Defining Truth

[Loki]

There is apparently (in most people) an instinctive and intuitive sense for what truth is, in relation to falsehood. I would like to examine not so much the truth, but the logic behind the intuitions and instincts people have for the idea of truth.

If a child asks, "is it true?" what he's really asking is whether or not the subject in question exists objectively. Whether the subject is God, Santa Clause or the upcoming sequel for his favorite video game, the child's main concern is with objects that appear separate from the idea he has of them in his imagination. He wants to know if the objects in question actually exist, will exist or have existed.

For instance, if the child suspects his parents are lying about a story of what happened in a moment where the child was absent, his wondering about the truth is really just a wondering about a phenomena that did or did not occur. Did the phenomena really exist in the way they said it did? What actually happened?

So, happenings, and existence are practically synonymous. What happens, exists. What exists, happens.

Hmmm... But suddenly I find myself making logical statements that depend more on definitions than they do on observation. And this is precisely the point where humanity loses it's intuitive and instinctive feel for truth and is left to rely strictly on logic. The instinct is to become distrustful and even confused.

Consider deductive reasoning.

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal


Is that a truth? To me, it deviates too far from the fundamentals to respect. First of all, we don't know all men are mortal. Have I known all men? Do I know everything about the consciousness of men and am I certain about matters pertaining to the possibility of transmigration of consciousness from this world to another? Of course not.

Honestly, I'm not sure how a single absolute truth I hear on this forum, and that I have valued myself, even matters.

Take emptiness... so what? Emptiness doesn't really invalidate any particular world views. It doesn't make women any less beautiful, it doesn't make clever people any less clever, it doesn't make my ego any less significant either. I've come to a point where the mountain is a mountain again. Everything just is as it appears to me. In other words, there are some profound unknowns, and I'm done with philosophy. I'm going to develop some worldly skills and enjoy myself.

[jupiviv]

I'm finding it hard to take this post seriously, because your last sentence made me laugh hard. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but it was hilarious nonetheless. If it was, hats off to you for your sense of humour! But in case you are being serious:

Honestly, I'm not sure how a single absolute truth I hear on this forum, and that I have valued myself, even matters.

They don't matter. They're just words. If you go to a public place scream "A=A" all day, people will call you mad, and rightly so. Also, if you think you can achieve enlightenment by reading what other people write, or listening to what they say, you are like a man with no limbs who wants to learn how to dance. No amount of reading you do will teach you the truth, unless you know it yourself. I didn't learn anything new from this forum or the things I read on Kevin Solway's site. At best, some things were clarified, and my vocabulary improved.

Enlightenment lies infinitely deeper than "absolute truths". Essentially, it means to be able to be completely alone - to be truly silent.

[Loki]

I know that silence, bored of it. Moving on. The whole man woman thing is a bit silly at this point, too. Male-female couples can be very moral and intelligent together, it's really a matter of intelligence and conscience in people, some couples have it and live good lives together.

[Cahoot]

I'm finding it hard to take this post seriously, because your last sentence made me laugh hard. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but it was hilarious nonetheless. If it was, hats off to you for your sense of humour! But in case you are being serious:

Honestly, I'm not sure how a single absolute truth I hear on this forum, and that I have valued myself, even matters.

They don't matter. They're just words. If you go to a public place scream "A=A" all day, people will call you mad, and rightly so. Also, if you think you can achieve enlightenment by reading what other people write, or listening to what they say, you are like a man with no limbs who wants to learn how to dance. No amount of reading you do will teach you the truth, unless you know it yourself. I didn't learn anything new from this forum or the things I read on Kevin Solway's site. At best, some things were clarified, and my vocabulary improved.

Enlightenment lies infinitely deeper than "absolute truths". Essentially, it means to be able to be completely alone - to be truly silent.

Loki has not asserted that enlightenment is something to achieve, and that is a correct non-assertion.

Loki’s words bring to mind U.G. Krishnamurti, who experienced spontaneous, irreversible, and uncontrollable physical life-changes that were extremely painful and that shattered duality on a moment-to-moment existential basis, much as I (or "this one", for those who are hung-up on the pronoun) experienced. Subsequently, reason as it connects to language is simply a tool to attempt to communicate the ineffable, rather than a tool to achieve some imagined state of being.

“What you are is a belief; if you let one belief go, you must replace it with another; otherwise, you will drop dead. I am telling you, a clinical death will occur. It is not the near death experience of those ‘near death’ scoundrels.

