Know Thyself?

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94683 wrote:

I think one big difference is that I believe that I have seen yours, this world of finite practicality. I don't however believe that you have yet witnessed mine, Eternal transcendence. Now I know that you are thinking that is because it is not there. But are you sure?
Subjectivity9

And this, I believe, would be called a fallacy of hasty generalization. Perhaps I have experienced the world of eternal transcendence, but rejected it, or perhaps I've just delayed my return to it until I have accomplished what I need to do in this world of finite practicality.

I'm not going to say one way or the other. I'm just sayin' . . . . As long as we're playing "what if".

@richrf,

TT MAN,

I will have to get back to you when I find the time.

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

I just got done with my exam on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. I never was good at it, but I think I am slowly figuring it out now that I have a better understanding of contravariant and covariant notation. But now I have time to reply!

Subjectivity9;94579 wrote:

Well Absolution,
Skepticism makes me think of another approach, what the Hindu's call Neti/Neti (Not this/Not this.) A skeptics approach IMO isn't so much a statement of truth, but rather a method to showing that other 'statements of truth' simply can't stand up to close scrutiny.

Yes you pretty much figured out the essence of Pyrrhonic skepticism. The academics tried to make a global justification for skepticism, and why no statements of truth would ever stand up to close scrutiny, but those turn into paradoxes, a bit and questions not necessary the validity of their logic, but logic in general or the definitions that are traditionally held. So this tends to be talked about more with modern professors as they are given arguments that they can mentally play with.

Subjectivity9;94579 wrote:

Bodhidharma (5th century Buddhist monk crediting for bring Zen to China) spent a good number of years in a cave facing a wall and searching out truth. (I believe that this is a metaphor for going deeply into the mind in search of the truth and after years finally hitting a wall...no matter, anyway.) He claims finally to have found the Self or gotten Enlightened. On being questioned as to what he had finally found out, (or the actual question, "Who are you?") his now famous answer was, "I have no idea."

Of course you have to understand how Zen talks to get a glimmer as to what he meant IMO. He said that, "Self isn't an idea. But, I certainly have found it."

As you may be beginning to see, much of my personal background is in Eastern Philosophy and Religions. So forgive me if I sound like a newcomer to these things, sometimes.

I have always heard that there were unanswerable questions in Buddhism, like questions that simply cannot be answered or is it considered the question itself assuming what it is not considered true? Thus the question is incorrect in the first place.

Subjectivity9;94579 wrote:

Plato was definitely an Academic since he started the Academy. But I don't think he was such in a Skeptical form. He was much more willing to say what is and what is not than Socrates was. It seems like Socrates's skepticism thus refusal to accept traditional wisdom is what got him killed. Plato generally diverted away from Socrates in this area and generally avoided the same fate. And this is shown as Socrates often came up with methods of questioning and methods to seek, while Plato tried to establish hierarchies and the good and bad and what not. This could be why Socrates played with ideas a bit more without worrying about being correct or criticism. So it was a shock to historians at first that the Middle Academy went Skeptical contrary to Plato and Aristotle, but it seems they were siding with Socrates most of all.

Subjectivity9;94579 wrote:

Peter Suber definitely described skepticism in the way of pulling out all cards such that pure truth would remain (or that one was in a position to find or accept it). And circularity is a common theme used by Academic skeptics, they seen justifications going either of two ways, to an infinite extent, or looping in on them selves (circular). They called circular justifications begging the question, but philosophers have argued that nature may be circular in this way, so the academics did have their work cut out for them. Skepticism is a lot about putting oneself to either exercize freedom of thought and/or putting oneself in the position to accept a truth (no matter how weird in may be).

I know very little about eastern religions but it does seem Zen Buddhism and Skepticism do share many familiar themes?

@Absolution phil,

Absolution;94844 wrote:

Yes you pretty much figured out the essence of Pyrrhonic skepticism. The academics tried to make a global justification for skepticism, and why no statements of truth would ever stand up to close scrutiny, but those turn into paradoxes, a bit and questions not necessary the validity of their logic, but logic in general or the definitions that are traditionally held. So this tends to be talked about more with modern professors as they are given arguments that they can mentally play with.

I always thought that skepticism denied the possibility of knowledge, not of truth. Am I wrong?

@richrf,

Ken,

In a way that you are right, there is definitely a difference between seeing X and seeing that is an X. In a way you are making my point for me.

