Reflections on Truth

[Loki]

The Nature of Knowing Truth

Not too long ago I seen the significance of A=A, and one characteristic I noticed about the piece of knowledge is that it is a logical statement about a thing. For instance, when we say blue is blue (and not red, green, orange, etc) we are making a statement about blue through the means of logic.

Doing logic is about making statements and revealing relationships.

So A=A is an example knowing truth, and based on my definition of logic, it is a statement about "A".

Logic, by definition, creates duality. "A" in contrast to "not-A"

However, I have heard someone on this forum say that truth can be identified as the totality alone, and that the totality is independent of consciousness, and therefore truth does not need a logical statement to be.

I agree with that, but I think it's crucial to point out that there is a difference between a) Truth being, and b) Truth being known.

"Truth being known" obviously requires consciousness, thoughts, and logical statements, because knowing is identification of A in contrast to not-A, truth in contrast to not-truth.

Truth alone, on the other hand, is beyond statement, beyond consciousness, beyond knowing, beyond thought, beyond logic, but you need logical statements to know the Truth.

Knowing the truth is not the same as "the truth independent of consciousness".

Multiple Truths

"Truth independent of consciousness" is easily realized as a unity. However, knowing Truth seems very much about knowing multiple truths.

But really, all these seemingly multiple truths are really just parts of each other. Their interdependencies create a unified whole. So while our logic works in steps, making one statement separate from the next, one truth preceding another truth, the final step, realizing the unification of all these "steps" demonstrates that all these seemingly separate truths are really all part of each other. All is one.

Neither True or False

Is it possible for a person to identify an appearance without knowing Truth?

A friend of mine insisted that A=A was the equivalent to Truth=Truth.

But does "A" always represent Truth?

Unlike A=A, "A" isn't a statement itself. There is no conscious reflection of "A", there is no consciousness of the nature of A, there is no statement about A, yet there is identification of "A" happening.

Everyone is busy living, busy vaguely distinguishing things, but don't seem to really know "A", yet they are always obeying A=A. Ignorance of their master. They aren't always making logical statements about the particular things they identify, they aren't conscious of the nature of reality, yet they make distinctions and identifications all the time.

My conclusion: Identifying "A" is not knowing truth because there is no conscious reflection of the nature of that identification process, there is no logical process, yet there is identification.

Identifying "A" is not knowing Truth. Identification of A=A is knowing Truth.

Your thoughts?

[Pincho Paxton]

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.

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.

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.

[Blair]

Identifying "A" is not knowing Truth. Identification of A=A is knowing Truth.

Identifying what A=A means, is knowing truth.

Everything is a slave to causality, that's what a=a means. Everything is just what it is.

Religion demonstrates A=A just as well as science.

Humans are not born equal. 100 IQ is the great divide. <>

[Loki]

Identifying "A" is not knowing Truth. Identification of A=A is knowing Truth.

Identifying what A=A means, is knowing truth.

Ok, I agree with that. That's really what I meant. Knowing implies that the meaning is discerned.

My latest reflections on Meaning & Truth

My dog seems to make a link between the word "walk" and actually going for a walk. He knows (on some level) that when I ask him if he wants to go for a walk, it means we are going outdoors to walk around. He anticipates it. When he sees food in his dish, he knows the purpose of the food, it is there for him to eat. If I take out some chicken for my own dinner, he smells the food from the other room, and he is able to make the link between a smell and an actual substance to eat. If he hears a knock on the door, he barks anticipating a visitor. He has a sense of meaning.

But does he know truth?

What is the difference between knowing the meaning of a phenomena, and knowing the truth of a phenomena? Is there really a difference between knowing the meaning and knowing the truth? Aren't they synonymous?

I think we have to make a distinction between Absolute Truth and Relative Truth.