“So you better go and make money and enjoy the fruits thereof.”

U.G. Krishnamurti
Swan Song
http://www.ugkrishnamurti.net/

[jupiviv]

That "silence" is not something you can be bored of. No emotion leads to it, and no emotion can proceed from it. If you think you've become bored of it, then you never had it to begin with.

Male-female couples can be very moral and intelligent together, it's really a matter of intelligence and conscience in people, some couples have it and live good lives together.

I can fully understand you wanting the happiness that comes with living with a woman, but why be a hypocrite call it "moral" and "intelligent"? Accept the fact that you want happiness and therefore unconsciousness, and therefore, nothing at all, and then see if you still want happiness. This way, you'll know that the truth can't harm you. If you lie to yourself, you'll have a fear of having to face it as long as you are sufficiently conscious, which can be irritating.

[jupiviv]

Loki has not asserted that enlightenment is something to achieve, and that is a correct non-assertion.

Are you enlightened yourself? If you are not, then this statement is wrong. And if you are...well, figure it out.

[Cahoot]

Loki has not asserted that enlightenment is something to achieve, and that is a correct non-assertion.

Are you enlightened yourself? If you are not, then this statement is wrong. And if you are...well, figure it out.

Not to discourage your efforts, jupiviv. It’s your life. Continue seeking to achieve if you must, until the day that you must not. That day will come, sooner or later.

[Cahoot]

jupiviv, since you project the concept of enlightenment into what loki has posted, (not to mention introducing the concept of happiness), here’s another thread on that concept.

http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... =10&t=5068

Here’s a reposting from that thread, which can also apply to a contemplation concerning the topic of truth.

The mind is so quick that it intertwines direct perception and inference.

All you know for sure is what you know at this moment, and what you know for sure at this moment is very simple, so simple that the active mind balks at the simplicity and seeks more. So, the mind infers.

For example, at this moment you are reading this. Your mind, maintaining a running continuity of reality via memory and inference, supplies the illusion that you know what is going on beyond the walls that surround your computer. You remember what you have done recently leading up to this moment, how this correlates with clock time, and how the components of the world you remember have appeared in the past at similar moments of clock time. So, you think you know the general sense of what you will find when you get up and step beyond the walls that surround the computer, but this is just a forecast of high probability based on habitual sensory interpretations. And one day, everything is going to change.

These inferences and assumptions are not going to correlate to interpretations of sensory data. So, for now, when mind processes slow way down, when discursive thought is stilled beyond what is customary to physical movement through the world, the elements of actual knowing begin to reveal.

There is the inference, which is actually logical extrapolation of memories and logical conclusions which assign varying degrees of probability to an imagined future.

Then, there is pure awareness, which is the canvas upon which phenomena appear.

Then, there is the mind interpretation of sensory phenomena, which, in terms of identification, categorizing, cataloguing, occurs in linear sequence. We take it all in at once, but all at once is a chaotic mass. The mind gives order to the mass of data, one phenomena at a time, and precedence is assigned to particular phenomena according to varying criteria, such as survival, food, sex, pleasure, pain avoidance, and so on.

Thus, there is one known, then what follows is one known, and what follows that is one known. One at a time.

The mind is customarily quick, though, and with the inferences of logic and memory co-mingled in with these sensory interpretations, and with inferential concerns directed towards the pragmatic utilization of what is being sensed and inferred, it’s a lot simpler to simply say one knows something.

Insert into this process illusions and delusions, which are mental machinations that disrupt the correlation of inference to reality. In the ice cream metaphor, consider ice cream to be all that is, or, reality. Reality can be ascertained from varying perspectives, or flavors (to be consistent with the metaphor), yet each valid perspective of reality correlates with phenomena.

When the mind begins to conjure perceived phenomena based on a perspective of inference, rather than inference based on a perspective of phenomena, e.g. space monkeys based on memories that only have existed as an imagined compendium of perceived phenomena, and calls this reality, then this is an indication that the ego is wielding unreasonable, or extra - ordinary, control.

[cousinbasil]

There is one fact that has crossed my mind - and therefore, I am certain it has occurred to others, especially men who have found their way to GF. And that is the way time constraints act vastly differently upon men and women regarding the simple potential that each organism has in passing on its specific genetic information into the gene pool. No matter how superior a woman's DNA might be, she can supply it to a severely limited number of offspring in the very next generation. Despite the fact she is equipped with millions of egg cells, her body will waste no resources producing new ones, since only a tiny fraction of the ones she has will ever be in a position to be fertilized, and only a handful of those, in the maximal scenario, could ever actually become fertilized.

