"Absolute truth" is an oxymoron. There ain't no such animal.
cicerone, Is that the absolute truth?
If the truth "just is" the untruth is obviously anything other than the truth.
rufio - "Since your Absolute Truth is different from other people's, doesn't that make it your subjective Absolute truth then?"
If it wasn't for the fact that so many people describe the same experiences, I would have definitely thought so. Not my friends but best selling authors like Joseph Campbell and world leaders like Gandhi. Krishnamurti spoke extensively about this, very clearly I might add, but what he was saying was too obvious for the average cluttered mind to accept and he was labeled a fad.
Mathematics exists as a pure conceptual form, its application can be used falsely, but mathematics itself is not false. By pure conceptual form I mean that when applying the concepts behind mathematics correctly all people work with the same basic pure form. It is not debated in the same way that the existence of matter is not debated. The concept of addition does not change. Mathematics is reflected in our logic and reason. It is objective in the purest since, but we find that in application it can be flawed. I can state that 1 + 6 = 8. This statement is false because the concept was applied improperly, not because the concept was flawed.
Being pure conceptual form does not give math its validity; it is the ability to reproduce in experiment the mathematic principles without flaw. And so we seem to have a window to Truth. What other windows exist? What other pure conceptual forms exist? What roles do they play in the science of cognitive processes? What role does mathematics play? Is it possible that mathematics is continuing to expand in the human conscious through evolution and environment? Is it possible that the changes that the human consciousness underwent to get to this point say something about the nature of consciousness? What new forms of consciousness will develop in the next 100,000 years? If you want to make factual decisions about thing this must be considered. What good is knowledge if it doesn't have predictive power (future actions)? Or is speculating about the future to much of a fantasy exercise? Which is it?
Of course you will say that we can only really speculate about the development of human consciousness.
JLNobody - we are playing with definitions here, isn't that what most of philosophy is?
Joefromchicago - just like no two instances of the application of mathematics can be the same, no two experiences can ever really be the same. But if you experience these things you begin to realize that many people write about them and express them in many ways. These experiences seem to exist in all cultures regardless of seclusion or influence. Joseph Campbell documented this quite extensively. Highly recommended reading.
Then we get to the real question of why I choose to identify my experiences with Absolute Truth. I do so because there is a distinct absence of duality. These experiences are as real as you reading what I am writing, they are not fantasy, they are simply the first hand accounts of a mind adjusted to view the world outside its thriving dualistic comparative nature, the very nature that in fact allowed humans to survive the elements and eventually conquer their environment. Although still prominent, eventually this dualistic mode became less of a necessity and more of a luxury and other, more complex and quite natural impulses of consciousness began to develop along with duality, for the sake of survival. Emotion, for example, helps us deal with self reflection amidst the complexity of relationships and community, necessary for survival. So then are these experiences simply examples of this avenue of consciousness slowly evolving amongst the masses? Do the people that develop these types of senses need them to survive? I sometimes think I do. Religion is an early byproduct of this development. Religion is a failure because it promotes such attachment to dualistic facts missing the point completely. I think most religious leaders know and avoid this fact.
In attempt to summarize, the reason I identify this experience with Absolute Truth is because all conditions are true. The dualism of the normal though a process does not apply, both true and false are satisfied and the world is exactly what it is. Knowledge is not necessary within this mode of conscious reality because of the absence of comparison. That mode of consciousness is reserved completely for dualism. What does this (truth to me and many others - subjective reality to you) say about the human mind? That consciousness has levels of operation, which are dependant on different types and combinations of pure conceptual forms. The development of which are possibly natural survival mechanisms. I am sure there is a more scientific way to explain what I am saying but I am not read in the area of cognitive science. As you can see I have developed my own language to support my ideas.
The ego developed along with duality and emotion; ultimately threatening the survival of the species (this is evident in current events). It seems natural that survival mechanisms will eventually take full effect changing subjective reality in a way that is more consistent with the survival of the species. They only question is will kill each other or will earth get struck by a meteor before this happens. Things seem to be changing quite rapidly now. I like to look at the complete picture of the development of consciousness, using the obviously repeating and well documented patterns of nature and mathematics, it is possible to predict where things are headed and to understand the what gives them that right. Sounds absurd, but creative minds need something to do besides fester in facts all day.
