The Value of Truth + Truth & Gender

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:33 am

We all go naked when we can, darling. :) It's 2 C (36 F) outside at the moment.

EDIT: ...and that's unusually warm here, for this time of year...

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:35 am

Curse that global warming!

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:36 am

Elizabeth wrote:

DQ: Trying to equate this behaviour with the wearing of basic clothing is yet another lie.

E: No, it is a perception. What line of "reasoning" caused you to deduce that it was a lie?

It is a lie because you're trying to pretend that make-up is a necessity in the way that basic clothing is. It is a way of justifying to yourself why you engage in it.

Basic clothing is a necessity because we are hairless creatures who need protection from the elements, and also to hide our genitalia, thus minimizing our sexual displays and keeping sex compartmentalized from social view. Make-up, on the other hand, is very much in the realm of sexuality and ego game-playing.

-

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:48 am

If we didn't wear clothes in this climate we'd all be dead from skin cancer in no time flat.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:04 am

Elizabeth:

Quinn and Dan are correct on this one.

I'm pro clothes.
I'm pro shelter.
I'm pro food.
And I'm pro technology.

As long as they are minimal and of the highest quality, everything else is vanity.

Makeup is vanity, a lie, an unnecessary commondity. It's existence only makes life harder for the masses because it's just one more meaningless product people need to toil to manufacture.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:06 am

Kow, like I said, "in certain weather."

David Quinn wrote: It is a way of justifying to yourself why you engage in it.

If you had read this thread carefully, you would have phrased that in the past tense.

My point in this debate regarding whether or not make-up is a lie is the understanding the receiver of the communication has of the truth. If you look at acid's avitar, you can see that woman is wearing makeup. The truth is, she is wearing makeup.

If you look at your illusion/reality statement, if someone does not believe that everything is an illusion because they are taking that literally, by your lesson plan, they will never be introduced to the concept of what real Reality is. Another outcome is that a budding philosopher will accept that it is all an illusion, then apon hearing that the one who convinced him that it is all an illusion lied to him and it is actually all reality, he will note that the belief in the "master" was based on an illusion, that the master's "mastery" is just an illusion, and not only is there no reality, but he is insane. Believing one's self to be insane is neither conducive to wisdom nor to (I know you hate this word - please get over your hatred) "functionality" in life.

I am not convinced that explaining from the begining that Reality is not what it appears to be from the materialist perspective would not be more effective and more easily accepted by a greater number of people.

Saying what you mean is truth. It is difficult enough through human and language limitations to convey things accuratly as it is - intentional misdirection is only further confounding.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:59 am

They're stepping stones, Elizabeth, not misdirections. You cannot teach 2 to a person who has yet to understand 1. You cannot teach the ultimate to someone who has yet to understand the conventional. Some ideas are valid without being what is ultimately true; this is partly because no particular idea is what is ultimately true. You can't simply "tell" someone what Ultimate Truth is - it has to realised, and for that to happen the mind has to be nurtured to a point where such realisation is potentially possible.

Relativity didn't make Newtonian Physics untrue.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:10 pm

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Makeup is vanity, a lie, an unnecessary commondity. It's existence only makes life harder for the masses because it's just one more meaningless product people need to toil to manufacture.

I agree that it either is or can be a vanity. I am not convinced that it is a lie (well, maybe it is a lie to retarded people and children). I agree that it's existence only makes life harder for the masses because it's just one more meaningless product people need to toil to manufacture. In the overall, larger perspective, it is an unnecessary commodity. If not for its associatied health hazards, I would still question whether there was an appropriate time or place for makeup, thereby phasing it out of existence.

I agree that makeup is stupid, I just don't agree that it is a lie.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:17 pm

Elizabeth,

DQ: It is a way of justifying to yourself why you engage in it.

E: If you had read this thread carefully, you would have phrased that in the past tense.

The way I read it, you have stopped putting on make-up (for the moment) because you've found out that make-up is carcinogenic. That is, you've temporarily put aside one cluster of egotistical concerns (that of using make-up to appear seductive) in favour of another (that of minimizing future suffering). In other words, the ego game-playing is still alive and well.

If you look at your illusion/reality statement, if someone does not believe that everything is an illusion because they are taking that literally, by your lesson plan, they will never be introduced to the concept of what real Reality is. Another outcome is that a budding philosopher will accept that it is all an illusion, then apon hearing that the one who convinced him that it is all an illusion lied to him and it is actually all reality, he will note that the belief in the "master" was based on an illusion, that the master's "mastery" is just an illusion, and not only is there no reality, but he is insane.

When we teach children physics, we first introduce them to the Newtonian paradigm, before introducing them to the more modern paradigms of Einstein and the new physics. Even though the new physics supercedes Newtonian physics, and fundamentally falsifies it, we still recognize that children need to master Newtonian physics before they can tackle the more advanced material. The untrained mind has no means of comprehending the new physics. It needs to have the building blocks of Newtonian physics in place first.

A similar principle applies to the teaching of Truth. One needs to lead the beginner through various conceptual stages before he is ready to comprehend ultimate truth. You can't just push him into the deep end straight away. It won't mean anything to him.

I am not convinced that explaining from the begining that Reality is not what it appears to be from the materialist perspective would not be more effective and more easily accepted by a greater number of people.

Saying what you mean is truth. It is difficult enough through human and language limitations to convey things accuratly as it is - intentional misdirection is only further confounding.