Males, on the other hand, can theoretically pass their their specific DNA on to countless offspring in the next generation.

It is well-known in racing circles that a filly who can outrun her male counterparts is not remarkable. The reason why so few mares become thoroughbred champions is that they are raced far less frequently. This is because racing is the sport of kings - it is expensive to maintain and compete horses. The stakes do not compensate even the winningest owners; they rely on stud fees after a winner is retired. A champion stud can sire countless foals, whereas a champion filly can only foal a few times. (So valuable is the seed of a winner that artificial insemination is rarely used, since an owner paying to breed his mare wants to limit the length of the "chain of custody" of the prized DNA - that is, he wants to be sure he is getting the real thing.)

This a rather roundabout way of addressing the "happiness of living with a woman" idea, as jupiviv put it:

I can fully understand you wanting the happiness that comes with living with a woman, but why be a hypocrite call it "moral" and "intelligent"? Accept the fact that you want happiness and therefore unconsciousness, and therefore, nothing at all, and then see if you still want happiness.

It is evident that every organism is driven not only to reproduce, but ensure that its specific DNA gets expressed as much as possible in succeeding generations, which requires the survival of the next generation to reproductive age so that the cycle can continue.

The monogamous pairing of a male and a female, at least in humans, would seem to favor the success of the female's efforts to propagate her DNA at the expense of the male's. Monogamy limits the male's potential contribution of DNA to the succeeding generation to precisely the much smaller potential of the female.

It is this situation in which humans seem to seek "happiness." Clearly, it is in the female's best interest to reserve the resources her mate may produce for her own offspring so that they may survive to reproductive age.

But it must be remarked that the female can approach her theoretical maximum of directly passing on her DNA with this arrangement; whereas the same arrangement prevents the male from getting anywhere near his.

[sdgreco]

Enlightenment lies infinitely deeper than "absolute truths". Essentially, it means to be able to be completely alone - to be truly silent.

Hi.
What came to mind was the many people who are locked up, and adjusted well to it, locked up all alone for like 23 hours per day. Seems that some men cant at all get used to not having another person in their life or cell, but there are many who not only ask to be locked up alone many also eventually adjust to it nicely and then prefer it, so nicely that when such a person has to for instance share a cell they really dislike it. Would you say these kinds of persons are "enlightened" or heading in that direction since they're able to be completely alone and love (prefer) every minute of it?

Actually, I guess Im not entirely sure what you mean by "able", what does not-able look like? and feel like?
And for that matter what does completely alone mean, is that strictly about physical separation or do you mean no communication at all with others?

Not even tv viewing? (incoming only)

Do YOU cope well being completely alone?
If so how do you manage it.
Thanks, and sorry for so many questions!

SG

[jupiviv]

]All you know for sure is what you know at this moment

You can't know this at the present moment.

[Kelly Jones]

There is apparently (in most people) an instinctive and intuitive sense for what truth is, in relation to falsehood. I would like to examine not so much the truth, but the logic behind the intuitions and instincts people have for the idea of truth.

If a child asks, "is it true?" what he's really asking is whether or not the subject in question exists objectively. Whether the subject is God, Santa Clause or the upcoming sequel for his favorite video game, the child's main concern is with objects that appear separate from the idea he has of them in his imagination. He wants to know if the objects in question actually exist, will exist or have existed.

For instance, if the child suspects his parents are lying about a story of what happened in a moment where the child was absent, his wondering about the truth is really just a wondering about a phenomena that did or did not occur. Did the phenomena really exist in the way they said it did? What actually happened?

So, happenings, and existence are practically synonymous. What happens, exists. What exists, happens.

Hmmm... But suddenly I find myself making logical statements that depend more on definitions than they do on observation. And this is precisely the point where humanity loses it's intuitive and instinctive feel for truth and is left to rely strictly on logic. The instinct is to become distrustful and even confused.

Reason wants everything to be clarified. It's not so much losing an instinctive feel for truth, but completing it.

Consider deductive reasoning.

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal


Is that a truth? To me, it deviates too far from the fundamentals to respect. First of all, we don't know all men are mortal. Have I known all men? Do I know everything about the consciousness of men and am I certain about matters pertaining to the possibility of transmigration of consciousness from this world to another? Of course not.

