is more ethereal .
Perhaps something along the lines of how to distinguish shades of grey .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
blk is not wht for instance

No, thats a fact....truth is more ethereal .
Perhaps something along the lines of how to distinguish shades of grey .

why is truth ethereal rather than a fact as a truth , to you ?

2 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
blk is not wht for instance

No, thats a fact....truth is more ethereal .
Perhaps something along the lines of how to distinguish shades of grey .

why is truth ethereal rather than a fact as a truth , to you ?

Truth is more of an understanding within our minds, we all interpret things differently so every "truth" would be perceived in different ways and in varying degrees.

3 Replies

@Chights47,

Sometimes I make the distinction between subjective truths and objective truths. The former has to do with "wisdom", the latter with conclusions following some kind of logical or scientific methodological "rules."

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Sometimes I make the distinction between subjective truths and objective truths. The former has to do with "wisdom", the latter with conclusions following some kind of logical or scientific methodological "rules."

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Sometimes I make the distinction between subjective truths and objective truths. The former has to do with "wisdom", the latter with conclusions following some kind of logical or scientific methodological "rules."

Subjective truths do deal more with wisdom while objective truths do deal more with intelligence, there will always be some measure of both in all truths.

0 Replies

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

Truth is more of an understanding within our minds, we all interpret things differently so every "truth" would be perceived in different ways and in varying degrees.

There is no such 'thing' as a mind. It is not some 'thing' which you are capable of having. 'Mind' is a concept, a combination of phenomena which you have noticed and are using the concept 'mind' to represent the accumulated phenomena.

Concepts allow us to a) present our 'self' as someone who knows what they are talking about because b) everyone else 'assumes' to know what you are talking about. Concepts are the end of thinking because the agreed upon result of a) and b) is that nobody has to uncover the phenomena ('Be'-ing).

As long as you keep thinking and presenting that you are your "representations", you will never know (uncover) who you really are.

2 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein, of course there is no "mind"; it's a term of convenience. Remember the zen story of the monk who asked his master to relieve him of the trouble in his mind? The master asked the monk to show him his mind. Since he could not find a mind he went away relieved.

1 Reply

@north,

I see truth as something personal rather than absolute . I define facts as something that cant be argued away . Jumping off a cliff will result in falling . That is a fact . Why you would do it is a truth to some and not to others. The grey area between the extremes of not jumping and jumping is defined by the truth of why . This truth is different to different people . There are no provable truths . There are provable facts .

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Dasein, of course there is no "mind"; it's a term of convenience. Remember the zen story of the monk who asked his master to relieve him of the trouble in his mind? The master asked the monk to show him his mind. Since he could not find a mind he went away relieved.

Using the word 'mind' to communicate 'Be'-ing is a 'missed' representation, an illusion. Using 'mind' in language creates 'mass' around the word 'mind' and people/you assume/believe that the 'mind' exists. The most important part of your post is:

JLNobody wrote:

Since he could not find a mind he went away relieved.

Maybe it's time for all of us to walk away from 'mind' and get some relief.

0 Replies

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

Chights47 wrote:
Truth is more of an understanding within our minds, we all interpret things differently so every "truth" would be perceived in different ways and in varying degrees.
There is no such 'thing' as a mind. It is not some 'thing' which you are capable of having. 'Mind' is a concept, a combination of phenomena which you have noticed and are using the concept 'mind' to represent the accumulated phenomena.

Concepts allow us to a) present our 'self' as someone who knows what they are talking about because b) everyone else 'assumes' to know what you are talking about. Concepts are the end of thinking because the agreed upon result of a) and b) is that nobody has to uncover the phenomena ('Be'-ing).

As long as you keep thinking and presenting that you are your "representations", you will never know (uncover) who you really are.

