GENIUS FORUMS

Truth is In accordance with what IS. So when one is able to perceive what IS, one can easily discern what is not in relation to it. I know this sounds complicated especially with defining what IS. But the way we perceive, with learnt 'subjective' patterns 'blinds' us to what we think is real and what actually is.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Or do you mean to say truth is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty? If that's what you mean, I'm even more confused. How can two people have different opinions as to what's true, without at least one of them being wrong?

In a way truth is in the eye of the beholder, but only insofar as 'how' we perceive what is presented to us from the 3d realm. People may have a different opinion of their own truth and reality but there is only what IS. If different opinions lead others to 'judge' or dis-respect, then it certainly is like banging ones head against a brick wall, for in deep discussions of truth there is only ever different understanding, not concepts of right or wrong. How can right and wrong even be 'acussed' when two cannot even agree on what angle they see things from in the first place. What follows would be a playground 'slanging' match. In true objectivity one is able to 'perceive' others empty accusations which serve no purpose to further a discussion other than 'ego' boosting, making out that either one is better than the other. We are all the same, all have preceptions and all a mind to logically reason with.

When i talk of multifaceted i am refering to the facts that in accordance with what IS one may perceive from the microcosmic to the macro. with the same 'laws' if you will of what IS, like unfolding the nature of reality around you. Within anothers confusion one may see it from the angle of truth for from this perspective we have stepped out from the box that we are blinded by, and can see that the once 'confusion' now serves to form new understanding in accordance with what really just IS.

If one asserts that something is false, then they should be able to back up their assertion with understanding of why, they 'think' it is so. Remember we all 'think' in accordance with 'how' we perceive, and with the 'infinite' logical , reason, perceptions are also infinite.. The word of wisdom that IS truth. If we can obtain universal UNDERSTANDING of why and how we perceive what we do then we would all make progress with this truth. As it is many. within subjectivity cannot 'see' beyond the subjective nature of ones mind, within illusion. I know this is paradoxical and seems somewhat confusing but when certain principles or rules are defined, the mind sees from an objective stand point.

I was lucky with regards to the fact that I had a glimpse of this objectivity laid bare before me, and so could 'see' my way to 'define' 'how' to perceive amongst the 'confusion'. When one is within subjectivity and wanting to transcend this, it is helpful to know the 'light' which guides the way. Otherwise it is seemingly a vast confusing array, likened to trying to extract salt from water without evaporation. Metaphors help immensely in describing what IS. My work is the journey from the vantage point of the objective, defining the rules for this separation.. until one then realises that these components do actually form the whole as a completed 'multifaceted' radiant colourful jigsaw and not a 1000 jumbled 'blank' pieces that do not seem to fit together. I am aware of what connotations my work professes, and as mentioned in this thread or possibly another I am currently working on a 1st draft, which takes the reader on a journey through Self belief, personal realisation and understanding of the awareness of the 'picture', piecing the parts before then painting the image. One may look within themselves and it is my intention to imbue clarity for the individual on a personal level, including that of an awareness of others from the simple to the sublime, which directly effects 'how' we look at our reality, and how we perceive it in relation to us doing so. Thoughts are always our own but why we are led to think things in the first place sheds so much light which we can apply to our direct personal experiences of ourselves as one individual expression of ISness. We are many in expression of the one (Self) and One in expression of the many.

Amandaxxx

you'd understand that the rules and laws of communication are different
I do understand this and this is why I say what I do!

I stated the word 'judge' in another thread, or this one previously and discussed it... that is why it is in apostrophies.

I do not expect you to understand me, but i explain in my previous post in response to the one before this WHY that is so. We look at things so 'narrowly' and I am only here to help. Take what you will, rubbish what you will it does not affect my knowing. Assert what you will, I have as stated already defined the reasons WHY people 'throw' empty words which serve no purpose.

Alex Jacob wrote:mirrors your own expressed certainties about what is 'good' and 'bad'.

I am aware of where Im at And I am my own miror Alex. What is good or bad? Ive already stated this.

I havnt gone through the whole of your post this time and logically adressed every little thing, I 'feel' a lot I have already said but the main reason is I am going to bed now.

Amandaxxx

Ps if you want to 'judge' then do so with objective analysis by questioning evidence from others and come to your own realisations as to why you 'think' something is so. Within academia I feel however that ones opinion is equally as valid as their own as all are subjective to that individual. What i assert with my work is as in previous post pure OBJECTIVITY.

Amanda wrote:As it is many. within subjectivity cannot 'see' beyond the subjective nature of ones mind, within illusion. I know this is paradoxical and seems somewhat confusing but when certain principles or rules are defined, the mind sees from an objective stand point."

I know you talked a lot about the journey and the need for metaphors after this, so this question might be a little too direct. But I'm a sucker for simplicity, so I'll ask it anyway: which principles and rules need to be defined?

Alex Jacob wrote:"It is simply true that two contradictory statements cannot both be true."

1) Life is often very painful.
2) Life is often very pleasurable.

1) The moon is very small.
2) The moon is very large.

Et cetera.

I think this neatly explains why you have so much invested in aesthetics. Your capacity for logic is enough to make any man turn to music and women.

...

I am not 'invested' in aesthetics, you sodomizer of sheep, and it is a fool's position to suppose that a living being can divest himself from 'investment' in the female of his species, or the 'feminine principal'.

Aesthetic is also just a word, but I am not talking about a word, I am talking about a whole part of what we are composed of, and where we are taking place.

If your 'logics' are so damned useful, you'd have the intelligence to discern what I am referring to. I am not priveleging one against the other---that is your game. It is a fool's game.

I certainly know enough about common-sense logic (I do not study logic, it is true) to discern the value of logic in many areas. What I was trying to refer to is difficult, shadow, borderline areas where 'logical precision' does not work so well. If 'logic' was so useful it would enable a person, any person, all people, to arrive at the same conclusion when confronted with the variegation of life. But these 'conclusions', even by serious and thoughtful people are not uniform. There is tremendous range and difference. Therefor, logic is useful within certain spheres, perhaps limited spheres, or abstract spheres.

But 'logic' as you seem to define it is not and cannot be the ultimate deciding 'tool' for navigation in life. As I see it---but this does not negate the importance of logic or reasoning---a term that may be more useful, that may form the bridge, might be also akin to art, as in 'the art of life', savoir faire, etc.

You create 'straw-men' to argue against and I suppose that serves some function for you. But when I construct a critique of your position, I base it in your lack of artful (not aesthetic but artful) skill in navigating ideas. The core of your position is lopsided, it seems to me. Your conclusions are thus often skewed.

You do not seem sufficiently prepared to operate responsibly and intelligently in the niche you've carved out for yourself...

Now, the funny part is that you, like Amanda, can refer to an Absolutist position to protect yourself from any assault. That position is your claim of 'enlightenment'. It is oddly enough the same game, only handled by different factions.

it is a fool's position to suppose that a living being can divest himself from 'investment' in the female of his species, or the 'feminine principal'

They could do it if they had a sense of humour.