The "Socrates is a mortal" syllogism is often quoted as an example of the fallibility of deductive reasoning by those who don't realise it is not an example of a complete or coherent syllogism, since it provides no definition of its terms, e.g. man, mortal, Socrates. As you rightly pointed out. That's the reason it is so easily discredited. Reason isn't discredited, only poor.

Honestly, I'm not sure how a single absolute truth I hear on this forum, and that I have valued myself, even matters.

Take emptiness... so what? Emptiness doesn't really invalidate any particular world views. It doesn't make women any less beautiful, it doesn't make clever people any less clever, it doesn't make my ego any less significant either. I've come to a point where the mountain is a mountain again. Everything just is as it appears to me. In other words, there are some profound unknowns, and I'm done with philosophy. I'm going to develop some worldly skills and enjoy myself.

I don't think you've actually gotten to the stage where the mountain is a mountain again. It sounds very much like you didn't complete the second stage, recognising exactly how things exist. It isn't possible to perceive beauty or enjoyment in things if one has really understood. So, even though you have chronologically "moved on", you've metaphysically regressed, I'm sorry to say.


.

[David Quinn]

Honestly, I'm not sure how a single absolute truth I hear on this forum, and that I have valued myself, even matters.

Take emptiness... so what? Emptiness doesn't really invalidate any particular world views. It doesn't make women any less beautiful, it doesn't make clever people any less clever, it doesn't make my ego any less significant either. I've come to a point where the mountain is a mountain again. Everything just is as it appears to me. In other words, there are some profound unknowns, and I'm done with philosophy. I'm going to develop some worldly skills and enjoy myself.

I know that silence, bored of it. Moving on. The whole man woman thing is a bit silly at this point, too. Male-female couples can be very moral and intelligent together, it's really a matter of intelligence and conscience in people, some couples have it and live good lives together.

It sounds to me that you have begun to encounter what I call the "infinite desert", and what others have called the "dark night of the soul". That is, you know enough to see through most things, but not enough to know how to make that all-important core breakthough which allows one to see through utterly everything, which is when all the magic starts. You're stuck in a kind of void, as it were. As a result, everything seems worthless and meaningless to you.

Everyone who pursues truth deeply enough encounters this dreadful stage. Its is a stage which separates the men from the boys. Most people turn back here. It is too difficult for them, nothing seems to sustain them, it seems like a living death. This is where faith, in its truest sense, comes into play.

Perhaps you should turn back to the world and try to enjoy life again. Perhap you don't really have what it takes. Only you can decide that. It's your life and the decision has to come from inside you.

-

[Bobo]

There is apparently (in most people) an instinctive and intuitive sense for what truth is, in relation to falsehood. I would like to examine not so much the truth, but the logic behind the intuitions and instincts people have for the idea of truth.

Know this instinctively until they get corrupted, what matters for a man opposed to a child is what truth is!

If a child asks, "is it true?" what he's really asking is whether or not the subject in question exists objectively. Whether the subject is God, Santa Clause or the upcoming sequel for his favorite video game, the child's main concern is with objects that appear separate from the idea he has of them in his imagination. He wants to know if the objects in question actually exist, will exist or have existed.

Subjective reasoning EXISTS but it doesn't make it true... Thinking that you're a dog (diogenes) doesn't make you Diogenes.

For instance, if the child suspects his parents are lying about a story of what happened in a moment where the child was absent, his wondering about the truth is really just a wondering about a phenomena that did or did not occur. Did the phenomena really exist in the way they said it did? What actually happened?

But if you ask a kid... Did you have eaten the cookies you were not supposed to? And they lie about it THEY DON"T KNOW WHAT TRUTH IS, evading responsability is that people do.

So, happenings, and existence are practically synonymous. What happens, exists. What exists, happens.

Both kids and adults happen, but their existence is different.

[Beingof1]

What David said!

[Loki]

Well, I will say this, and I think it is quite obvious:

Truth is simply what is. I realize then that I would have to define is, which I could define by saying that which is, exists. But that needs definition, and soon we get endlessly circular, and it soon becomes apparent that we've reached the limit of logic and language. When it comes to the ultimate nature of reality, you are left with a silent, abstraction-less knowing that you know nothing.

That's it, I'm enlightened.

What now? Honestly, at this point, I just do many of the things I'm afraid of. No amount of navel gazing and abstracting and solitude will help you overcome your fears.