A relative truth is a meaning that can be contradicted by changing the perspective. My dog might make the connection between a knock on the door and a visitor (relative truth: knock on the door means visitor) but there are times when I knock on the door myself just to trick him. He comes running out of the bedroom barking like an idiot, assuming there is a visitor, but it was really just me playing a trick on him to get him out from under the bed so I can wash him in the tub.

An absolute truth is a meaning that cannot be contradicted by changing the perspective. A=A is true from any perspective.

Neither True or False

Is there an experience that has no meaning, no relative or absolute truth content? Is this logically possible?

When I ask this question, I tend to think of babies in their first stages of consciousness. What happens when a baby makes his first memories?

From wikipedia:

"Procedural memory" is a type of memory that is not verbalized, and can be used without consciously thinking about it; procedural memory can reflect simple stimulus-response pairing or more extensive patterns learned over time. In contrast, "declarative memory" can generally be put into words. Examples of procedural learning are learning to ride a bike, learning to touch type, learning to play a musical instrument or learning to swim. Procedural memory can be very durable.

[jufa]

To separate the outer objective intake from the inner subjective feelings of any subject, or thoughts is to disconnect from the reality of ones perfection. Pefection is not found in observation nor feelings, it is found in that which they are housed infinitely, and that is in the invisible.

Objective intake and subjective feeling find commonality in this truth. In order for either of them to find definition they have to relate to something within consciousness, and that is thought. The reality of anything in matter and material awareness is moved and manifested by the Spirit of thought. All learning, all awakening, all dreams, all intellectual journeys exist and ride upon the Spirit movement of invisible thought. All in the world of human manifested awareness therefore has no true meaning because meaning is found in cause. Invisible thought is always the cause of the effect which the human mind mistakenly believes to be reality, and in this misunderstanding, believe they can logically find logic in that which they cannot pinpoint to logically exist.

The realiity of all creation is invisible. Music is invisible. Judgment is invisible. Condemnation is invisible. Lack of understanding is invisible. Understanding is invisible. Love is invisible. Hope is invisible. Truth is invisible. For a psychologist, philosopher, preacher, guru, and lay person to say logic is a truth is flawed, because what they give out of their understanding is flawed because they can only reflect on their experience of understanding, but not any ones elese. This is far worse than not being able to comprehend words, because instead of helping someone by showing them the true mechanism of the working mind, and why this happens, and that happens, one is shown nothing but the nature of their imperfection.

Never give power to anything a person believe is their source of strength - Jufa

[Cory Duchesne]

Neither True or False

Is there an experience that has no meaning, no relative or absolute truth content? Is this logically possible?

You are asking if you can experience meaninglessness? Our experiences, although they can be forgotten, are happenings we remember. So it helps to reflect on the nature of memory. Imagine you experience the black and white fuzz of a TV set. Meaningless experience, right? Not quite, because your memory of the experience has very specific content: the Fuzz was Fuzz. The Fuzz was black and white specks. The Fuzz was coming from the TV set. The experience of Fuzz happened in the past, prior to this moment.

So our experiences, when we remember them, always contain distinct content, identities, form, meaning, and if we reflect enough, we can discern truth.

[Loki]

Neither True or False

Is there an experience that has no meaning, no relative or absolute truth content? Is this logically possible?

You are asking if you can experience meaninglessness? Our experiences, although they can be forgotten, are happenings we remember. So it helps to reflect on the nature of memory. Imagine you experience the black and white fuzz of a TV set. Meaningless experience, right? Not quite, because your memory of the experience has very specific content: the Fuzz was Fuzz. The Fuzz was black and white specks. The Fuzz was coming from the TV set. The experience of Fuzz happened in the past, prior to this moment.

So our experiences, when we remember them, always contain distinct content, identities, form, meaning, and if we reflect enough, we can discern truth.

Ok, so it sounds like you are saying that meaninglessness(chaos or emptiness) depends of form, color, texture, time, memory. Meaninglessness depends on meaning. Duh! Fuck, I know this. What the hell is wrong with me.