"Saying what you mean" is a not necessarily a form of expressing truth. For example, a fundamentalist Christian who is trapped within large mental blocks and makes no genuine efforts to seek out the truth may very well "say what he means" when he stands on his pulpit and preaches about how sinners will spend eternity in hell. But since his entire life is a life is a lie from top to bottom, it doesn't really mean anything.

As far as I'm concerned, "expressing the truth" means stimulating people out of their comfortable thought-processes and skillfully awakening them to their true nature. This can be achieved in countless different ways, depending on the circumstances. Ramakrishna wearing a slipper on his head can be an expression of truth. Kevin Solway urging people to put their faith in reason can be an expression of truth. Huang Po urging people to abandon concepts and reasoning can also be an expression of truth. It all depends on the circumstances.

-

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:28 pm

David Quinn wrote: The way I read it, you have stopped putting on make-up (for the moment) because you've found out that make-up is carcinogenic. That is, you've temporarily put aside one cluster of egotistical concerns (that of using make-up to appear seductive) in favour of another (that of minimizing future suffering). In other words, the ego game-playing is still alive and well.

It is our responsibility to take care of our health. And if you read carefully, you would have noted that I used make-up to appear acceptable, not seductive. (I'll grant you that was a "feminine" choice, nevertheless).

I will consider the "stepping stones" explananations (given by both of you) further.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:28 pm

Dan wrote:

Relativity didn't make Newtonian Physics untrue.

Good analogy! :)

I think relativity does make Newtonian physics untrue in a fundamental sense. For example, the Newtonian view that gravity is an attractive force is falsified by the Einsteinian view that gravity is really curved space.

Mathematically, Newtonian physics is still an effective theory within its proper context, just as the view that everything is an illusion is effective within its proper context. The equations still work for most practical purposes, even though they spring from out-dated concepts.

-

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:44 pm

Relativity is a paradigm shift towards a more complete understanding, but we still use Newtonian physics to put men on the moon and to send probes to places like Jupiter. In the same way we can use a notion like causality to put men's minds deeper into reality. I think Ezilabeth's basic problem here is that she thinks that the nature of Reality can just be stated outright like any conventional piece of knowledge.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:51 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:she thinks that the nature of Reality can just be stated outright like any conventional piece of knowledge.

Well, that is an accurate summary of what I'm thinking, and I am considering if and how that could be a problematic presentation for others.

Do I think all that differently from others that I "get it" directly, or am I missing a step?

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:55 pm

Can you rephrase that question a little; I'm not sure I understand it.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:03 pm

I may have combined too many questions into one.

How is my thought pattern different from others'?
Is this difference significant?
Am I less close to perceiving Ultimate Reality than I judge myself to be perceiving It?
Where on the path to understanding do you believe that I am?
Am I forgetting some step(s) that I took along the path long ago, before I even realized that I was on the path?
If I can understand as much of UR directly as I believe I can, why can't most people?

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:25 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:How is my thought pattern different from others'?

I'm not sure it is, really. There's an openess to your mind that is different to most people, but I haven't decided yet if that is a good openness or not. That is, I haven't decided if it an active or passive openness.

Am I less close to perceiving Ultimate Reality than I judge myself to be perceiving It?

Yes. The proof of that lies in your having to ask me that question.

Where on the path to understanding do you believe that I am?

At the beginning. Don't be discouraged by that.

Am I forgetting some step(s) that I took along the path long ago, before I even realized that I was on the path?

I think you may have been on a path, but not the path. Clarifying the nature of the path is actually an important part of it. Exposure to the ideas expressed here could prove helpful in that.

If I can understand as much of UR directly as I believe I can, why can't most people?

See, that's another question that you should be able to answer for yourself and the fact that you can't shows you have yet to understand some essential things - such as the nature of ego.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:31 pm

Now, there's a topic, Elizabeth!

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:39 pm

The nature of the ego, you mean? Well, yes, it is quite a topic, but really all philosohpy is essentially a study of the ego.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:57 pm

kowtaaia wrote:Now, there's a topic, Elizabeth!

I ran a search on "ego" looking for all the threads on this board that contained the word "ego." Out of the 279 matches, I went through a few threads that looked like they might be promising. I'm not finding one that really delineates the nature of the ego per se.

As Dan kind of indicated, it's a pretty broad topic.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:05 pm

I'll have a look over the various discussions recorded in Genius News and see which ones I think might be most profitable on that score.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:06 pm

Thank you Dan.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:12 pm

Actually, that was a pretty dumb thing for me to say since they're all profitable on that score. Saying what the ego is is a one sentence thing. Most of the discussions deal with appreciating its various manifestations. Maybe a thread on the basics of loss/gain and grasping/attachments might be a useful venture since they are the core points.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:30 pm

I'm about halfway through them all anyway, plus I keep digging through old threads. It wasn't a dumb thing to say to me; I took it to mean as a highlighted review, not a substitution for a full reading.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:35 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:The nature of the ego, you mean? Well, yes, it is quite a topic, but really all philosohpy is essentially a study of the ego.

Well then, what you call 'philosophy', is what most people call 'psychology'. What does the ego have to do with ultimate reality? Nothing!

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:45 pm

How can one look at what the ego is and isn't without also looking at what Reality is and isn't? I think there is a metaphysical dimension to the discussion of the ego, if only because most metaphysics is just an expression of ego!