Is truth subjective or objective?

Damn, Fresco, if one doesn't benefit from that explication, esta completamente jodido.

This is my favorite.

You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat.

--Albert Einstein, when asked to describe radio.

Yes, very funny. He was licenced to say such things.

Yet, Einstein wasn't awake, he believed in an independent physical world.

As an unnoted supposed sage recently said,……....probably not the first to say it:

"The greatest humans who have ever lived are like children to me."….(paraphrase)

Meaning, they lived life, invested as if it were ?'real', they didn't know it was nondual, a dream, Consciousness only, not ?'there', etc., that the ego self is false etc.

They were and are playing the game as if dualism is the truth, with perhaps little or no concept of being identified etc.

I liked his leonine hair.

Interesting conjecture. I keep wondering why you present it as knowledge and revelation.

Frank, it's conjecture (if you insist on the word) "from the inside"(intuition, as it were) rather than guesses or intellectual deductions "from the outside". I agree, Frank, that intuition-as-knowledge may be problematical but no more so that deductions from axioms. Our axioms seem non-problematical because we cannot imagine them not being so. Mystical intuitions have the same subjective "certainty" built into them, and I do think they transcend our axioms. But--and I know how the following irritates you and Joe--one must have similar experiences to appreciate this point (whether or not it be true).

Yeah...Christians say the same thing about their belief systesm...so I have compassion for you. I really do understand.

My last comment on this is that your certitude reminds me of that of my fundamentalist preacher brother. He's got a firewall about as thick as yours.

Frank, this is the part that I don't get:

Why do they drive you nuts? Why do you care so much what they spout?

I've read a lot of the various debates. Some of them I have an opinion in, some I don't.

Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I agree more with you.

But one thing I can say: they don't make comments like "Frank avoids traveling the right road."

Only you do that. You say that of others.

What makes you so certain that you know "the right road" and they (or anyone else) does not?

I agree: with comments like "they avoid traveling the right road" you are starting to sound like a religious fundamentalist or someone who has a special knowldedge of the "right road," and anyone who disagrees with you must be on the "wrong road." ??

Frank you wrote:



I was explaining the quote as I understand it. Although I am certainly putting it forward that I think that enlightenment exists, that it is possible to wake up; drop ego-body-self identification, or sometimes called ?'self contraction', which is apparently an action we as Consciousness are performing.

Anyway enough said, as I don't think you can tolerate a detailed discussion on this point without resorting to derision and churlishness.


Several times you've made the statement:

"Truth is objective."

Are you presenting this as knowledge and revelation?

Maybe you could develop this idea that Truth is objective, and that you can begin a sentence with:

"Truth is………"


***
Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: 'trüth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'trü[th]z, 'trüths/
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY

***


One of the problems as I see it is that, apart from every day use, and in application to ontological issues, Truth as a concept, idea etc. is relational; understood in relation to an opposite. Yet how can ?'what is' or ?'what actually is' be exclusive? How can ?'what is' have an opposite?

As you have said, ?'what is' has nothing to do with our ideas about ?'what is'; whether we believe, guess or know, ?'what is' or claim to know ?'what is', that has no bearing on ?'what is'.

I agree in regards to the common sense nature of the statement, but unfortunately that 'common sense' assumes that a self-with-ideas and or ?'ideas' (about ?'what is') are somehow distinct from ?'what is'.

Whatever we claim we believe, guess or know etc. is also an aspect of ?'what is', that is, if ?'what is' is the totality of existence. The true nature of this existence; of self, other and universe, is not exclusive.

?'What is' is neither Truth nor Non-Truth, neither one nor the other. Both Truth and Non-Truth are relative and ?'what is' is not. Truth and Non-Truth are co-dependent. "What is" is independent, that is, it is independent of Truth and Non-Truth etc.

Yet "what is" is neither dependent nor independent, neither relative nor absolute. It just ?'is'. Though it's not even ?'is', for it includes the opposite of ?'is'.

