What is truth ?

I do that often to correct my poor English or to ad some important word that pops up...

regarding your remark:
I could use Dasein´s technique to counter that...the simple version concerning truth is that you are be-ing it...its description its never finished although its circumstance its never untrue just to quote justin on that one...and yes I agree with the idea of a co-extension...remenber when I said some time ago that I did n´t quite understood what "out" and "in" was about ?...
Rorty is a smart old fox that gets the job done on defending its territory and turf...no talk is needed for truth...phenomenology as we know it is good enough...

Conventional wisdom says you're right about this, however, conventional wisdom is wrong.

The 'Truth' is where 'you' stand. It is not negotiable. 'Truth' resolves all of the "stuff" on this forum that passes for philosophy.

Your post reminds me that the chasm between the 'truth' and conventional wisdom is huge and to 'bridge' that gap takes alot of personal work. I have found that most people (99.999%) are unwilling to do that work. They want it to happen automatically. Like breathing.

The only thing about philosophy that comes automatically is opinions and that is not thinking.

That statement is like pointing a proverbial gun to your philosophical head. Go ahead and pull the trigger. You will not hit anything but air.


Your statement is, of course, ridiculous, but here's what I did with it while I'm waiting for someone.

6,852,472,823 is the total world population (approximately) as of mid year 2010.
0,001% of them makes roughly 68,000 people, and from the way you word yourself I assume you include yourself in this group. Me thinks your self-image might be a tad inflated.

It takes one to know one otherwise you wouldn't be able to hang the judgment on the right characteristic that you 'recognize' in you.

There you go again..

Someone just walked by outside my window. I recognized the characteristics of a woman... I must be a woman...

Thanks for reminding me why I put you on 'ignore'.

It's obvious why. You feel indignation when I object to your public masturbation.

Your attempts at being 'right'(looking good) should be a 'hint' that you haven't a clue of what you're saying.

Hint number 2: I'm guilty of this 'crime' as well.

I appreciate you letting me know that I have struck a nerve. It means that I am getting my job done with you, regardless of whether you agree with me or not. That's all I can ask for or expect.

So, I guess that the only thing you're capable of is running to the end of your chain and barking about what upsets your universe. Another good reason for putting you on ignore.

I'll just have to exercise some discipline in not clicking on the 'view' link next to 'user ignored', otherwise I'm just inviting you to run to the end of your chain and bark.

I think that behind the nicknames Dasein and JPLosman there is actually one user with two accounts. I think they are the same person...

My position (ho ho !) on that is hardly the conventional wisdom which you appear to adopt in assuming "self" is unified and is independent of "others". Try to suspend your Heideggerian conditioning on that and actually observe your next internal conversation amongst the "self committee" and the ephemeral nature of the subsequent negotiated position.

Pardon me if I do not participate in the on-going agonies of the last two pages; at my age I can't spare the testosterone.

I am just trolling them. I've learned it from the best

Your reference to 'independent of others' is interesting.

If you mean by "independent of others" that 'self' needs "others" to be "complete" then, yes, 'self' is "independent of others". 'Self' is unified and doesn't need support, love, affection, or agreement to stand in a clearing.

If you mean by "independent of others" that I can live on this planet to the exclusion of others then, no, "I" am not "independent of others".

The wording in the last 2 paragraphs was purposely specific. 'Self' was used in the 1st paragraph and "I" is used in the 2nd because "I" and "self" are not the same. "I" and 'self' are independent of each other. You can be the ground your 'authentic self' walks on and 'Be' that ground while walking around the planet with "others". You just need to stop confusing your 'self' with the world you live in.

The only time I have a problem 'Be'-ing my 'self' is when people like you demand that I act like them. Then I have to deal with or ignore your 'bullying' tactics.

I decline your request to suspend my "conversation".

You have absolutely no control over what anybody posts on this forum. However, you do have control over what you read and respond to unless you don't have any control at all.

I recommend actual self-observation, not idealistic wish fulfilment !


G.I.Gurdjieff.

Gurdjieff is not talking about 'self'. He is talking about 'Man" and "I". You are the one confusing 'Man' and 'I' with 'self'.

One other thing. You are not the 'pope' and neither is your 'expert from out of town' (Gurdjieff). Interesting that you would quote someone who can't be questioned about his thoughts on 'self'.

Sorry, but shrill protestations don't equate to self-observation.

Stick to your conditioning by all means, but don't expect others to buy "the Heideggerian pearls of wisdom" line you tend to take as an alternative to genuine debate.

Always the heckler, missing the point and taking it instead as a taunt.

Philosophy is about uncovering 'Be'-ing, not about debating/defending a position you refuse to move off of.

What's the quote about pearls and pig's ears?

Philosophy is about uncovering 'Be'-ing, not about debating/defending a position you refuse to move off of.

What's the quote about pearls and pig's ears?