Absolute truth?

@cicerone imposter,

...concepts are descriptions which result from a functional relation between forms, entity's...descriptions are informative to observers...Atoms are observers as people are or the moon is...descriptions are information processes reporting to layer "things" which are themselves dependent on other descriptions and layers thus ending up themselves being functionally conceptual (literally)...there´s no such thing as concepts which are not objects (substantiated) nor objects which are not themselves limited in extension and layer of meaning, operativeness, functionality just as concepts work...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Sorry, I can't respond to this post. Its language is even more subjective than mine. And I'm the one who presents himself as a "mystic".

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

...up there, going one step ahead was saying that objects and concepts are interchangeable, they are the same...a bit like energy and mass in E=MC2, there´s a concept in every object and an object in every concept...INFORMATION is all !

0 Replies

@igm,

That's your problem, isn't it? My concept about almost everything can differ by degrees; after all we are all subjective beings.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's your problem, isn't it? My concept about almost everything can differ by degrees; after all we are all subjective beings.

Exactly... but I'd say 'our' problem.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

... but I'm not asserting anything and you are.

0 Replies

understand this people

to the object our perspective , undertanding , upon that or this object is irrelevant

the object is what it is

and THAT is an absolute truth

1 Reply

@igm,

Your attempts. at circular logic just doesnt fly.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I'll check and get back to you.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

well, what does?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I’ll just say I don’t believe there is ‘Absolute Truth’ that can be expressed in thoughts, words, concepts etc… I don’t believe ‘beings’ will ever find an absolute truth that can be expressed (forget my previous posts to you, they were more to do with preamble and word play).

0 Replies

Do we need a convincing definition of "absolute truth" so that when we encounter it we will recognize it, or will its properties simply convince us that it is something we should call "absolute truth"?

0 Replies

I proportionally believe, as far as truth itself has a meaning to minds, that there must be an absolute encompassing state of affairs which is referred as being the world that must be true, which being relative to nothing renders everything in it (phenomenologically) relative...computing, categorizing, describing, or locating, in the exact form what the "world" is as an absolute would result in repeating the absolute by duplicating its nature before such nature be fully manifested in itself, thus rendering the very absolute to a part, a relational fraction of itself, a contradiction in terms...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

And there's the inevitable process of interpretation, a fact of life that complicates all our efforts at finding "the" Truth.

1 Reply

@north,

...without understanding you don´t have an "object" to talk about...and in case you are wondering, what this means is that when you state the word "object" you must have an understanding upon such word...that understanding is limited in extension...and it won´t ever translate what an "object" is, just like between you, a moron, and Einstein, there will be 3 perfectly distinct definitions on what it addresses !
I, which happen to be on your side regarding this matter, even you don´t see how, factually know is not that easy or simple, like throwing "objects" to the table, to make a plausible strong defence for it...you have to dig deeper then that to make a case for substance or for truth...something based on the proportionality and equivalence of complementary functions of meaning would far be more close to a result...

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

indeed J...we although can intuit its necessity will never get it in a box !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...

Quote:

without understanding you don´t have an "object" to talk about...and in case you are wondering, what this means is that when you state the word "object" you must have an understanding upon such word...that understanding is limited in extension...and it won´t ever translate what an "object" is, just like between you, a moron, and Einstein, there will be 3 perfectly distinct definitions on what it addresses !

my point is that the " understanding " in depth is paramount to understanding the absolute truth of the object

take for instance the air you breath in , you don't have to understand it in depth to understand that , air is essential for your very survival , do you , our ancesters didn't , but they knew to go without it mean't death

Quote:

I, which happen to be on your side regarding this matter, even you don´t see how, factually know is not that easy or simple, like throwing "objects" to the table, to make a plausible strong defence for it...you have to dig deeper then that to make a case for substance or for truth...something based on the proportionality and equivalence of complementary functions of meaning would far be more close to a result...

I find though that the basics of life to survive , air , water and energy ( food ) is an excellent place to start

0 Replies

@north,

north wrote:

guigus wrote:

igm wrote:

JLNobody wrote:

That sounds right to me.
"Absolute" and "relative" are interdependent constructs. We can't have one without the other. If that is so, the "Truth", cannot reference the Totality, i.e., the universe's "Reality" without transcending that distlinction.
...something like that.

Seems on the right track to me also.

The first step for walking that path is realizing that all being and its nothingness, just like relativity and absoluteness, permanently become each other.

disagree

since being and nothingness are complete opposites ( being has substance while nothingness , is a concept )

whereas relativity and absoluteness are both based on substance , and are not concept based or imagination

Since we cannot imagine nothingness, it cannot be based on our imagination: neither being nor nothingness can, which is precisely why they are the same, despite being---as you put it correctly---complete opposites.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your logic is intact; they are contradictions.

Of course they contradict each other. However, despite contradicting each other, they are the same, which is just another contradiction.

0 Replies

The answer to what being and nothingness are can only be found in those concepts themselves, and nowhere else:

1. It is being itself that tells us that it is the same as nothingness, because it is both all and each being, which are not each other, so it is not itself, hence is nothing.

2. And it is nothingness itself that tells us it is the same as being, because it is indifferently not any and not every being, so not any being is not every being, by which any being is any other being, hence not itself, as thus nothing.

That's all one can get from these concepts: anything more is actually less.

1 Reply

Absolute truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know