But hold on, what if I experience just an empty void? Since the experience is stripped of form, isn't that a purely meaningless and empty experience?

[Cory Duchesne]

But hold on, what if I experience just an empty void? Since the experience is stripped of form, isn't that a purely meaningless and empty experience?

Well, keep in mind that an experience is something we remember. So to experience pure emptiness, like a void, you would have to have a concept of form in order to "pick up" the concept of emptiness. For instance, take something simple like the word "emptiness". You would require the concept of emptiness, represented as a word or a symbol, and this alone would be enough "order" to render the meaningless experience meaningful. The concept "empty" requires a definition, such as "not full" or "devoid of things". So a meaningless experience can only happen because it depends on the presence of meaning. And likewise, a meaningful experience can only happen because it depends on meaninglessness, or emptiness.

[Loki]

Ok, I get all that now. In fact I already knew that, but I had a lapse of confusion.

I'm back on track.

So an experience is partly a memory, experience has a conceptual aspect. An experience always has the components of meaning and meaninglessness, because even if you see nothing but clearly identifiable and meaningful things, those things, because of causality, are empty and illusory, and therefore experience has a meaningless component present at all times, and that meaningless component is meaningful in it's own right. So we say: meaningfulness is meaninglessness, and meaninglessness is meaningful. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

But hold on, what exactly is meaning? And is meaning synonymous with Truth?

I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between meaning and truth.

I will go out on a limb here and say Meaning occurs when a thought(A) represents another thought(B). For instance, the word "tree" represents the image of a Tree. The word (A) represents the image (B). Both the word and the image can be considered thoughts.

So when we say "the word tree means tree" is that really a truth?

If so, then it seems all of humanity is truthful almost constantly, besides when they sleep without dreaming.

And this is my confusion.

[Cory Duchesne]

An experience always has the components of meaning and meaninglessness, because even if you see nothing but clearly identifiable and meaningful things, those things, because of causality, are empty and illusory, and therefore experience has a meaningless component present at all times,

Just as importantly, you should note that a meaningful statement always lacks meaning because it is only telling you a specific thing.

Consider the statement: "The cat crawls up a tree". This statement has meaning, but it also lacks meaning. We don't know what kind of tree it is, we don't know the color of the Cat, there are many unknowns, and therefore the statement has a lack of meaning.

So when we say "the word tree means tree" is that really a truth?

It's a subjective truth, relative to your own vantage point, but not absolute. 500'000 years from now, humanity could be wiped out, and aliens could come to the planet and search through the remains of our civilization. If they seen the word "tree" it wouldn't mean tree to them, it would just be strange markings.

If so, then it seems all of humanity is truthful almost constantly, besides when they sleep without dreaming. And this is my confusion.

Humanity mostly lives knowing truths that are relative and not absolute. They also live in concepts that contradict themselves, empirical hypothesis that have been disproved, or unprovable, so they live in lies. They also often tell their fellow man tall-tales that they know aren't true, so they are dishonest in that sense, too. Also, like you said earlier, multiple absolute truths are really indivisible from each other, so the "Whole truth" is rarely understood, and instead people live in half truths and lies, bumbling about mindlessly in blatant contradictions and contriving fool-hardy schemes.

[jupiviv]

A=A is an example knowing truth, and based on my definition of logic, it is a statement about "A".

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.

"Truth being known" obviously requires consciousness, thoughts, and logical statements, because knowing is identification of A in contrast to not-A, truth in contrast to not-truth.

Truth alone, on the other hand, is beyond statement, beyond consciousness, beyond knowing, beyond thought, beyond logic, but you need logical statements to know the Truth.

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

Is it possible for a person to identify an appearance without knowing Truth?

To the degree that they know Truth, they would know the appearance, as appearances are not separate from Truth. A person may be very knowledgeable and use reason/logic very well, and at the same time be wholly unconscious of Truth.

[chikoka]

So A=A is an example knowing truth, and based on my definition of logic, it is a statement about "A".

