A text segment

williamashley · Post by **williamashley** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:52 am

People can tear down frameworks too. every statement can be seen as acceptable or not. Though these statements are not truely 'arguable' if they are the way they are. The simple matter is speaking the truth. True the corrupt or unlearned may move to tell lies about the truth but it doesn't matter regardless aslong as your are true and follow the faith, that is martyrdom. every statement has meaning and interrelates.. it makes it no more true or false but does create a different meaning.. there are absolutes and questions of falacious physicalism, everythin holds some meaning either at utterance or past conception that are rehatched on reexperience or 'assosiative' sameness. That is those things relative to other things or the compoents there of having intrinsic qualities. Thus arugment or debate is a realignment of or a building of value. There are no winning or loosing sidesthere is only growth of conception. The truth is what is, but everything conceived has only the meaning that fits to where you are. i.e. rhetoric rather than 'logic neologisms' refereeing than doctoring, master rather than doctor it. The difference is simple with one you move the other you create. True that rhetoric is at the core of any neologism but what I mean is the fundamenal truth, we arn't creating we are evoking. dualistically we are creating but that ain't human it's divine, thus we asartists,, create from ourselves... a part of us.. thus both creating and evoking.. yessssssss.

comments?

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:17 am

What is truth, in your view?

-

williamashley · Post by **williamashley** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:57 pm

what is.

The truth is what is.

Our faith is the truth. Our current state is truth.

To say that there are different shards of reality.

We have a logical shard
we have a mnemonic concious shard
we have a emotional state shard
we have a obscuration shard

etc...

each of these has it's own intrinsic qualty or qualitia

logic is a working s/r mechanism it interacts with our temporal systems and our senses to organize with our mnmonic shard which is a chain of emotionally acceptable occurance. The obscuration shard assists in blocking out nonacceptable emotional or non benificial segments.

Essentially it would be a kalideo scope of intention and purpose...

ultimately it is our faith. We are in a sea of sensation, however at a mystic level we are that very see unified with existance to live our life divine and with absolute purpose.

I could speak or write for a long time, about the various shards, it would be a long time.

What it comes down to is a reality that is a singularity or a reality that is a multicosm.

We accept life, because there is no choice but to accept the reality we have made for ourself. we have the option to accept it or not. Ahimsa is non injury, love. I think ahimsa represents an ideal.

Either we are a reed in the wind or we are a mountain, or we we are the wind. I see myself as the wind. Faith is the mountain and the reed is acceptance.

yada yada.
the truth is, what is, I live the truth, I am the truth.

AUTOGRAPHS.. 10$'s.

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:56 pm

If truth is what is, then why did you add all that extra stuff in your post? Why not just leave it as "The truth is what is"?

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:45 pm

williamashley wrote,

The truth is what is.

Our faith is the truth. Our current state is truth.

So you don't make any distinction between the deluded person and the sage who is without delusion?

-

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:12 am

williamashley wrote:

truth is what is.

Is it ideas that prevent one from seeing clearly? To value any idea is self-deception....delusion.

whether it a belef in jesus.
a belief that I am a great man.
a belief that I have a future.
or a belief that causality is the fabric of the universe.

aren't all these ideas or beliefs a hindrance to finding that eternal emptiness? that eternal place where nothing is, but everything is.

do ideas prevent seeing? is knowledge a hindrance?

can one know anything and still see what is? can one only see what is when there is no knowledge of what 'what is' is.

if I believe that 'what is' involves causality, then I fail to see 'what is', because all I see is an idea, not the actuality...

do you agree? disagree? some will think I am a fool because they think themselves wise... one of us is rather foolish, perhaps both.

williamashley · Post by **williamashley** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:12 am

everyone has their own truth.

There are no deluded people just politics.

The reason why the rest is there is because I was speaking of my philosophy. My truth, I cannot speak for your truth. we have opinions I'm not totalitarian to tell you what your reality is, except how I perceive it interacting with my own.

