Is truth subjective or objective?

Oh boy, it looks like I've arrived there too, at least with regard to Frank. Sorry, Frank. I'll work on it.

0 Replies

JLN.

I commend your efforts at mediation. I for one are conscious of some of the difficulties of vocabulary I present, but other than reproducing primary sources page by page, there is little option.

Despite the general acceptance of most here of the relativity of language and meaning ,one of the major issues is the resistance to lingustic deconstruction when it comes to "significant" concepts, such as "truth" "belief" and "self". We (nondualists) are asking "selves" to commit intellectual "selficide" in order to commune with our ideas. It is little wonder that they may decline the offer.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

twyvel wrote:

Twaddle.

twyvel wrote:

No, it's supported by nothing except the empty flummeries and metaphysico-mumbo-jumbo of its devotees.

You are certainly welcome to your guesses.

On these issues, you, like Frank are dismissive rather then inquisitive, though Frank, I think, is excessively dismissive.

quote:

"The ultimate truth which is indeterminate is the unutterable dharma. There the sphere of the speakable ceases, the activities of the mind come to an end."

Nagarjuna

0 Replies

Fresco and Twyvel, it is delightful for me to observe how we, and others, like Coluber, take pleasure rather than fear from "the sphere where the speakable ceases" and one commits "selficide." For us that sphere is an ever-present promise/realm of freedom and peace.

0 Replies

I've been remiss...and I will acknowledge that.

JL, Twyvel, Fresco...

...I thank you all for sharing your guesses about REALITY.

Some might reject them out-of-hand because they are wild guesses pulled out of thin air...much like the guesses about REALITY offered by theists and atheists...

...but I will not do so...nor have I done so.

Even though common sense dictates that I recognize them as laughingly self-serving, I have always given them reasonable consideration.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Joe, I guess you either see it or you don't. Such radically distinct empistemological paradigms simply can't meet.

Finally, a point upon which we can both agree. I have no doubt that our epistemological paradigms cannot meet, for the very simple reason that your paradigm is not epistemological at all -- it's metaphysical. Your version of reality is more faith-based than the most convinced Christian's, which is why you and your compatriots dismiss competing viewpoints by saying "you just don't understand" or "you're not inquisitive enough" or "you're afraid of new perspectives" -- the non-dualist equivalents of "you just need to let Jesus into your heart."

JLNobody wrote:

It's gottten to the point that we probably do not entertain any hope of moving the other. I certainly hope that we do not descend to the point of hoping merely to humiliate the other. I suspect that is where Frank has arrived.

Frank's epistemology rests as much on unquestioning faith as does yours, but, unlike you, I see no purpose in discussing such subjects with him any more.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

You are certainly welcome to your guesses.

On these issues, you, like Frank are dismissive rather then inquisitive, though Frank, I think, is excessively dismissive.

I'm an extremely inquisitive guy. But first there has to be something there about which to inquire.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank's epistemology rests as much on unquestioning faith as does yours, but, unlike you, I see no purpose in discussing such subjects with him any more.

No it doesn't...but you are such an as shole that you will never be able to acknowledge it does not.

The reason you do not discuss things with me, Joe, is that I won't play your silly intellectualism games. You like to beat around the bush...and prefer people who won't cut to the chase so you don't have to deal with the actualities of the arguments. You prefer debating technique over substance.

Hey...you insecure people gotta live too...so I understand.

0 Replies

Control Attempts 2: Harmony 0 ! Laughing

0 Replies

A REQUEST:

Listen...

...some people are having a cyber election of sorts (for president of A2K)...and I have decided to run for the office.

Apparently it is entirely ceremonial...since Craven owns the site and he is gonna be the big cheese no matter what happens in this cockamamie election.

In any case...it appears some procedural meneuvers are taking place that may (MAY) prevent me from appearing on the ballot. I get the feeling that a minimum number of primary votes will be needed to make the final list of names.

I understand that occasionally I get passionate...and throw some shyt at some of the people to whom I am addressing this request...but, if you ever intend to get elected to anything...you gotta have desire and balls.

And "balls"...I've got in abundance.

So...even if you hate the thought of seeing my avatar in a thread in which you are a participant...I would appreciate you taking time to visit the thread linked below...and casting a vote for my name.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=50016&start=100

YOU WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR ME...because the election is not even scheduled (as far as I know) yet...and this is like a primary to see who will make it to the final ballot.

You might hold your nose if necessary to do it...with the thought in mind that you could come to the actual election; vote against me; and hope for a humiliating landslide in someone else's favor.

Thank you for at least considering my request.

0 Replies

Oh please, Frank, don't grovel. Take the consequences of behaving like a jerk like a golfer.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I'm an extremely inquisitive guy. But first there has to be something there about which to inquire.

Your inquisitiveness has no object?

0 Replies

Yes, JLNobody,

Consciousness can't be disturbed.

Very Happy

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Oh please, Frank, don't grovel. Take the consequences of behaving like a jerk like a golfer.

Grovel?

Moi?

Surely you jest!

0 Replies

fresco

Quote:

We (nondualists) are asking "selves" to commit intellectual "selficide" in order to commune with our ideas. It is little wonder that they may decline the offer

Please, fresco, can you explain what you mean by "nondualists"?

0 Replies

val wrote:

fresco

Quote:
We (nondualists) are asking "selves" to commit intellectual "selficide" in order to commune with our ideas. It is little wonder that they may decline the offer

Please, fresco, can you explain what you mean by "nondualists"?

Oh...not only can he (and JL & Twyvel) do it...they can all go on about it for pages.

You may get much more than you expected!

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

I'm an extremely inquisitive guy. But first there has to be something there about which to inquire.

Your inquisitiveness has no object?

From your response I can only surmise that English is not your first language.

0 Replies

Val,

"Nondualism" is essentially the resolution (by transcendence) of traditional dichotomies....idealism vs materialism....observer vs observed...self vs non-self...etc. It is the recognition that all boundaries are transient, and hence the concept of static class membership on which "logic" is based is always of limited application.

Of the three of us here cited by Frank, I tend to seek coherence of the transcendent position within "systems" mathematics and science, and the others tend towards esoteric literature whose extreme position is that all boundaries are illusory.Ordinary language plays a significant role in the maintenance of such a proposed illusion because "static properties" are embodied by means of "persistent" signs and symbols for language to function. Hence the "ultimate" transcendent position is deemed to be ineffable.

0 Replies

Thanks for the explanation Fresco.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:

From your response I can only surmise that English is not your first language.

Oh, the ESL insult.

Cute

0 Replies

Is truth subjective or objective?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know