That's why some refer to ?'what is' with words such as SUCHNESS or THAT. Though I think it cannot be referred to at all.

So when you say. "Truth is objective."
Or someone else says, "Truth is subjective."

…they're both false because they exclude each other.

Thoughts, ideas, concepts, language come up against their own self limiting contradictory nature when used to attempt to speak ?'to' that which on the one hand is non-conceptual and on the other hand includes all concepts.


?'What is", includes everything and is so comprehensive in its completeness that it cancels everything OUT.


Well, that's one take,…..but the above can be seen as a bridging of agnosticism and nondualism. Nondualism at its root says we do not know anything about ?'what is + what is not' because, among, I guess, other reasons, knowing only knows itself, so to speak. And ?'what is' is so much more,……….and so much less).

Twyvel

Rather than get into all the stuff we've covered from beginning to end in other threads, I will concentrate on just one area of your last post.

You wrote:



Are you suggesting that because I say one cannot rationally make definitive statements about the unknown...I am also suggesting that one cannot make definitive statements about anything????

That certainly is not the case, Twyvel.

Essentially, this entire argument about "truth" is in effect merely the presentation of a tautology.


Truth...is truth.


Those arguing that it is subjective...do so by constantly...and in my opinion, underhandedly...changing from "truth" to "perceptions of truth"...and then arguing that "perceptions of truth" (which they pretend to be "truth")...are subjective.

Well...Twyvel...OF COURSE PERCEPTIONS OF TRUTH are subjective. That is a given.

But TRUTH itself...that which is true; that which is the REALITY...IS OBJECTIVE.

I am not revealing anything in that statement.

I am simply saying that what is true...is true.


What is your problem with that?

Why are you suggesting that my saying "what is true...is true"...

...is somehow like you saying that REALITY is a nonduality thing?

Okay...let me try to help you with it.




Look up the word "figuarative"...and apply it to this comment.




Sorry...I thought you realized that is what this forum was designed to do. Discuss matters like this...and have "caring" conversations.

Besides which, there is a four year history of discussion that spells out many of the reasons why I (and the others) consider this important.

(For me, it involves fighting beliefs systems of all kinds. I think the fate of humanity rests in the balance.)





BECAUSE I SEE THE RIGHT ROAD AS BEING THE "TRUTH"...and the truth is that I do not know the nature of REALITY...and strongly suspect that they do not either.

"The right road" is simply acknowledgement of what we do not know....and the honesty not to pretend we know what we do not know.





Re-read what I said...and you should be disuaded from that.

But if you would like to discuss it at length...I will (as most of these guys know) be willing to spend the next several months talking to you about it. If you would like to do so....perhaps it would be better to start a new thread devoted to "Frank and Extra Medium 'splain shyt to each other."

I'd enjoy it.

I think that there is an objective reality but individual brains perceive and interpret it differently. Some distortions of Truth are due to organic problems with the brain and/or senses, some are due to cultural and experiential overlays that affect how we interpret information.

Truth is objective, beliefs about Truth are subjective.

Terry....how ya been.

Very, very long time no see. MIssed ya.

I see our buddy Ican is still posting!

Terry,

Nice to see you.

Define "problems", and "information" objectively please.

Frank wrote:




Firstly let's not get mixed up. I think a lot of disagreements here are actually misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

We can certainly make definitive statements in a general, every day sense. But as I said in the last post, we are not talking about every day common use of various terms and words. We are dealing with ontological issues, the nature of being, of existence, of self and other etc. We are attempting to address ?'what is', what you often call Reality, and what you often label as the Truth.


If your,

"Truth is objective."

…is a definitive statement, a statement of fact as to the true nature of being and existence (or one attribute) then it can only be such if you also know the nature of self or the ?'subjective' (something, i.e. an attribute) and where that subjectivity stands in contrasting relation to that which is ?'objective'.

One defines the other. If you state something definitive about one you state something definitive about the other.




