GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:43 am

joel knoll wrote:there is no truth; there is only conviction, of varying degrees of strength. there is no demonstration; there is only persuasion.

If this is only your current personal conviction, which you don't believe to be true, then it's not very persuasive to me.

the mind has no authority except that which it bestows upon itself

. . . and this you don't believe to be true, but you have persuaded yourself of your own conviction?

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:01 am

Back in Victorian Times their Writing was Full of Marvelous Truths and they used Capital Letters for just about Every Second Word.

postmodern writing should ideally not state any truths and should likewise never use a capital letter.

joel knoll · Post by **joel knoll** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:23 am

MR. SOLWAY: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT (THAT IS,NONE) YOUR PRETENSE TO INTELLIGENCE IS HARDLY HELPED BY THIS QUIBBLING OVER PUNCTUATION, NOR BY YOUR INSISTENCE ON APPLYING FALSE AND CONVENIENT LABELS ON YOUR OPPONENTS IN ORDER TO REDUCE THEIR ARGUMENTS TO A CONDITION OF MANAGEABILITY BY A MIND AS INCAPABLE AS YOUR OWN. NOT EVERYONE OF A DIFFERENT PERSUASION FROM YOURSELF CAN BE FAIRLY LABELED POST-MODERNIST. YOU HAVE GROSSLY MISUNDERSTOOD MY ARGUMENT (WHICH HARDLY SURPRISES ME, NOW THAT YOU HAVE REVEALED YOURSELF TO BE ONE OF THOSE THAT TAKES REFUGE IN SARCASM WHEN HIS REASON FAILS HIM). YOU ARE TRYING TO CATCH ME IN YOUR RUSTY OLD TRAP: HOW CAN IT BE TRUE THAT NOTHING IS TRUE? LET ME CLARIFY, THEN: THERE IS NO TRUTH BUT WHAT MEN ARE PERSUADED OF. THEREFORE, WHERE TRUTH IS DEFINED AS A THING APART FROM MENS PERSUASIONS, IT MUST BE SAID THAT SUCH A THING IS NOT.

THAT SAID, I CHALLENGE YOU, MR. SOLWAY, TO OFFER UP ONE TRUTH OF WHICH YOU ARE NOT PERSUADED, OR ONE STATEMENT OF WHICH YOU ARE PERSUADED, BUT AT THE SAME TIME HOLD TO BE FALSE. FAILING TO DO SO, YOU WILL FAIL TO PERSUADE ME AND WILL, THEREFORE, FAIL TO SPEAK TRUTH.

joel knoll · Post by **joel knoll** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:48 am

si je l'avais dit en francais, vous ridicule je?

joel knoll · Post by **joel knoll** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:51 am

o in italiano?

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:29 pm

ksolway wrote:
joel knoll wrote:there is no truth; there is only conviction, of varying degrees of strength. there is no demonstration; there is only persuasion.
If this is only your current personal conviction, which you don't believe to be true, then it's not very persuasive to me.

the mind has no authority except that which it bestows upon itself
. . . and this you don't believe to be true, but you have persuaded yourself of your own conviction?

Ahh the sweet sight of universal(and thus self-referencing) statements imploding due to internal contradiction. It brings a tear to my eye. This is what makes it all worthwhile.

joel knoll · Post by **joel knoll** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:43 pm

Cry, cry, cry. You're almost as dense as Kevin Solway. Let me clarify for you as I did for him: There is no truth but what men are persuaded of; where truth is defined as a thing apart from mens persuasions, it must be said that such a thing does not exist. there is no "internal contradiction" in this argument. i have not said that nothing is true, but that there is no truth that is not also necessarily the persuasion of a particular mind. i challenge you, as i did Mr. Solway, to offer me one truth of which you are not persuaded, or one statement of which you are persuaded, but at the same time hold to be false.

joel knoll · Post by **joel knoll** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:17 pm

you will also recognize, jason and kevin, that although the argument given by me is self-referencing, it does not make implicit or explicit exception for itself. furthermore, if there is an absolute truth, then falsity and error cannot be consistently accounted for. if there is an absolute truth, whence the multiplicity of persuasions regarding its content? you can only answer that some minds are more sapient than others, which is only to beg the question. that truth is not very absolute, which is at all susceptible to doubt. any postulation of the existence of absolute truth is a petitio principii.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:49 pm

joel knoll wrote:There is no truth but what men are persuaded of

It all boils down to how you define "truth".

I personally define truth differently to yourself, since I define truth to be independent of what men are persuaded of.

For example, according to my definition, if all men were completely insane their beliefs would not even touch upon truth. That is quite as it should be.

By contrast, a wise person would be conscious of truth, but would not be the cause of it.

Take the case where there is no conscious life in the Universe - ie, no minds. According to your definition there could be no truth at such a time. The evolution of minds would therefore never happen, since the truth of evolution (or cause and effect, and change) would not be.

It is only because of the truth of evolution (or cause and effect) that minds come into being.

