Reflections on Truth

[jupiviv]

A=A is not knowledge itself. Rather, it is the belief that there is knowledge. You can never prove A=A, only believe in it.

That depends on how you define belief, and how belief is different from knowing. Can you expand?

Belief is the consciousness of time, and through belief we determine truth and falsity. The Christians who say they "believe" in God are really only superstitious, not believing. They don't care about the truth of anything, as long as they feel good about it.

There can be no truth/Truth without the knowing subject.

What if I define Truth as the totality? The totality is the truth. Knowing the truth is different then the actual truth itself.

What is this "actual truth" that you imagine exists? Whatever truth you know of is all the truth there is, by definition.

If you are knowledgeable, then that means you have established meaning, and if you know the meaning of things, then you do know subjective truths, at least.

The distinction between subjective and objective truth is a false one. Objectivity and subjectivity are simply different ways of looking at the same thing. All the knowledge in a library is meaningless without a conscious mind. A person can know a lot of truths, and use them to pass an exam. Such knowledge is useless, and infinitely removed from true knowledge.

[Pincho Paxton]

There's also a large contrast between 'Europe', and eastern europe, the balkans, and places where war has halted progress and left countries full of fundementalism. These places are not well off, and i wouldn't rate these higher than America. Denmark is also a concern. It must lack depth because after the internet came out we basically adopted alot of american culture, and nobody is concerned with spirituality or philosophy at all.

@David, any idea whether people in india or perhaps china might have an easier time with spirituality? given their history of buddhism....Atleast, it would seem that the existence of old religions as such means people realize that it's not a huge joke?, in europe, people don't usually realize that buddhism is about real people, not about 'God', they don't have a background of spirituality these days.

Also, it seems abit ironic, that the greatest genius develops from a land with the least genius , while lands of genius give way to a fall of genius, slowly, as the flame is hard to keep lit..

I'm not saying, end philosophy, I'm saying, use examples in philosophy. Talk about stuff, and relate it to real things. But then you spiral out of control with, nothing is real apart from what is in the mind. You have caused a logic loop, and will talk about the same subject infinitely.

[Loki]

Belief is the consciousness of time, and through belief we determine truth and falsity.

Buh, it's all just petty semantics with you! Petty word games! I once told you that it's through acceptance of appearances that we determine Truth, and I don't see how my use of the word acceptance is any different than your use of the word belief.

What is this "actual truth" that you imagine exists?

Totality is truth, and totality includes consciousness within it. You don't need consciousness for the totality to be. And yes, there is a difference between our mere concept of the totality and the actual totality.

Whatever truth you know of is all the truth there is, by definition.

You yourself said that whatever appearances you know are not all the appearances there are. So just because you know the Truth(the infinite) doesn't mean that the infinite cannot "be" independent of mind.

If you are knowledgeable, then that means you have established meaning, and if you know the meaning of things, then you do know subjective truths, at least.

The distinction between subjective and objective truth is a false one. Objectivity and subjectivity are simply different ways of looking at the same thing. All the knowledge in a library is meaningless without a conscious mind. A person can know a lot of truths, and use them to pass an exam. Such knowledge is useless, and infinitely removed from true knowledge.

Like I said, there is a difference between subjective Truths, and the absolute truth which makes subjectivity possible.

[jupiviv]

Belief is the consciousness of time, and through belief we determine truth and falsity.

Buh, it's all just petty semantics with you! Petty word games! I once told you that it's through acceptance of appearances that we determine Truth, and I don't see how my use of the word acceptance is any different than your use of the word belief.

I don't see why you're dragging in what I said in another thread over here. The two contexts are different. However, if you mean that we should accept the fact that things are nothing more than what they appear to be, then I agree with you. This acceptance would of course be an example of belief in logic. But what you said was vague, and could be interpreted in a lot of ways. I'm not blaming you for that, because you're just beginning to understand these truths.

Totality is truth, and totality includes consciousness within it. You don't need consciousness for the totality to be.

You contradict your own argument here. The totality includes the knowing subject, so that subject is definitely needed by the totality. If it wasn't "needed"(again, I don't quite understand what you mean by this) by the totality, then it wouldn't exist in the first place.

And yes, there is a difference between our mere concept of the totality and the actual totality.

The term "concept of the totality" doesn't make any sense to me. I've no interest in a concept totality. I want the totality itself.

You yourself said that whatever appearances you know are not all the appearances there are.

I didn't say that. I said that there is a category for things that do not/cannot appear. The things that do appear to me now are all the appearances there are, by definition.