Don’t cry. I know you didn’t mean to. ; ^ )

That is exactly what the Transcendental Mystics have been saying all along. We are always looking right at the face of Self/Spirit, and for whatever reasons (some blame the mind for simply being the wrong tool) we think that we are only seeing finitude. (The dream or an illusion). “Wrongful Identification (Buddhist term) with finitude, is in essence actually “Not knowing thyself.”

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 09:09 AM ----------

Welcome back, Absolution,

I was missing you. :^ )

I really enjoyed your last posting here. It both educated me and got me thinking. But alas if I don’t go out and shop for food, I will have to learn to subsist on the sunshine of your company. ; ^ )

But as Arnold says, “I’ll be back.”

One thing I thought you might find amusing. Someone once said,

“You can always know a person who has found Ultimate Truth and is speaking from it. He is the guy that is being driven out of town.” (Or deaded.)

I might add to that, “You can always tell when someone is saying exactly what the crowd wants to hear. He is the one surrounded in loud applause.”

That is my thought for the day. HA! Well, maybe I will squeeze out a few more.

Subjectivity9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94885 wrote:

Ken,

In a way that you are right, there is definitely a difference between seeing X and seeing that is an X. In a way you are making my point for me.

Don't cry. I know you didn't mean to. ; ^ )

That is exactly what the Transcendental Mystics have been saying all along. We are always looking right at the face of Self/Spirit, and for whatever reasons (some blame the mind for simply being the wrong tool) we think that we are only seeing finitude. (The dream or an illusion). "Wrongful Identification (Buddhist term) with finitude, is in essence actually "Not knowing thyself."

Subjectivity9

I think the mind is the right tool, and that the wrong tool many times is the brain instead.

As is well portrayed in the allegorical cave the brain is too preconditioned to be reliable in discerning the actual truth as opposed to what it tries to tell us we are seeing.

This works with the identification process of self recognition as well where when the brain is used as the tool of knowing self, it only recognizes what it has been pre programmed to acknowledge, and without further indepth analysis using the mind one cannot see the truth of their self reality. The brain it seems is forever biologically keyed tto reveal the biological alone.

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94885 wrote:

Ken,

In a way that you are right, there is definitely a difference between seeing X and seeing that is an X. In a way you are making my point for me.

Don't cry. I know you didn't mean to. ; ^ )

That is exactly what the Transcendental Mystics have been saying all along. We are always looking right at the face of Self/Spirit, and for whatever reasons (some blame the mind for simply being the wrong tool) we think that we are only seeing finitude. (The dream or an illusion). "Wrongful Identification (Buddhist term) with finitude, is in essence actually "Not knowing thyself."

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 09:09 AM ----------

"You can always know a person who has found Ultimate Truth and is speaking from it. He is the guy that is being driven out of town." (Or deaded.)

Subjectivity9

Yes, I could tell right away that I was just confirming your views. Oh well.

I am curious about something else. Are Ultimate Truth, and Absolute Truth the same thing? All these esoteric notions you keep talking about confuse me. (How about just Truth with the big 'T'. Where does it fit in?).

@richrf,

Truth with a big T is the actual truth, the rest is speculation and opinion.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;94893 wrote:

Truth with a big T is the actual truth, the rest is speculation and opinion.

If it is the "actual truth" like, "It is true that snow is white", then why spell it with a big 'T'? Should I write, "It is True that snow is white"?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;94894 wrote:

If it is the "actual truth" like, "It is true that snow is white", then why spell it with a big 'T'? Should I write, "It is True that snow is white"?

nope i agree with your supposition that the truth is not fragmentary and that there is no such thing as perceptional truth or degrees of truth. The truth is that which happened, which is, everything that opposes that is false.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;94864 wrote:

I always thought that skepticism denied the possibility of knowledge, not of truth. Am I wrong?

So the Academic Skeptics for the most part did deny the possibly of all knowledge, except that the knowledge of that there is none. And they would come up with ways to justify it. But definitions of knowledge and truth can become very similiar in cases especially though the history of skepticism, as skeptics have commented on knowledge, truth, true knowledge, and justified true belief all in a similar matter. So in cases they use it interchangeably. But if you say that knowledge is mere information and does not have to be off truth, it has been debated that the Pyrrhonic Skeptics accepted knowledge as information but not the truth of it. As an example Sextus Empiricus said one should go by appearances but suspend judgment on their true nature. In a way he is saying you can gather information (or a type of knowledge) from experiences but there is no truth in it (so one must suspend judgment). Modern Skeptics debate whether one should solely go by appearances. I myself don't think it is wholly justified to go by appearances, and I don't think Pyrrho and Socrates did as well which why at times they were described as mystics.