You are my avatars telling me about my life. The truth I see is by your actions and emotions, having reason ends up creating or manufacturing consensus and acceptance and veiws, so that my interaction with myself is geared for the best increase in value.

williamashley · Post by **williamashley** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:21 am

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Is it ideas that prevent one from seeing clearly?

No. Ideas create thoughts thoughts create feelings. feelings form into a symbols and symbols form to make ideas.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:To value any idea is self-deception....delusion.

No delusion is denile of past experience from the perspective you experienced it.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:aren't all these ideas or beliefs a hindrance to finding that eternal emptiness?

We arn't empty we are alive. Finding death is counter productive it is the loss of one or more of our shards. We always exist. Meditation is not complex but even visions come in mediation, we still sense, it is a calm we are not looking out we are looking in.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:do ideas prevent seeing?

No.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:is knowledge a hindrance?

It can be an emotional drain, but knowledge in enlightenment is a utility.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:can one know anything and still see what is?

yes.

cosmic_prostitute wrote:"if I believe that 'what is' involves causality, then I fail to see 'what is', because all I see is an idea, not the actuality..."

Your blinding yourself then learn yourself and you will know the world, for we are the world. We have no boundries we do have different points of perception and self objectivity and placement or creation of values.

I'd anwser in more detail but I gotta get read to go to a barn.

I explain in more than one line to create an idea with rhetoric, larer ideas tend to hold more defined meaning rather than 'loose' interpretive meaning.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:25 am

williamashley wrote:

everyone has their own truth.

the relativist has never made sense to me, there appears to be absolute truth. observations that are true, and observations that are false.

this is the foundation of any scientific inquiry, whether biology, chemistry, psychology, philosophy and all the rest.

relativists usually feel this way to prevent conflict, they are afraid of hurting someone's feelings. they preach religious tolerance and all the rest of it.

But truth is more important than than our petty emotional reactions....

we need to confront each other if we are to get to truth of the matter.

we can't get all wishy washy, it feels like a cope-out to me.

this is a forum for philosophers, we are here to criticise others, exchange ideas, and be open to the idea that we ourselves are dead wrong.

this is what philsophy is all about, and surely no growth or maturity and take place unless we establish this foundation of philosophical exchange.

Clockwerk · Post by **Clockwerk** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:33 am

The truth is the sound you make just before you open your mouth.

propellerbeanie · Post by **propellerbeanie** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:49 am

cosmic_prostitute wrote:williamashley wrote:

truth is what is.

Is it ideas that prevent one from seeing clearly? To value any idea is self-deception....delusion.
An idea is a tool for giving reference to what we see. If we have an idea of justice it give a perspective from which to measure what we see as just of injust. And it is like any other tool in that the wrong one for the task is a knuckle buster every time.

aren't all these ideas or beliefs a hindrance to finding that eternal emptiness? that eternal place where nothing is, but everything is.

do ideas prevent seeing? is knowledge a hindrance?
Ideas prevent seeing and thinking if not used properly and not constantly examined. An idea is like a see through template for our lives that we hold over our lives and the lives of others, and ideas are meant to represent something of the eternal and unchanging, while people are thought of as malleable. And ideas easy become tautologies. The law is an idea, and the law as an ideal is flexible and changible to meet people's needs, but rather than being defined by its ideal it is defined as tautology: The law is the law is the law. So Ideas cannot be called knowledge of themselves, but are a measuring tool against which we compare what we see in our lives that allows for judgement, which is knowldege.

can one know anything and still see what is? can one only see what is when there is no knowledge of what 'what is' is.
Knowledge is like a file cabinate or a book, because we can look at assimilated knowledge, or life, but not each at the same moment. Knowledge is the source of all illusion, and only the blind can be certain of what they see. How do we go back to having child's eyes?

if I believe that 'what is' involves causality, then I fail to see 'what is', because all I see is an idea, not the actuality...

do you agree? disagree? some will think I am a fool because they think themselves wise... one of us is rather foolish, perhaps both.[/

quote]

I think they are good questions, but you sure dress strangely.

williamashley · Post by **williamashley** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:49 am

true and false are binary logic.