Like I said, there is a difference between subjective Truths, and the absolute truth which makes subjectivity possible.

All subjective truths are also objective truths, and vice versa. Imagine that a red ball exists in time1 and space1. Can the fact that it existed in time1 and space1 ever be falsified, even in a different place in the future? Knowledge is useless without consciousness. It's not knowledge at all.

[Anders Schlander]

There's also a large contrast between 'Europe', and eastern europe, the balkans, and places where war has halted progress and left countries full of fundementalism. These places are not well off, and i wouldn't rate these higher than America. Denmark is also a concern. It must lack depth because after the internet came out we basically adopted alot of american culture, and nobody is concerned with spirituality or philosophy at all.

@David, any idea whether people in india or perhaps china might have an easier time with spirituality? given their history of buddhism....Atleast, it would seem that the existence of old religions as such means people realize that it's not a huge joke?, in europe, people don't usually realize that buddhism is about real people, not about 'God', they don't have a background of spirituality these days.

Also, it seems abit ironic, that the greatest genius develops from a land with the least genius , while lands of genius give way to a fall of genius, slowly, as the flame is hard to keep lit..

I'm not saying, end philosophy, I'm saying, use examples in philosophy. Talk about stuff, and relate it to real things. But then you spiral out of control with, nothing is real apart from what is in the mind. You have caused a logic loop, and will talk about the same subject infinitely.

A logic loop.... well, honestly I'm not sure what you mean when you say this. can you give an example of one of these logic loops that me + perhaps others fall into in philosophy?

I agree using real examples helps to understand; but didn't say that 'nothing is real apart from what is in the mind'. Such a saying is superfluous and pointless, because the 'mind' = appearances, and is all there will ever be in the moment, which makes it real as an appearance or 'mind'. 'nothing' apart from mind is not an apperance and can't exist, so talking about 'other than mind' uses the mind, meaning it is pointless, and you will never find something beyond the mind.

Your example of a logic loop was the mind sentence? i cant really see a problem with it: it's basically saying, there is no-thing except the appearances of the moment.

mind = the thing(s) of consciousness

nothing = absence of thing

[mensa-maniac]

You need to verify your mind, else you have no answer to your inner question. Waiting for an answer is cumbersome to your multitasking abilities. It is a ball, and chain around your advancing logic. Which must be awful for Christians.. Waiting For God.

Mensa says: "Which must be awful for Christians..Waiting For God." Actually, it's not awful at all, to wait for answers. Evolution is not the answer, it is theory not proven! It is better to be open-minded than totally doubtful.

Never let your imagination take over your truth. Use the many truths = possible truth.

Our brain is built for Yes / No / maybe.

Maybe is a combination of truths not yet confirmed.

Mensa says: So who does the 'maybe' rely on? On all those who agree!

If a maybe cannot be confirmed in your lifetime, it might switch to truth as you wish to let go of the ball, and chain...that's faith.

[chikoka]

Loki:
What about the rest of this?

Quote
-------
If theres no "not-totality" then there can be no totality in logic (your last statement reworded) ,
but "not-totality" could be "partof-totality"
meaning the totality has parts (things)
therefore proving that things do exist in and of themselves.
-----

[Gurrb]

we must acknowledge our absence of knowledge to truly be knowledgeable.

[Steven Coyle]

the laughter arises from within

[Kelly Jones]

What about the rest of this?

Loki: If theres no "not-totality" then there can be no totality in logic (your last statement reworded) ,
but "not-totality" could be "partof-totality"
meaning the totality has parts (things)
therefore proving that things do exist in and of themselves.

That's right. Since not-totality is what is not the totality, and absolute nothingness is logically impossible, not-totality must refer to partof-totality. That's simple logical reasoning. Contrast that with Pincho's faux pas:

Pincho: Thinking in physics is much easier than thinking in words.

Carmel: There's nothing wrong with using physics as a conceptual aid to help visualise a philosophic principle, but that's not what you're doing. Do you understand the difference between philosophy and science?

Pincho: Well A = A is a mathematical formula.
True = True is also a formula.
A = True is an extension of the formula.

I just don't see how words can explain physics? Philosophy seems to depend on infinite talking to no resolution, because you are just trying to use words to explain words. You could go on forever.

It looks as though Pincho has just swapped "A" for the word "True", and then mistakenly confuses "the word True" for "the quality of being true". It could well have read:

A=A
False=False
Therefore, any A is False, i.e. has the quality of being incorrect.

He isn't able to think philosophically, because his reasoning is confused. He isn't discriminating enough.

.