The mind is an ethereal "thing" but it's not a physical thing". You can't deny that emotions exist, yet you can't touch them, see them, or sense them in anyway expect within yourself...same kind of concept. The "concepts" and expressions in which you're talking about aren't the end of thinking, they're actually beginning. The phenomena of "be-ing" can't be thought about, explained, communicated or anything. The only way to understand it, is to experience it without any thought or anything. It's just...well...be-ing. As soon as you try to explain it and communicate it, it starts to "water down" and becomes "lost in translation". So basically "be-ing" is before thought, not after it...at least that's the way I see it.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

The mind is an ethereal "thing" but it's not a physical thing".

'Mind' is a mis-representation, an illusion. It is an accumulation of characteristics culminating in a concept.

Chights47 wrote:

You can't deny that emotions exist, yet you can't touch them, see them, or sense them in anyway expect within yourself...same kind of concept.

Emotions are another combination of characteristics which we assign a concept to (fear, love, etc.). Nobody has been able to 'prove' that what you're being moved by is actually love or fear. You can only say that you were moved and assign an interpretation to it according to the combination of characteristics you perceive. I have found that what you call emotions are a great way to distract our 'self' and others from 'Be'-ing and become an entity that supports their own existence (justification).

Chights47 wrote:

The "concepts" and expressions in which you're talking about aren't the end of thinking, they're actually beginning.

Actually the rote memorization and communication of concepts covers up the "phenomena of be-ing" and creates 'mass' around those concepts thereby increasing believabilty and agreement for the illusion.

Chights47 wrote:

The phenomena of "be-ing" can't be thought about, explained, communicated or anything. The only way to understand it, is to experience it without any thought or anything. It's just...well...be-ing. As soon as you try to explain it and communicate it, it starts to "water down" and becomes "lost in translation". So basically "be-ing" is before thought, not after it...at least that's the way I see it.

I agree with you. It's kind of like the relationship between sex and intimacy. Intimacy doesn't lend itself to be talked about so we talk about sex hoping to communicate. When you talk about sex, intimacy becomes something else which doesn't come close to intimacy. Since we (obviously) have the desire, (in fact are compelled) to communicate about 'Be'-ing, intimacy, and sex, maybe we need to invent another way to communicate and stop representing 'Be'-ing, intimacy, and sex the way we currently represent it.

Maybe the problem is the conceptualization and mis-representation of 'Be'-ing/living. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

Dasein wrote:

is a mis-representation, an illusion. It is an accumulation of characteristics culminating in a concept.

I agree with most of that, but I don't think that the mind is an "illusion" It's more of an "allusion"...kind of.

dasein wrote:

Emotions are another combination of characteristics which we assign a concept to (fear, love, etc.). Nobody has been able to 'prove' that what you're being moved by is actually love or fear.

.

The reason you can't "prove" emotions in a general sense, is because they're ethereal. It's something in which is known without any explaination, and thought, or anything. As soon as it's "categoried" and "processed" by thoughts and explanations, the entire meaning is just minced up more and more.

Dasein wrote:

Actually the rote memorization and communication of concepts covers up the "phenomena of be-ing" and creates 'mass' around those concepts thereby increasing believabilty and agreement for the illusion.

The "illusion" that you're speaking about is the connections of understanding between all sentient beings. If you don't believe in that, then all you doing basically amount to you just throwing up a bunch of smoke screens. It's the only thing we have to convey the ineffable. It's like a target with the bullseye taken out and all we can do is aim for close.

Dasein wrote:

Maybe we need to invent another way to communicate and stop representing 'Be'-ing, intimacy, and sex the way we currently represent it.

Maybe we need to also find a new way to understand it. It's agreed that there is a problem presenting the information, but is there a problem receiving it as well? Or is receiving the information the only real problem?

2 Replies

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

Maybe we need to also find a new way to understand it. It's agreed that there is a problem presenting the information, but is there a problem receiving it as well? Or is receiving the information the only real problem?

Understanding will always fix the problem, however, I find that most people spend their entire life defining and defending their territory and don't want to relinquish any part of it for understanding.

1 Reply

What is truth ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know