Yes, well we know that.





(apart from the problems noted previously about the word Truth, objective etc.)


If we cannot get out of our own perceptions,, if one cannot speak from the ?'outside', then All Truths are perceptions of Truth, (or apparent truth). They are interpretations and constructions. As JLNobody has said, They are ?'cooked'. They are mediated.



Right.



Here's your error.

Ontologically you cannot claim the above without knowing the Truth about the Subjective (some aspects). And You do not know that.



No,

With your statement: "I am simply saying that what is true...is true."

You are stating a tautology.

What is red is red.

What is X is X.

It's Self Identity, A = A

But the statement,

"But TRUTH itself...that which is true; that which is the REALITY...IS OBJECTIVE"

….is not a tautology unless the word TRUTH and OBJECTIVE are identical.

I.e.

TRUTH = A
OBJECTIVE = A

And if that is the case then you are not saying anything. That is, you are not saying anything about that TRUTH, (except that it's self identical) or about ?'what is'. And you are not saying anything about the SUBJECTIVE or OBJECTIVE or their relation; whether they are one and the same or opposites or anything else etc.

Here's how it reads:

"But TRUTH itself...that which is the TRUTH; that which is the TRUTH...IS the TRUTH"






I don't think I've stated definitively that reality is nondual. And I rarely use the word ?'reality'.

However If I do say, Reality is nondual, I am making a distinction between subject-object duality and nonduality. It's not a tautology in that sense.

In other words, without the contrast of duality and nonduality, Reality is not nondual. (Reality in this case meaning ?'what is'). Those terms/words are understood and defined in the mutual, dependent relation to each other. Can't have one without the other.


"What is" or Reality or SUCHNESS is neither dual nor nondual, it just ?'is'.

Yet in as much as language is dualistic, in as much as this medium is dualistic, and this interaction is dualistic, those distinctions appear to exist.

We are living in and as duality. Yet, we (JLNobody, fresco and perhaps others) are saying this primary duality of subject-object dualism, on which all dualisms reside, does not stand up to scrutiny.


If this world of duality is a world of contrasting and opposites, there has to be something ?'here' in duality that is not duality. After all duality itself is dependent on a contrasting opposite. That is, if duality of subject and object is not merely a concept but actual experience, then so is nonduality, observed or not.

Yes, hi Terry, good to see you,

Tywvel, it's no fair to use steroids.
But I'd take them too if I could secrete what you've just secreted.

You're right: ultimately, reality, suchness, Brahma, God, whatever, is neither dualistic nor non-dualistic, neither two nor one. We can't really talk without contrasting them--since they define each other--which is why silence, or everyday unselfconscious behavior, is the only way to represent Suchness. Meditation is non-dualistic perception, a form of partially enlightened behavior, insofar as it is liberation from dualism, but its only a form of behavior, not suchness (versus not suchness, itself (except, of course, that everything is suchness). As the Heart Sutra's Supreme Mantra informs us, we must neither stay on this side of the shore (samsara/dualism) nor go to the other side (Nirvana/non-dualism); we must go beyond both where they equal each other, where all is really One (but not one vs. two)--I think THAT (?) is complete enlightenment.

JLNobody

Steroids, eeek,….

We can surmise, that there is no ignorance or enlightenment, except as seen from ignorance. The world cancels itself out, that's why, I guess, it is said that the world, self, other etc. is not ?'really' there, or ?'here'. If all opposites dissolve in SUCHNESS or that which is neither ?'This nor That' then ?'what is' and ?'what is not' also dissolve. All problems and non-problems, fake, real or imaginary vanish, as if they never were, for they never were.

As Paul Brunton mused, "But there were ideas, and the ideas Were, were they not?" (paraphrase)

We are warriors and Warriors only exist in ?'contrast', in opposition, in War.

In Love, the warrior dies.

And what of Nondual Love……

Can it be that all there is is Love,…....Nondual Love?