To enable true and false you must enable a set resolution, comparitively drawn that is set up a constant.

The issue with a constant is the creation of a static universe.

With sceince we create boxes to contain, that is to insure precision or accuracy for reexperimentation, or reengineering an experiment.

Wether 'the universe'' is static or varible is undetermined. With quantum probabilities it is seen as potentially chaotic, but science heavily borrows from physics, and physics from various forms of math such as calculus and geometry. Math is seen as 'nominally static' although when math interlaces with rhetoric and symbolism it becomes 'abstract' and varible, or an art, rather than mechanical resurface of bases of accumulation sets patterns and binary systems.

In order to have falicy you must have 'truth' that truth must be housed on some finite quality. You see the issue is that there has to be an establishment to be upheld at the abstract level.

Which goes to closed systems or open systems. I'm not insane, I am just remarking that the idea of true or false is based upon the creation of a true assertation of 'a correct system'

I tend to place this at upholding faith. Ultimately it is upholding value, and that is what I agree with.
In a truely open system many of the things that exist would not exist, although on identity I am not against this it is simply the fact that the framework of difference has placed a close system in existance to demonstrate self perception, reasoning and differentiation. Although I have found my peace and accept death should it come, I also find value in my experiences, attempting to enjoy them.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:55 am

William wrote:

everyone has their own truth.

There are no deluded people just politics.

Do you want to hazard a guess as to how many people have come through this place and expressed the exact same views you are expressing? Hundreds, easily. Perhaps even thousands.

And they all think they are being profound.

It's quite comical, really. I mean, you have successfully absorbed the postmodernist mentality our age and now here you are expounding it as though it were true. It shows that, underneath all the postmodernist recitation, you really do believe in truth after all.

I also find it amusing whenever postmodernists criticize others for adhering to closed systems of thought. That's very funny.

-

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:13 am

williamashley wrote:true and false are binary logic.

Is that true or false, or neither?

In order to have fallacy you must have 'truth' that truth must be housed on some finite quality.

In science it does, but not in philosophy and abstract reasoning. Science and philosophy deal with different things. Philosophy deals with reality whereas science concerns itself with appearances - ie, finite boxes.

Jamesh · Post by **Jamesh** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:58 pm

What is truth, in your view?

Convenience.

Truth is convenience of summarising reality for whatever purpose. The purpose is more or less irrelevant.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:53 pm

James wrote:

DQ: What is truth, in your view?

J: Convenience.

I'm sure that's a very convenient definition for you, James.

Truth is convenience of summarising reality for whatever purpose.

"Summarizing reality" implies that truth is merely about listing the various traits of reality for whatever purpose. This is very different from the philosopher's aim, which is to uncover the core principle behind all things.

It's like the difference between botany (i.e. the exercise of slotting plants and animals into various categories) and evolutionary biology (which seeks to unite all life via a single principle).

-

williamashley · Post by **williamashley** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:31 pm

DavidQuinn000 wrote:William wrote:

everyone has their own truth.

There are no deluded people just politics.
Do you want to hazard a guess as to how many people have come through this place and expressed the exact same views you are expressing? Hundreds, easily. Perhaps even thousands.

And they all think they are being profound. etc.. etc..

See I differ in that I think I am very mundane. I am a post post modernist, I now prefer the term prefuturist. (the father itself, well some hack may have beat me to it... ) Well sure I beleive in the truth, if it wern't the truth I wouldn't be a beleiver I'd be deceived. I think individuals need to keep an open mind, but being forcefully injected with psychotropic chemicals isn't a good experience, so you either need to actually commit to proper military training and creating weapons caches and battle plans or just finding a happy medium for interacting with people

williamashley · Post by **williamashley** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:43 pm

ksolway wrote:
williamashley wrote:true and false are binary logic.
Is that true or false, or neither?