Strictly speaking, nothing is independent of anything else, but that doesn't mean that "A" alters that which is "not-A", just because the two are interdependent.

KS

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:04 pm

joel knoll wrote:if there is an absolute truth, then falsity and error cannot be consistently accounted for.

Again, it depends how you define "falsity and error".

I define falsity and error as the belief that "A" is in fact "not-A". I can personally account for such errors, and if I am wise, then my accounting is correct.

if there is an absolute truth, whence the multiplicity of persuasions regarding its content?

There is no multiplicity of persuasions regarding its content. All wise people agree completely on the nature of absolute truth. By contrast, ignorant people have a multiplicity of persuasions regarding a whole range of beliefs they all label "absolute truth". But ignorant people necessarily know nothing about absolute truth, by definition, and therefore they cannot have any opinion regarding it.

you can only answer that some minds are more sapient than others, which is only to beg the question.

Some minds are more wise than others, yes. But that is not begging the question. The reason being that there is no question. The question only exists for ignorant people, since wise people already know the answer.

Is there a question as to whether A=A? Not to wise people there isn't.

that truth is not very absolute, which is at all susceptible to doubt.

Since it is only doubted by the ignorant, the doubt doesn't amount to much.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:23 am

Joel,

i challenge you, as i did Mr. Solway, to offer me one truth of which you are not persuaded, or one statement of which you are persuaded, but at the same time hold to be false.

This is a meaningless challenge for anyone who values logic and truth.

If I am not persuaded by a particular truth-claim, it is because the reasoning underpinning it hasn't convinced me. It automatically falls into the category of "speculation", and I will treat it with the grain of salt it deserves. Until this can be rectified, it will never attain the status of truth in my eyes.

Similarly, if I am persuaded that a truth-claim is irrefutably true by the force of the reasoning involved, there is no way I, as a lover of truth, am going to think of it as false.

So your challenge doesn't make any sense to me.

If a piece of knowledge is irrefutably true, then it is our responsibility as conscious beings to acknowledge it and to incorporate it into our lives. In other words, it is an ethical act to recognize and affirm truth. And conversely, it is cowardly and unethical not to affirm it.

Stop hiding beyond your academic scripts, Joel, and deal with the concrete example of an irrefutable truth that I gave you - namely, that Reality is not nothing whatsoever. Being persuaded by this truth is simply a matter of opening your mind to the logic of it. Do you have the courage to do this?

-

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:46 pm

joel knoll wrote:that truth is not very absolute, which is at all susceptible to doubt.

You can doubt anything you want to, but just because you can do it doesn't mean that all doubt is rational or useful.

Tord · Post by **Tord** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:38 am

The simple fact that you're actually having two discussions at once, seems to have escaped your limited attention. Mr. Solway tried to rectify this by ponting out that there's a difference between truth in itself and the truth humans can possibly know. But when he follows with: "all wise people agree completely on the nature of absolute truth" he has immediately forgotten his own reasoning. If one were to ask him who these "wise people" are, I fear he will list those who promotes a certain view on what this might be, i.e. those agreeing with him.

And poor Mr. Quinn is hopelessly lost in the absolute belief of his truth. "...if I am persuaded that a truth-claim is irrefutably true by the forces of reasoning, there is no way I... am going to think it is false." And of course he has never for second thought that he just might be wrong. To completely belive in ones own incapassity for making mistakes must be very comforting. Sadly, that is an option for only the most ignorant among us. And Mr. Quinn of course.

Among all this absurd belief in total, final, and definitive truth, I'm starting to like unknown's gnostic ramblings more and more.

bert · Post by **bert** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:58 am

Still the same discussion with the same sights as 3 weeks ago...but no surprise at all.

It let me remind of the saying by a wise man:
reactions are often worse than the thing reacted against.

Not the first time,but again:ALL IS ILLUSION.

Everything comes as through negative.
So KNOW that there are no final conclusions.
YET we are born to believe in means to an ultimate.A final rendering comes from your desire.

The great human factor in life is DECEPTION,and you are deceived.
There are innumerous attempts to get behind the thing and rationalise the unclarifiable,yet we never do!
Our amnesia covers to much,we CAN NOT KNOW 'birth'.

Yes, wisdom is very desirable.There is that degree of art.Equality.

I suggest one first tries to understand that "all is illusion",so that one knows that ONE CAN NOT KNOW.

from then on one has the key to the beginning of knowledge - this where knowledge really begins.
The acceptance of all things.
AN EQUATION ALWAYS EQUAL.

DHodges · Post by **DHodges** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:25 am

bert wrote:I suggest one first tries to understand that "all is illusion",so that one knows that ONE CAN NOT KNOW.

If "All is illusion", then isn't it more the case that there is nothing to know, rather than that one can not know?

If you know that it's an illusion, not real, there's nothing more there to 'really' know (other than the fact of it being an illusion).

sevens · Post by **sevens** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:01 am

A=A is the foundation of what we experience as mind.

It is, consciousness.