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 09:12 AM ----------

Subjectivity9;94885 wrote:

"You can always know a person who has found Ultimate Truth and is speaking from it. He is the guy that is being driven out of town." (Or deaded.)

I might add to that, "You can always tell when someone is saying exactly what the crowd wants to hear. He is the one surrounded in loud applause."

That is my thought for the day. HA! Well, maybe I will squeeze out a few more.

Subjectivity9

Those do seem like the case! Since the people's own truths tend to be quite fragmented in populations in general. So if you make claims to your own correctness many get offended. It is interesting that Skeptics in general did not practice much Sophistry, or tricking people with clever arguments to get good applause, as the academics were great debaters. In fact they seemed to piss people off as the Academics would debate both sides of an issue to the point that everyone was confused what was correct lol. It is said Carneades did that over the concept of justice when he traveled to Rome. He debated for it one day and the next debated against it.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;94896 wrote:

nope i agree with your supposition that the truth is not fragmentary and that there is no such thing as perceptional truth or degrees of truth. The truth is that which happened, which is, everything that opposes that is false.

Well, "truth" is a property of other things than just events. Truth is a property of statements, or (sometimes) of beliefs. But, I think that what Aristotle said, said it best. He wrote: "To say what is true is to say that what is, is, and to say that what is not, is not". So, does that mean that I don't have to spell "truth" with a big 'T' except at the beginning of a sentence?

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 12:27 PM ----------

Absolution;94898 wrote:

So the Academic Skeptics for the most part did deny the possibly of all knowledge, except that the knowledge of that there is none. And they would come up with ways to justify it. But definitions of knowledge and truth can become very similiar in cases especially though the history of skepticism, as skeptics have commented on knowledge, truth, true knowledge, and justified true belief all in a similar matter. So in cases they use it interchangeably. But if you say that knowledge is mere information and does not have to be off truth, it has been debated that the Pyrrhonic Skeptics accepted knowledge as information but not the truth of it. As an example Sextus Empiricus said one should go by appearances but suspend judgment on their true nature. In a way he is saying you can gather information (or a type of knowledge) from experiences but there is no truth in it (so one must suspend judgment). Modern Skeptics debate whether one should solely go by appearances. I myself don't think it is wholly justified to go by appearances, and I don't think Pyrrho and Socrates did as well which why at times they were described as mystics.

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 09:12 AM ----------

Those do seem like the case! Since the people's own truths tend to be quite fragmented in populations in general. So if you make claims to your own correctness many get offended. It is interesting that Skeptics in general did not practice much Sophistry, or tricking people with clever arguments to get good applause, as the academics were great debaters. In fact they seemed to piss people off as the Academics would debate both sides of an issue to the point that everyone was confused what was correct lol. It is said Carneades did that over the concept of justice when he traveled to Rome. He debated for it one day and the next debated against it.

I would think that there is a big difference between knowledge and truth. There are truths which are not known. For example, no one knows whether there are ETAs or there are no, ETA, but one of those alternatives is true. Of course if you know something, then that something is true, since knowledge implies truth. But not the converse. If something is true, it need not be known. Therefore, denying there is knowledge is not denying there is truth.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;94896 wrote:

nope i agree with your supposition that the truth is not fragmentary and that there is no such thing as perceptional truth or degrees of truth. The truth is that which happened, which is, everything that opposes that is false.

The God argument: energy lacking counterpart that constitutes the continuum of differentiated spacetime. In order for spacetime to continue, it is reproducible. The further from Origin, the lesser truth.

Is all truth, since removed from Origin, thereby gradual, or, "degreed"? And if this is 'true', is there a God Math, such as a pliable, Objective Equation, that Subjects can better know themselves, and the consequent effects each has, on unified Cause (see: Objective Equation)?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;94902 wrote:

I would think that there is a big difference between knowledge and truth. There are truths which are not known. For example, no one knows whether there are ETAs or there are no, ETA, but one of those alternatives is true. Of course if you know something, then that something is true, since knowledge implies truth. But not the converse. If something is true, it need not be known. Therefore, denying there is knowledge is not denying there is truth.

You are definitely correct in that analysis. For the most part skeptics attacked knowable truth. For the most part they did not comment on whether or not there could be in fact a truth, just the possibility of knowing it. And modern skeptics, including myself, for the most part do not make any claims about the existence or non-existence of truth in nature. Although one skeptic in the past seems to have, and that is Aenisidemus. Using his own interpretation of Pyrrho, it seems he believed that nature itself did not have a truth in it (which kind of bled into the Pyrrhonic skeptics a bit, but they avoided making that connection directly). But from this he later became a part of Heraclitism. So from observing no apparent truth in nature, he said that every object in nature has co-existing contrary qualities (which partially came from his tropes). Later skeptics, especially Sextus Empiricus defended that Skepticism was not in fact a stepping stone for Heraclitism and that Aenisidemus's step was based on unjustified assumptions about nature (i.e. the co-existence of contraries in everything).

