detrop,
“You’ll have to come up with something more than a one-liner to take this ship down, Dunamis.”
Regretfully I’ve read your OP three times and I have no idea what it asserts. Whether this is because it is sinking below the waves, or cresting the clouds, I’m not sure, but being relatively buoyant to salt water doesn’t seem to be one of its attributes.
Dunamis
What is this?
Original Post.
Dunamis
Fresh water then?
I guess this is gonna be one of those long threads where I’ll have to be held accountable for my words and produce a strong defense?
You mean I actually have to debate?
You must be kidding. I told you, argumentation is irrelevent to Truth.
detrop,
There is no debate. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Go right ahead and say it.
Dunamis
Truth is relative to only one thing. Beings who are capable of believing there actually is such a thing. Truth is a metaphor, a fixed variable sustained by the age in which it operates until it becomes “redefined” by its own history. It’s conscious life which requires it’s affirmation; certainly not in an empty universe in which such a concept as truth is not only not necessary but thoroughly meaningless - a zero degree kelvin entity. Or perhaps truth incorporates everything even the opposite of itself becoming again consummately meaningless unless conditions can be affirmed as a necessity by beings like ourselves.
For starters, I’d respond to your first post by mentioning that I don’t see “False” and “Object” here as an antithetical to what I am calling Truth and Subjection.
I think the idea of the Subject and Object is a false dichotomy in ontology. I equate Truth with the content of experience with or without experience, not unique to any one Subject (“Dunamis has shoes” is true for everyone), and not evidential in the structures of grammer, logic and mathematics.
Its all things considered, which, I admit says everything that can be said with a mouthful of cheetos.
Yep, its because I said everything that you heard nothing.
celox,
Thought is consciousness, in the pedestrian meaning of the word. Thought is the movement that is the mind which is memory, which is the brains registration of sensation, experience. The reality of thought is the subjective or psychological state, the sensation of being (a something). The activity of thought within it’s own reality, is the self or ego.
There is a manifest state that can be called ‘truth’, when the brain is in a state of non registration. Then the body is not separated by thought, from a world in non-duality with awareness.
I don’t see how that is possible. Wouldn’t we have to be aware to verify that experience of separation?
I’d rather think that the idea of the Ego is irrational and skip that problem altogether. If there is no Me then there is no “my truth.”
The state of separation, duality is thought. You are the ego.
Holy shit!
I’ve just had a break-through.
Check this out. Do you know why relativism exists? Of course you do. It is because of the idea of the Ego.
All evaluations are possessive and personality is what we call the center point or invention of that value. This is not rational.
A relative statement could be “I like ice-cream, it is good.”
What happens here is this. It presupposes the value of good as being an individual preference or creation. It is marked in the possessive as “my” value and is therefore credible as an exception to objective truth. In reality, there is no subject and the event is simply occuring, without our assessments of value. In this sense everything is indeed objective and certain. The fuzzy area is in the attempt of the “I.”
“Good” ice-cream is good ice-cream for all, or it isn’t the same ice-cream, that is to say, there is no argument between the better ice-creams.
When the Subject is posited it creates the possibility of coercion with another Subject because the Subject is always the Other. This is to say that the analogous fact of ‘occupying two separate spaces’ is enough to create affliction in information exchanges…be them behavior or more importantly, value statements.
If I were you, I’d say the same thing about the ice-cream at T1. And if I tasted that ice-cream now, I wouldn’t be tasting what it was that you called “good” anyway. There is no value conflict here. Its not the same ice-cream.
If neither of the “I’s” exist between us then it would reveal the objective truth of every tiny necessary detail of that event through nobody’s eyes.
Imagine that. We would need a Third. God, perhaps.
detrop,
Esse es percipi.
Dunamis
Berkeley, right?
Why don’t you give me the scoop and save me trouble of linking it.
You always do a wonderful job introducing philosophers.