Logic, by definition, creates duality. "A" in contrast to "not-A"

According to your other thread , duality can only happen in the mind and so this should imply that A=A logic can only apply to appearances and not the totality.

But the totality has to be = to the totality.

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.

[Pincho Paxton]

Wouldn't it be just easier to know how the brain stores its information? It seems like all of this confusion is based on words rather than actually physics.

A tree is endorsed as a tree by the word slot 'TREE' containing a lot of energy which leads to an image of a tree, and all of its associated parts. The energy grew over a period of time, as your teachers (Parents, friends, schooling) said to you sentences that contained the word 'TREE'.

"That is a tree." .. energy level rises.
"The tree has leaves"... energy level rises.
"You can eat an apple from an apple tree".. energy level rises.

Later you will associate tree in a combination of forest, woods, and the complete everything.

"Atoms make everything!"
"Atoms lock together."
"A forest full of trees."
"Trees are made from wood."
"Let's go to the woods."

To a point where tree has enough energy to = true.

Thinking in physics is much easier than thinking in words.

[Carmel]

Pincho:

"Atoms make everything!"
"Atoms lock together."
"A forest full of trees."
"Trees are made from wood."
"Let's go to the woods."

To a point where tree has enough energy to = true.

Carmel:
...and you're lost in the woods. What you're describing is loosely based on scientific materialism, not philosophy.

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?

[Loki]

So A=A is an example knowing truth, and based on my definition of logic, it is a statement about "A".

Logic, by definition, creates duality. "A" in contrast to "not-A"

According to your other thread , duality can only happen in the mind and so this should imply that A=A logic can only apply to appearances and not the totality.

A=A can apply to concepts, and totality is a concept.

But the totality has to be = to the totality.

A totality, as a concept, is precisely as it is defined.



.

[Loki]

A=A is an example knowing truth, and based on my definition of logic, it is a statement about "A".

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?

"Truth being known" obviously requires consciousness, thoughts, and logical statements, because knowing is identification of A in contrast to not-A, truth in contrast to not-truth.

Truth alone, on the other hand, is beyond statement, beyond consciousness, beyond knowing, beyond thought, beyond logic, but you need logical statements to know the Truth.

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.

Is it possible for a person to identify an appearance without knowing Truth?

To the degree that they know Truth, they would know the appearance, as appearances are not separate from Truth. A person may be very knowledgeable and use reason/logic very well, and at the same time be wholly unconscious of Truth.

I don't agree. 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. When Kierkegaard said: "Truth is subjectivity" I think he was referring to how everyone has a personal, subjective sense of meaning. The word "tree" means the image of a tree. Knowing the meaning of the English word "Tree" is not knowing absolute truth, but it is knowing a subjective one.

.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho:

"Atoms make everything!"
"Atoms lock together."
"A forest full of trees."
"Trees are made from wood."
"Let's go to the woods."

To a point where tree has enough energy to = true.

Carmel:
...and you're lost in the woods. What you're describing is loosely based on scientific materialism, not philosophy.

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?

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. However nature has showed you the energy in the brain using our special cameras. We can even tell what people are thinking about. Why not include evidence with those words, and solve the problem?

[David Quinn]

Pincho:

"Atoms make everything!"
"Atoms lock together."
"A forest full of trees."
"Trees are made from wood."
"Let's go to the woods."

To a point where tree has enough energy to = true.

Carmel:
...and you're lost in the woods. What you're describing is loosely based on scientific materialism, not philosophy.

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?

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. However nature has showed you the energy in the brain using our special cameras. We can even tell what people are thinking about. Why not include evidence with those words, and solve the problem?

It's always fascinating to observe how some people are entirely deaf to philosophy. They just can't see it (or hear it, to continue the analogy). The energy in their brain is configured in such a way that philosophy, or indeed any movement towards knowledge that reaches beyond the tangible realm of science, is seen to be completely empty and meaningless.