@richrf,

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;94916 wrote:

Snow is white only until some dirty dog comes by and makes it yellow.

I am going to come up with a paper to write one of these days, just so I can cite that quotation from you lol. Hopefully I can cite it multiple times. My research professor had something like that cited from him, it was "Oil and water do not mix."

@richrf,

Absolution,

In Eastern Transcendent Mysticism there are many paradoxes, because there are many things that seem to be contradictory and yet at the same time are not. This is because they are both actually true. Like, “Finitude exists, but it isn’t Real.” Someone might say, “Doesn’t it really (real lee) exist?” : ^ )

This is easily explained. “Finitude exists as a mistaken notion.” Is a mistake real? Or is it temporary confusion?

Therefore when you see that you are mistaken in a particular viewpoint, that old viewpoint, being no longer useful, simply fades away like the phantom it is, only to be replaced by the “all new/new viewpoint.” (Like a hallucination or a mirage.) These exist but are not in themselves real.

Someone once said, “If everyone believes it, you can be sure of one thing. It most likely isn’t true.” : ^ )

Gautama Buddha was noted for not wanting to answer metaphysical question, not because he believed these questions to be a waste of time, but he was a great one for thinking, “First things first.” In other words, He often said, “First “Wake Up” (to your Eternal Self) and then see if you still require an answer to these questions. He fully realized that on “Awaken” all questions were answered.

Gautama had a brilliant mind, often referred to as being a “Diamond Mind.” (Both sharp and full of light.) What we might call, “as clear as a bell.” He had a real grasp of what the mind was and how it preformed. That is why on the moment of his enlightenment he said, “I know you Mara (AKA mind with a small m). He realized that mind took us on a merry chase with all of her questions, opinions, and speculations. ; ^ )

Gautama stopped his mental gymnastics, and looked directly at Spirit or Self. In doing this, all questions were answered. The veil of illusion fell away. And Dorothy, I mean Gautama, wasn’t in Kansas anymore.

This is a busy day for me, so I will finish answering your post later. I thought you might enjoy seeing what I had already.

Subjectivity9

@Absolution phil,

Absolution;94910 wrote:

You are definitely correct in that analysis. For the most part skeptics attacked knowable truth. For the most part they did not comment on whether or not there could be in fact a truth, just the possibility of knowing it. And modern skeptics, including myself, for the most part do not make any claims about the existence or non-existence of truth in nature. Although one skeptic in the past seems to have, and that is Aenisidemus. Using his own interpretation of Pyrrho, it seems he believed that nature itself did not have a truth in it (which kind of bled into the Pyrrhonic skeptics a bit, but they avoided making that connection directly). But from this he later became a part of Heraclitism. So from observing no apparent truth in nature, he said that every object in nature has co-existing contrary qualities (which partially came from his tropes). Later skeptics, especially Sextus Empiricus defended that Skepticism was not in fact a stepping stone for Heraclitism and that Aenisidemus's step was based on unjustified assumptions about nature (i.e. the co-existence of contraries in everything).

I don't know what you mean by "truth in nature". Beliefs, or statements have the property of being true when they correspond to some fact or state of affairs in the world. Truth is a dyadic relation between two 'entities", a statement, and a fact in the world. So, it makes no sense to talk about "truth in nature" as if truth were no a relation. As Aristotle put it, "To say of what is that it is, or to say of what is not, that it is not, is to say what is true". So, for example, if I say, "The cat is on the mat" and the cat is on the mat, I have said what is true; and if I say "the cat is not on the mat" and the cat is not on the mat, I have said what is true: But, on the other hand, if I say that the cat is on the mat, and the cat is not on the mat; or if I say, the cat is not on the mat, but the cat is on the mat, then I have said what is false.

But, none of this has to do with knowledge. I can say what is true, but not know that what I said was true was, in fact, true.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;94941 wrote:

I don't know what you mean by "truth in nature". Beliefs, or statements have the property of being true when they correspond to some fact or state of affairs in the world.