Wait…didn’t you mention something about this before? Show me to the thread if so.
detrop,
“Wait…didn’t you mention something about this before? Show me to the thread if so.”
I mentioned the principle in a rather convoluted/original sense, probably not the best to reference. A good Google would be the better introduction. But in short because he contested that for something to exist it had to be perceived, the only thing that kept things from winking out of existence when we closed our eyes was the ever witnessing eye of God. This would go doubly for the “ego” so there is your required “third” that you were hypothesizing about. Lacan called it the Other.
Dunamis
Ah yes, the schoolboy that believed that the teacher stopped existing, when he closed his eyes.
We are poisoned with ego are we not? We do not fit in among the rest of nature. The world is majestic and beautiful without ego. We’ve ruined it by trying to take it for ourselves.
Imagine the idea of matter and energy. The truth may be considered energy, and we considered matter. Where there is no matter(space, granted its about as close as you can get to no matter), energy may flow freely. Analagously, where we are not, the truth flows freely. However, energy goes unnoticed through space until it hits matter and is reflected back to its source. Similarly, again, the truth will not be seen unless we reflect it.
On a sour note our ego allows us to swallow this energy or truth into memory. We make rules, we follow fears, we ignore the truth to create the self. It’s addicting and I’m more than guilty of trying to take the truth for myself. In fact I’m even doing it right now.
There are some of us though, that have an uncanny ability to humble themselves to the truth and in doing so serve as inspirational directors of the truth. Some examples are the great artists of history. Renovators of every field of thought, which all pertain to the same field of truth. People who used their brain as a tool for expressing the truth, not capturing it for themselves. Granted, they must have captured it before expressing it, yet their pure expression allowed them to be set free of their inclinations towards subjective truths.
Great artists are capable of sensing subjective stimuli and presenting it with perfect absolution. This seems insane when you think of doing such a thing. For most of us would agree that presenting one’s own subjective findings with authority would root a person in falsity or “irregularity.” But what if the subject was so innatley humble that his or her words had were uttered under no inclination of the self? Then, in the context of thier setting, an observer might realize the grandeur illustration of truth the artist was presenting. It’s too late…I could go on forever but I feel like I’m losing touch with my thoughts here. sorry
This is a bit to vague for me. I think I’ll have to do some thinking, and come up with my own conclusions concerning this. If you have any websites where I could read up a bit on the subject, I would be very interested. I’ll get back to you when I have spent some time on this.
Just one thing: You seem to include so many concepts into this ego. How can you know that you are anything but perceptions? How can you classify these perceptions as anything but the perceptions they are?
Actually, it’s explicit.
Ah, because the observed mind is the observer and the mind is not a something that does, that is active, but is it’s own movement. Hopefully, you won’t feel that the last statement was vague. It points directly to the most fundamental of all perceptions.
Nientilin,
It’s not possible for the brain to register truth.
If truth manifests through an organism and is pointed to with words; ego ears turn fact into idea and make truth something to attain.
re the rest: Truth cannot be captured. It cannot be approached by thought.
Perhaps.
We seem to agree that we are our perceptions. To me this is the very core. We don’t act, we observe the actions being taken (and they may not even be “real” actions). It is the introduction of consepts such as “mind” that confuse me. What is the significance of calling it “mind” rather than “perception”?
What I would say is that you’re probably taking a leap up from what you know, and into what you find logical and probable. You find it probable that what we see out there actually exist, and that there is an actual brain. You then postulate that the ego actually are those thought patterns within that brain – you call these thought patterns the mind. Am I correct?
If so, you are quite possibly correct. But then I would say that a chair observe itself to an equal extend as that mind. The entire universe observes itself, and that’s all there is to it. I’m currently leaning towards an explanation in that direction. But if you think the human mind is somehow unique in this regard, I wonder how and why this uniqueness came about (not saying we could possibly know).
The most fundamental is often the most difficult to grasp. However, I believe I understand your claims. What I’m missing is the road that lead to your conclusions.