The illusion of reality helps one to realize that everything we personally experience, is a product of what we perceive with our mind.

These tools are the cornerstones of enlightenment.

Meditation, introspection and self-awareness are equally important. Without a direct knowledge of your self, you aren't able to truly experience your own mind.

When we think of things existing apart from our own mind, we separate ourselves from our mind.

In that sense, nothing exists.

bert · Post by **bert** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:02 am

DHodges wrote:
bert wrote:I suggest one first tries to understand that "all is illusion",so that one knows that ONE CAN NOT KNOW.
If "All is illusion", then isn't it more the case that there is nothing to know, rather than that one can not know?

If you know that it's an illusion, not real, there's nothing more there to 'really' know (other than the fact of it being an illusion).

indeed,there is nothing to know.Nothing to perceive as an absolute ...at least,in as much that one can not know - there is a constant denying factor within the mind;everything comes as through negative;deception awaits subtle.No final conclusion anywhere."It's like alice in wonderland."
So we get the reality of illusion as one delusion falsifying another.
What does a poem tell me about math or measuring earthly dimensions or a butterfly eathing on an apple.What does philosophy tell me about cooking food and eating it?The binairy codes of a pc and the softness of a towel?

Which implies that we ,altough not conceiving directly from 'the source' ,can assemble a negative which undirectly renders us info to make things workable ,the belief must now only digest it.
Once digested it becomes an automata.Such is the task of the close union between belief,will and desire.

Therefore ,I belief in the power of belief.

So there are quite some things to know.
HOW COME?
It works in all ways everything and nothing is essential to thruth,since 'all things are true'.
How can anything be untrue?
It might appear so,because we often can not relate it in the way it should be,for us to belief it.
That's why getting out of a belief system can be quite hard.It happens automaticly.You are trained to do so,and then it will appear as such,without selfconsciousness completely involved.Deception awaits us.

So maybe there is nothing to really know,but one can be partly strip himself of the 'coat' that is holding him to have fun;make him do desired things;make things workable...What is there to belief but in Self?And self is the negation of completeness as reality.Zombie-zenist,wishful thinker,materialist,generalizationalist,...hordes of school all make things workable by having to make use of that which they deny.
Do they know that "all is illusion"?

There are scientists who say:there is no 'deep reality'.
But of course there is a deep reality.
it is just that you must know that one can not know,and then we at least know that we can not know.When you know so,than you know that you DO NOT KNOW ,then can you see that one can still MAKE STATEMENTS of 'deep reality'.

sevens · Post by **sevens** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:10 am

Ultimately, your own mind is all that can be known.

bert · Post by **bert** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:24 am

sevens wrote:Ultimately, your own mind is all that can be known.

cogito ergo sum.

I belief I will be forever ego.

sevens · Post by **sevens** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:44 am

But, not if you attempt to understand your own ego.

I believe that in order to reach new frontiers, you must, know what you know.

Tord · Post by **Tord** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:49 am

"I think therefore I am" is the normal translation of the old maxim, but I've always wondered if this is correct. Word for word it can translate something like: thinking=being. What this says nothing of, is what kind of being which does the thinking. Not that I subscribe to the notion, but someone has theorized that all seemingly seperate entities really but one complex being. And if so, that possibly faulty rendering gains paramount importance.

Anyone here with the latin skills to enlighten me on this?

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:12 am

Tord wrote:Mr. Solway tried to rectify this by ponting out that there's a difference between truth in itself and the truth humans can possibly know.

I was saying was that truth is not dependent on what we merely think truth is. I didn't say that humans cannot fully know truth.

But when he follows with: "all wise people agree completely on the nature of absolute truth" he has immediately forgotten his own reasoning.

No, it is in fact fully consistent. The truth remains unchanged by the thoughts of wise people, but wise people necessarily know the truth - by definition.

sevens · Post by **sevens** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:28 am

A buddha, by entering into his own nature, can enter into "the larger mind."

unknown · Post by **unknown** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:43 am

How do you know that mr elightend Sevens?

Tord · Post by **Tord** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:46 am

Yes, apparently I didn't read your posting well enough Mr. Solway, so you were right to correct me. And then it naturally follows that the conclusion I drew from the statement also became invalid. But now I at least know where you stand on the "can we know the whole truth" issue.

As I mentioned in another thread I can hardly belive what reasons humans have to maintain the antrophocentric worldview. Not that I disregard how painful it must be for someone who is so sure of his own importance as being to admit that he is nothing before the All, but when something is so obvious how can you deny it just becase you need to feel that you matter. But that somewhat resembles the discussion I've had with religious people, and despite that all proofs points to the fact that there are no gods, it always ends with me wanting to bash my head against a wall.

Although you (hopefully) have discarded such childish notions, still you remain victims to the rest of their teachings. Carved into your feeble minds.

GENIUS FORUMS

A=A

Capitals

What is "truth"

All is illusion

Reality

Re: All is illusion

A=A

Re: A=A

Ego and Self

Sum