TRUE FALSE AND OR NEITHER is boolean

binary is 0 1 true 0 false 1 etc...

In order to have fallacy you must have 'truth' that truth must be housed on some finite quality.

See I see science as dealing with empiracal study of the physical world. So called 'soft sciences' deal with internal logics for commonly expressed identities for occurances, as well as including physical evidence in some cases.

I speak on a logical framework. Logic requires sequence off occurance, objectivism and checks on qualities to be interconnective. Logic does not exist without illogic. Illogic does not exist without 'non linear' or non conforming events. Logic is 'a process' worked out by an expected order.

The rule of oppositions:

In order to have an identity you have to create an opposite.
In order to have 'truth' as opposed to being you have to have 'fallacy' Truth would not exist without fallicy. In order to have sameness or agreement you must have had past notion of disagreement. In a solitary absolute universe that always existed as the same, sure it would be the case that solitary identities could exist. However, in this reality, there is a place that oppositions exist, and that there has been disagreement, usually this disagreement is highighted by beatings or murder. Although one could claim that an agreement to beat or murder someone was agreed on and there was really no disagreement to begin with is a posibility it is not very sound in mind, but let me assure you, you are entitled to your opinion but I do not agree.

I see what you are saying but you are reducing the idea out of a real life real world context so it doesn't hold '100%' true it holds true as something which can exist imaginary but as a matter of factual experience not occuring.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:19 pm

William wrote:

DQ: Do you want to hazard a guess as to how many people have come through this place and expressed the exact same views you are expressing? Hundreds, easily. Perhaps even thousands.

And they all think they are being profound. etc.. etc..

W: See I differ in that I think I am very mundane.

And I would agree.

I am a post post modernist, I now prefer the term prefuturist. (the father itself, well some hack may have beat me to it... )

We've also had a number of post post modernists in the past as well. What would you say is the difference between postmodernism and post postmodernism?

Well sure I beleive in the truth, if it wern't the truth I wouldn't be a beleiver I'd be deceived.

As far as I'm concerned, if something is going to be given the lofty status of "truth", then it needs to be true for all time, for all people, and for all circumstances. Given this, what do you think is true?

-

Clockwerk · Post by **Clockwerk** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:10 pm

What is absolutley true? Truth is when end of a circle meets the beginning and begins again. Other than that, there is not proof. Iow, truth must self-qualify.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:35 pm

binary is 0 1 true 0 false 1 etc...

What it boils down to is that if your statements aren't true, in the boolean sense, then I'm not interested in them. If they have some kind of fuzzy, non-boolean, guessed, intuited, provisional kind of "truth", then I'm not interested in it. For philosophical purposes, I'm only interested in what I can be certain of.

See I see science as dealing with empiracal study of the physical world.

We're in agreement there.

So called 'soft sciences' deal with internal logics for commonly expressed identities for occurances, as well as including physical evidence in some cases.

And what would be an example of the "soft sciences"? Psychology, sociology, political science?

If so, then I am in agreement there too.

But philosophy doesn't fall under either of those categories, since it is completely uninterested in empirical evidence. It is "hard logic" rather than a science of any kind.

In order to have an identity you have to create an opposite.

Yes, for there to be a thing "A" there must also be a thing "not-A".

In order to have 'truth' as opposed to being you have to have 'fallacy' Truth would not exist without fallicy. In order to have sameness or agreement you must have had past notion of disagreement.

You are speaking of things as though they were physical things, when in fact they are abstract, logical existences only. Even if there has never been any physical disagreement you can still imagine disagreement. In this manner "agreement" can exist, even though there has never been any actual disagreement.

I see what you are saying but you are reducing the idea out of a real life real world context so it doesn't hold '100%' true it holds true as something which can exist imaginary but as a matter of factual experience not occuring.