I am fearless of solitude and death. I've been with it enough. I am going out into the world and I am actively experimenting and changing my personality. I am hulking out as we speak, and looking for humor in everything. I am not acting with any emotional attachment to truth. That's nonesense. I value intelligence, refinement of morals, and cool headedness. I will clash with the world with joy and fun, never caring one way or the other, but never acting indiscriminately. I have difficult values to live, but always with a glint of detachment, gratitude, abundance and joy.

Life is good, it has been for quite a few months now. I am not looking back.

[cousinbasil]

Well, I will say this, and I think it is quite obvious:

Truth is simply what is. I realize then that I would have to define is, which I could define by saying that which is, exists. But that needs definition, and soon we get endlessly circular, and it soon becomes apparent that we've reached the limit of logic and language. When it comes to the ultimate nature of reality, you are left with a silent, abstraction-less knowing that you know nothing.

That's it, I'm enlightened.

What now? Honestly, at this point, I just do many of the things I'm afraid of. No amount of navel gazing and abstracting and solitude will help you overcome your fears.

I am fearless of solitude and death. I've been with it enough. I am going out into the world and I am actively experimenting and changing my personality. I am hulking out as we speak, and looking for humor in everything. I am not acting with any emotional attachment to truth. That's nonesense. I value intelligence, refinement of morals, and cool headedness. I will clash with the world with joy and fun, never caring one way or the other, but never acting indiscriminately. I have difficult values to live, but always with a glint of detachment, gratitude, abundance and joy.

Life is good, it has been for quite a few months now. I am not looking back.

Loki, I have always enjoyed reading your ruminations since I have been at GF. This outlook you describe - can you point to something in your environment that may have precipitated your mindframe? It sounds as if some positive developments may have transpired; if so, it it good to hear a GF regular exppress himself like this.

[David Quinn]

Well, I will say this, and I think it is quite obvious:

Truth is simply what is. I realize then that I would have to define is, which I could define by saying that which is, exists. But that needs definition, and soon we get endlessly circular, and it soon becomes apparent that we've reached the limit of logic and language. When it comes to the ultimate nature of reality, you are left with a silent, abstraction-less knowing that you know nothing.

That's it, I'm enlightened.

Not quite. At the moment, your attainment is a purely intellectual one (and one that still remains flawed and limited). You're on the right track intellectually, but you're still holding yourself back. For enlightenment to occur, you need to enter your whole being into your understanding of reality, sacrifice every part of yourself to it. Only then do you transcend the intellect and become immersed in the experience of wisdom. It is because you are not yet doing this that your understanding remains abstract and unsatisfying.

What now? Honestly, at this point, I just do many of the things I'm afraid of. No amount of navel gazing and abstracting and solitude will help you overcome your fears.

I am fearless of solitude and death. I've been with it enough. I am going out into the world and I am actively experimenting and changing my personality. I am hulking out as we speak, and looking for humor in everything. I am not acting with any emotional attachment to truth. That's nonesense. I value intelligence, refinement of morals, and cool headedness. I will clash with the world with joy and fun, never caring one way or the other, but never acting indiscriminately. I have difficult values to live, but always with a glint of detachment, gratitude, abundance and joy.

Life is good, it has been for quite a few months now. I am not looking back.

Good for you. But in doing this, don't pretend for a moment that you have fathomed the deepest wisdom.

-

[paco]

An achiever cannot be an under achiever
A=A

[Homer]

Consider deductive reasoning.

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal


Is that a truth?

I think the above example is meant more as an example of deductive reasoning rather than "a truth". You are taking the example too seriously.

First of all, we don't know all men are mortal. Have I known all men? Do I know everything about the consciousness of men and am I certain about matters pertaining to the possibility of transmigration of consciousness from this world to another? Of course not.

The example is meant to illustration this generic deductive reasoning:

A is B
B is C
Therefore A is C

Now you don't have to worry about Socrates or mortals... just "is".

[cousinbasil]

The example is meant to illustration this generic deductive reasoning:

A is B
B is C
Therefore A is C

Now you don't have to worry about Socrates or mortals... just "is".

Right, you just have to rephrase it with the "if...then" syntax:
If all men are mortal
And Socrates is a man
Then Socrates is mortal.

But Loki was describing the big picture, his recent positive outlook that "doesn't look back." You will note David had to chime in with:

Good for you. But in doing this, don't pretend for a moment that you have fathomed the deepest wisdom.

I picture an exuberant Simon-Peter standing before Christ and saying, "Yes! Yes! I am the rock upon which you will build your Church!"
And Christ saying, "Good for you! Just don't forget that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return."

[paco]

Probability