Twyvel - you hit the nail right on the head.
c.i. - Absolute Truth is only an oxymoron when you are approaching the problem from pure dualism. Of course there will be a conflict here by definition, but that is because the boundary conditions are not respectfully observed. The flaw is lies not with the conceptual form itself but in the particular application that leads you to that conclusion.
perception, it has been experimentally verified that time does indeed slow down for fast-moving objects and in high gravitational fields. What evidence do you have that Absolute Time exists?
Of course relativity is still called a theory, but it has been rigorously tested, never refuted, and is accepted by scientists as "true." Scientific theories do not become "facts." They remain theories until refuted or in rare cases are designated as Laws.
Fact: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred.
Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>; a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Law: A scientific principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions; a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature
JLN, just a thought - do paradoxes necessarily stem from self-referential statements?
I agree that truthfulness is generally good for society, but it may be to an individual's advantage to lie. Morality demands that rules of conduct (presumably for the good of society) take precedence over self-interest.
Terry - thanks for the reitteration of the defintion of these terms.
In dualism there is only relative time, and... relative truth, we know this. Why does this have to keep being said like it was the said for the first time every time? Laws, Facts, Theory, Hypothesis all well and fun, but like many pioneers of human knowledge, I prefer imagination and open debate of ideas as tools to expand my understanding. The world of Laws and Facts is not on trial, it just gets a bit stale if you leave it out of the fridge for too long. :wink:
mindless wrote:Then we get to the real question of why I choose to identify my experiences with Absolute Truth. I do so because there is a distinct absence of duality.
How do you know that?
mindless wrote:These experiences are as real as you reading what I am writing, they are not fantasy...
How do you know that?
mindless wrote:In attempt to summarize, the reason I identify this experience with Absolute Truth is because all conditions are true. The dualism of the normal though a process does not apply, both true and false are satisfied and the world is exactly what it is.
How do you know that?
mindless wrote:As you can see I have developed my own language to support my ideas.
No you haven't, unless opacity and confusion constitute a unique language.
Look,
mindless, it seems to me that you're using experiential evidence (e.g. the "feeling" of the "absence of duality) to support your conclusion. Yet experience is a distinctly "dualist" concept -- once we enter the area of nondualism (whatever that might be), we are not entitled to rely upon the experiential evidence which, as far as we can determine, only exists in a dualistic universe. I know, in other words, what it means to "feel" in this world, but my understanding is only valid in a dualistic universe. As for "feelings" in a nondualist universe, I have no clue. And, more importantly, neither do you.
The "TRUTH" is the truth without regard to whether anyone knows, realizes, or acknowledges that it is the TRUTH or not.
The TRUTH is simply the TRUTH.
"WHAT IS"...is...without regard to whether or not anyone knows, realizes, or acknowledges that it is.
These things are all definitional.
All the rest of these considerations about "THE TRUTH" and "REALITY" is just bullshit -- although it has to be acknowledged that any of the guesses about REALITY and TRUTH might be correct.
twyvel, Unless somebody can identify what "absolute truth" is, how will we know?
But Absolute truth should be self-evident, shouldn't it? You shouldn't have to prove it by case. Otherwise it's just inductive truth.
perhaps a little mysticism here:
the "truth" matters
the "truth" doesn't matter
both of these are 'true'
but which is 'the' "truth"?
rufio, Not inductive; it's subjective. The use of "inductive" concerning truth doesn't make any sense.
What "matters" is not whether "truth" exists, but how you use the word.
If I assume for example that "facts" are observer dependent, then "truth" is a statement about agreement between observers. If on the other hand I assume that "facts" are observer-independent, then "truth" is statement about "objective reality".
Problems arise when these two mutually exclusive views are confused, or when that exclusivity is not recognized.
Hey, fresco, I think you have something there.