I don't see it as "reducing" it, rather, it is taking it for what it really is. That is, an abstraction. All the things in the world that you think you experience, you can never know for sure are existing physical realities. You might observe people doing something, like disagreeing with each other, but the whole thing is created in your head. Any empirical evidence that people are doing things is also in your head. However you can know for certain that your experiences themselves are real. That's the only thing you can be certain of. Anything else is unnecessary guesswork - at least as far as philosophy is concerned.

In fact, since all physical things only exist by virtue of the fact that our minds dictate their boundaries, which give them form, even physical things are created by abstraction. Therefore it is the correct approach to deal with the abstractions directly.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:37 pm

Clockwerk wrote:What is absolutley true? Truth is when end of a circle meets the beginning and begins again. Other than that, there is not proof. Iow, truth must self-qualify.

Yes, an example of an absolute truth is "A=A" - the law of identity.

williamashley · Post by **williamashley** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:38 am

DavidQuinn000 wrote:
We've also had a number of post post modernists in the past as well. What would you say is the difference between postmodernism and post postmodernism?

well a prefuturist is not related to the modernist as a requirement. The Prefuturist is grounded on principles of intentional society, working logic, use of region, that underneath, metaphysics and primes largely, as well as housing strong support of the reason for increase of aesthetic ideal, it is not grounded in the abstract it grounded on the absolute truths of required logical existance while interlacing the aesthic humanisms of more of a romaticism and age of reason, the reason largely is avanced to the theory of everything, perfect static systems as the base of interaction, while society itself exists at a level of agreement beyond in a realm of continuation, but seeing it as a wholey abstract level that is post human. OF course post humanism predivinity are the two outlets to prefuturism, I find they introduce too many notions that are seen as 'offensive' to militants in this day and age thus remove the capacity to morally discus them.

Given this, what do you think is true?

Well much that is true. (ha) The Truth is what is. Nothng remains the same but how we see ourselves Its that part just inside our spirt. Singularity in a multicosm, the smallest point is reflecting ourselves. For the purpose of prefuturism it would be individual interpretation of meaning. There being no definitive other than what we comprehend them as, with no checks other than self agreement, bound in morality to a consensus of increasing the value of society. Even in the twisted mind of someone who sees muder and destruction or arsony as good things, in their mind they hold an overall value that form some reason at some point is a benifit or sought as the best thing to do at a given moment, because of what they have experienced and what the enviornment enables for them. At the core is the individual, I cannot say that all reality is the way I have at this point perceived it things change minds grow, but I know that as a prefuturist in a prefuturist model logical sound reasonable that individual experience can only relate to oneself. Surely many individuals can agree, but I cannot agree for them, I can only argree they agree otherwise I'm not being moral, i'm being selfish. The Truth is what is.[/quote]

williamashley · Post by **williamashley** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:58 am

ksolway wrote: And what would be an example of the "soft sciences"? Psychology, sociology, political science?

also history... and a number of other mental studies philosophy is the ultimate soft science. Philosophy however is special that it is really the 'core' school' everything else comes from it including science, science as an abstract functioning does trace back to the abstracts and the theories and 'base rehtorics' but the rhetoric is aimed at explaining physical occurances.

I think there are times that philosophy is a soft science because it is really more of an advanced psychology, mixed in with physics in many ways. Philosophy is a study of the self as psychology but it introduces the idea of outward projected thought. It doesn't wholely deal with the 'social self mind' as philosophy it goes past the human characteristic sand goes into characteristics that do not have an instance of existance in the 'real' world except at a purely abstract and potential arena.
I would say philosophy is an art, and arts are generally soft sciences.

Yes, for there to be a thing "A" there must also be a thing "not-A".

Of course the whole idea becomes paradoxial at that point but I am grounded on logical objectism. I do not dwell on the paradoxial.

You are speaking of things as though they were physical things

I discus things as thought they were 'symbols' objects. I see the world as objects and interactors. Everything with a quality is an object and each interactor is a subsurface object. We see objects but we must 'think' to see the interactors, we in that way deconstruct a symbol to create a feeling, it is a reverse process when we take in communication
Symbol Feeling thought idea
idea symbol feeing thought and it keeps going around with us experiencing them all.