I'd be curious to know if this is a genetic thing, or whether it is a form of cultural conditioning. If Pincho is American, then it could well be the latter. In my experience, Americans tend to have the most difficulty in grappling with these higher forms of knowledge, and many of them, like Pincho, can't even begin to recognize the existence of such knowledge at all. Whenever they look in that direction, their minds automatically draw a blank. By contrast, Europeans and Australians, with their culture possessing a little more depth, tend to find it much easier.

I put it down to America still being a medieval society (a legacy of it being founded in medieval times) in which their society is deeply polarized between fundamentalist Christianity and an equally fundamentalist materialism driven by an exaggerated worship of science. There seems to be no middle ground between these two, no platform by which a person can reject both these extremes and logically rise above them.

California excepted, of course.

-

[David Quinn]

The flipside of this is that the next truly great sage will probably be an American, since the energy needed to break away from those two fundamentalist extremes is likely to push him into even greater heights.

-

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho:

"Atoms make everything!"
"Atoms lock together."
"A forest full of trees."
"Trees are made from wood."
"Let's go to the woods."

To a point where tree has enough energy to = true.

Carmel:
...and you're lost in the woods. What you're describing is loosely based on scientific materialism, not philosophy.

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?

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. However nature has showed you the energy in the brain using our special cameras. We can even tell what people are thinking about. Why not include evidence with those words, and solve the problem?

It's always fascinating to observe how some people are entirely deaf to philosophy. They just can't see it (or hear it, to continue the analogy). The energy in their brain is configured in such a way that philosophy, or indeed any movement towards knowledge that reaches beyond the tangible realm of science, is seen to be completely empty and meaningless.

I'd be curious to know if this is a genetic thing, or whether it is a form of cultural conditioning. If Pincho is American, then it could well be the latter. In my experience, Americans tend to have the most difficulty in grappling with these higher forms of knowledge, and many of them, like Pincho, can't even begin to recognize the existence of such knowledge at all. Whenever they look in that direction, their minds automatically draw a blank. By contrast, Europeans and Australians, with their culture possessing a little more depth, tend to find it much easier.

I put it down to America still being a medieval society (a legacy of it being founded in medieval times) in which their society is deeply polarized between fundamentalist Christianity and an equally fundamentalist materialism driven by an exaggerated worship of science. There seems to be no middle ground between these two, no platform by which a person can reject both these extremes and logically rise above them.

California excepted, of course.

-

That just sounds like slapping yourself on the back because your logic is not rewarding you with anything but self appraisal. I think that philosophy can work with examples, but not just with self appraisal. Maybe you are not actually trying to solve anything at all, but maybe another goal. Maybe money from a book, or maybe because you actually feel that you are reaching a goal. But reading the posts around here, they go around in circles. A = A is mentioned in a bout 20 threads, and still, nobody is sure what it means... well apart from me, since thread 1, and that was about 2 years ago. I can even remember what I posted. If you really have perfected this clear thought then why is the same thread still going? If it was science, and after all this time you had come up with A = A it would mean that you hadn't even started working on anything yet. The other main subject is God, and that runs even longer than A = A, and it is in exactly the same situation as before.. it is faith. That's how it has been for 2000 years. Philosophy sure solves problems. Sorry.. no, your philosophy doesn't solve problems. My Philosophy allows for examples in nature, my philosophy solves problems. I solved this thread a few posts up, but everyone ignored it because it included real examples. That's just ignorance.

[David Quinn]

From the I have Realized the Infinite thread:

I still don't know what anybody is talking about??? Does this take a high IQ, or a low IQ? Is it one of those things that takes no IQ.. switch your brain off?

This is probably the deepest, most humorous thing you have ever said on this forum. The most truthful too.

-

[Steven Coyle]

egg and brinkis

[Steven Coyle]

the tabla rasa is each night's eternity

[Steven Coyle]

though with each eternity, the previous day's eons only build

[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..