24
   

Absolute truth?

 
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 07:53 pm
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

Who or 'what' is aware of this 'everything'? Context or no context, there is always awareness of what we're talking about.


Quote:
Can you look at what looks? Can we talk about what talks about?


so....
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 09:15 am
@north,
north wrote:


north wrote:

guigus wrote:

Let me try another approach.

Everything is, for example, everything in this room. Or everything on the planet. Or everything on the table. So, no matter the context, everything is everything in that context. So everything is everything in any context, or in all contexts. However, everything in all contexts is the same as everything with no special context, or simply "everything."


not deep enough

explained in my last post


Quote:
Is this supposed to make any sense?


what don't you understand about my sense ? in my third last post


Could you please just explain yourself again? If you fell that lazy, Ctrl+C followed by Ctrl+V would do...
0 Replies
 
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 09:19 am
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

Who or 'what' is aware of this 'everything'? Context or no context, there is always awareness of what we're talking about.

Can you look at what looks? Can we talk about what talks about?


This addiction of yours to taking everything externally has almost become a disease--even when considering a concept you are so averse to your own subjectivity that you cannot help searching for an external point of view. Unfortunately, regarding a concept, an external view is of no help.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 10:20 am
@guigus,
I'd say there is no 'externally', internal/external would be an arbitrary distinction as one is always in the same 'place'.

I have already explained to you that there really are no concepts, if you like I could do it again for you.

What 'game' are you playing with your 'self'?
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 12:35 pm
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

I'd say there is no 'externally', internal/external would be an arbitrary distinction as one is always in the same 'place'.

I have already explained to you that there really are no concepts, if you like I could do it again for you.

What 'game' are you playing with your 'self'?


So you are not external to me? As also there is no difference between the concepts of "me" and "you," because there are no concepts?

Is your "self" posting from within a mental institution?

Or perhaps you are playing the "game" of pretending you are crazy?

If not, then I would say that you are dangerously close...
guigus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 12:45 pm
@JPLosman0711,
JPLosman0711 wrote:

I'd say there is no 'externally', internal/external would be an arbitrary distinction as one is always in the same 'place'.


It has no use to deny these concepts as words while still using them as concepts, like you did in your previous post:

JPLosman0711 wrote:
Can you look at what looks? Can we talk about what talks about?


Here you are trying to achieve conceptual understanding from the outside (externally), which will eventually take you to a mental institution as well.

To recover sanity, try looking at who looks, and talking about who talks about.
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 07:38 pm
@guigus,
There is no 'me' here, I'm pretty sure I explained this to you earlier. You are the only one participating in this discussion.

You are the one who has designated 'me' and 'you' as 'concepts', you could call them 'satsahellis' it really wouldn't make any difference. It's just a distinction and definition that you are making.

You and I both knew very well that no one can be 'crazy'. Mental institutions exist for the good of the staff, crazy people aren't crazy unless there's an industry for them.

I am being patient with you but I must tell you it is wearing thin.
0 Replies
 
JPLosman0711
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 07:43 pm
@guigus,
I honestly do not know what it will take for you to see that 'concepts'(whether as words or not) clearly do not exist.

Can you touch a concept? See it? Smell it? What is it in itself? 'Concepts' could not exist without a conscious observer(you). The illusion of concepts stops the moment you put down the turd.

Can you look at you(who) 'looking'? Can you talk about you(who) talking about?

What's funny here is you know what I'm saying but are 'stuck' on trying to be 'right'.
0 Replies
 
Procrustes
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 09:19 pm
@guigus,
The concept of being is just that, a concept. The concept of everything isn't really everything in a concept. The words theory, idea, notion, concept etc.. can be seen as interchangeable, hence ambiguity. All there seems to be is a "gist" of "whatever" and we come together to validify this "gist" (however that takes place). The terms may vary, and be ridiculed vigourusly but sometimes all that happens is more of the same fashioned as the new...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 09:20 pm
@Procrustes,
Good observation. IMHO
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2011 12:51 am
@guigus,

north wrote:


north wrote:


absolute truth is based on the movement of things , objects and forms of energy , in the micro to the macro



Quote:
An absolute truth that is based on something else is no longer absolute.


what do you mean ?


Quote:
Absolute truth is independent and autonomous:


independent and autonomous from what ?






0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2011 01:29 am
...the thing about the conjunction of those two terms together, absolute and truth, is that they are redundant to each other...what is true does not need to be absolutely to be more true...truth therefore is not a description of what is (approximation/mimic) but the very being of something itself...realizing that such something in its beingness is dependent on the entirety of reality to justify its manifestation, not as a simple thing, but as a thing in space and time with a background and a context makes it one with reality and consequently, truth relative to everything, as opposing to the fantastically childish idea that truth is relative to nothing...
...I suppose what is meant in there is that the set of what is true is relative to nothing but itself, but then it is not a set..thereĀ“s no one to make the bound or the sum up until the very sum is itself complete...regarding reality no sub-set entity can do that with a greater set that contains it...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Truth vs. Fact - Question by atchoo522
What is truth? - Question by Torii
The truth about life - Discussion by Rickoshay75
Can anyone refute this definition of 'truth'? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
Is truth subjective or objective? - Discussion by Taliesin181
The SHIFT - Greatest FILM EVER MADE. - Question by mark noble
You've Been Fooled - Again - Igan - Question by mark noble
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Absolute truth?
  3. » Page 49
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2020 at 04:52:16