All the things in the world that you think you experience, you can never know for sure are existing physical realities.

see futurism doesn't dwell on self denile, it holds the concept that we are alsways true and in right for the moment we experience it. That is not to say that a future event will show a past experinece to be a different past experinece to occur at the same time, both these events happened and are re occuring whenever we experience them, it is simply how our reasoning bleives is the idea occurance for a given moment based upon all our previous 'accepted' occurances. For many this would be a purely subconscience occurance, but in exercising deduction and logic our initial experience can be 'recreated' in the future to 'remake' our past experience, while our initial experience is not false we can say the experience was a falacy or illusion or apparition because it does not fit our logical model for what 'must have ocured' thus disbeleif. However in a full awareness we did experience something a certain way, on an illogical level that experience stil existed as it existed at that moment, but we have no way to define the past other than through memory or an artifact of memory that can be translated in the future. Of course time travel is not imposible it simply isn't logical.

See prefuturists beleive everything is create in our head.

I think our major differneces are based on these two issues.

1. you must relize that boolean systems are created from binary systems. Binary systmes are 'underneath' boolean.

01 10
10

01

if 0110 or 1001 etc..

2. philosphy is the ultimate soft science soft sciences can also becaled 'mental'

where as hard sciences are called 'physial'

philosophy is special in that it is the microscope of both the mental and physical worlds... it uncoveres itself as well as allow s the mastery of other studies. However soft science yeilds hard science.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:46 pm

williamashley wrote:
ksolway wrote: And what would be an example of the "soft sciences"? Psychology, sociology, political science?

also history... and a number of other mental studies philosophy is the ultimate soft science.

In my view "science" necessarily seeks verification in the physical, empirical world - it seeks empirical evidence. Philosophy is therefore not a science at all.

It is like pure mathematics. You wouldn't say that pure mathematics is a "soft science" would you?

Soft sciences are "soft" because they seek to offer empirical evidence, but their particular nature means that they are limited in how well they can do that. The are, to a greater degree than physics and chemistry, subjective, and that's what makes them "soft".

Pure mathemetics is not interested in offering empirical evidence of any kind, and nor is philosophy. So these two cannot be considered "sciences", as such. They are "hard logic".

I would say philosophy is an art, and arts are generally soft sciences.

Philosophy is no more of an art than pure mathematics or computer programming.

I discus things as thought they were 'symbols' objects. I see the world as objects and interactors. Everything with a quality is an object and each interactor is a subsurface object. We see objects but we must 'think' to see the interactors, we in that way deconstruct a symbol to create a feeling, it is a reverse process when we take in communication
Symbol Feeling thought idea
idea symbol feeing thought and it keeps going around with us experiencing them all.

That all sounds very complicated. My view is much simpler: all things that appear to the mind are "things". And "things" are the subject material of thought. End of story. Any further complication is unnecessary. A "symbol" is something that appears to the mind, as is an "object" and an "interactor", and a "feeling", etc. They are all the same.

futurism doesn't dwell on self denial

If the "self" appears to the mind, then it is a thing the same as anything else. The appearance of "self" cannot be denied.

it holds the concept that we are always true and in right for the moment we experience it.

That sounds exactly the same as extreme relativism. "Whatever you believe is true, is true . . . for you."

1. you must relize that boolean systems are created from binary systems. Binary systmes are 'underneath' boolean.

There's nothing wrong with the binary system of logic. It is the only kind of logic there can ever be. This is because of the law of identity: for every thing "A", there is a thing "not-A". If something is true, then something is not true.

Of course, there are statements that are neither true nor false, such as "skdjf79 roetiw sd dflgkj s sdkgdfz" - but we arrive at this determination through binary logic.

2. philosophy is the ultimate soft science soft sciences can also becaled 'mental'

There is no way that things like pure mathematics, philosophy, and pure logic are sciences of any kind.