You basically settled your confusion right there, as that is what I meant, I just use the word nature to refer to a universality. As in science, nature refers to a universality type condition to avoid using words like global (for globe) or universal (for universe) which science aims to go beyond. Anyway what Aenisidemus in his version of Heraclitism would have roughly said the cat had the properties of both being on the mat and off the mat so to make a judgment on the existence of the cat would not be either or, but both. Although he understood these more on a level of properties of objects and perceptions rather than at an epistemological level as presented here. A Skeptic would have said what appears to be (pyrrhonic version), or what his opinion is, but ultimately suspended judgment on the matter.

@richrf,

Well TT Man,

I will try not to be too hasty in my judgments. It is probably not a good idea anyway. Best to think things out, or investigate deeply, before jumping to conclusions of any kind. Thanks for the gentle reminder. : ^ )

On my travels through life, I have run into many persons who tried out the Spiritual path for multiple reasons. Some did it because it was “IN” at the time and had a strong need to belong.

Some were far more serious about it, but because of some other duty they were called away.

Some did the path with total passion, but had unreasonable ideas of what Enlightenment meant. When these passionate people grew exhausted and disappointed, they cried out, “The grapes were probably just sore anyway," this after jumping repeatedly just short of grabbing the fruit.

Some actually became unreasonably bitter and wanted a piece of flesh for all of their pain. Heaven knows the path isn't always easy.

Anyway, many of these persons who stopped just short of the mark, concluded that if they couldn’t find it, it probably didn’t exist at all.

What other goal lends itself to easily to such foolishness?

We couldn’t get away with saying, "If I don’t have money, then it probably doesn’t exist."

Or:

"If I can’t run a marathon, it probably isn’t possible for anyone to run a marathon."

And so on...

I have seen people do this same sophistry with love saying, "I never have loved or have been loved, so love is just a lie."

I guess we can only get away with this when a goal is mysterious or little understoood.

Everyone has heard of the Bodhisattva, (the once more lived,) who supposedly gives up his own Enlightenment for one more lifetime out of compassion. He does this in order to help those not yet enlightened like him self. (Sounds a lot like a savior doesn't it? But lets face it saviours are just wishful thinking by those who want someone else to do it for them. I think you know it doesn't work that way.)

Ramana said, “What man would say to himself, when wakening up in the morning, I will not wake up until all of the other dream people in my dream wake up too?” (Paraphrased)

If you see it is a dream, then you are released from the dream. Anyone that tells you otherwise is either confused himself, or "pulling your leg." : ^ )

Remember this. “What if,” stuff is a mind game, which is fun to play. We all do it. But Ultimate Truth is seen by looking directly right at it, without the use of your mind to confuse the issue.

Subjectity9

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 09:58 PM ----------

Absolution,

2nd half and more:

I wonder sometimes if Plato didn’t plug into the ‘Collective Unconscious’ sometimes, because the mind is always weaving stories and explanations, trying like anything to give finitude meaning.

If I were to guess, I wouldn’t say that Plato drifted away from Socrates to save his own skin.

Madame Blavatsky created a great structure of this same sort as Plato's. I think these intellectual people wander off into metaphysics and lose their way. They don’t realize that they are lost in just one more dream. “Oh, what webs we weave.” : ^ ) This was the school that Krishnamurty turned his back on.

I think that by choosing death with honor, over life with his tail between his legs, Socrates became archetypal, or bigger than life. If he had simply died of old age, maybe the lesson of his life wouldn’t have been as pointed even if Plato did memorialize him.

I agree with Peter Suber in that it is very important where you stand in order to see the Truth. If you stand behind a wall of expectation, then you are not going to see very far, or deep. (And we are, after all, trying to see beyond the wall of our own enculturation, more reverently known as tradition, are we not?)

The academics often think that reason is synonymous with logical. (But is it? I think not.)

The way I see it, logic is trapped within a circle of it own making. Logic starts out with an unfounded premise, most of the time, and continues to move consistently to conclusion that can easily be predicted by the original premise. In this way the conclusion is rigged.

This is a little like how some of these pharmaceutical companies testing and find pretty much what they want to in their own labs. Go figure. : ^ )

Freedom of thought calls for a certain amount of flexibility and creativity. Conforming to traditional truths has to be one of the biggest evils of Academic thought. They ostracize the new idea, as long as it remains new, only to turn around and embrace that very same idea after they have no choice because the proof becomes overwhelming. Then to add insult to injury, they make that very idea their next tradition. And so on…

I read somewhere that the human mind finds the familiar comforting, even if it is painful. (Talk about weird.)

Yes Zen is often referred to as the "Bare Bones." It gets naked like Skepticism.

It is interesting to see a great mind play the devil’s advocate. So much of what we think we know, never gets questioned. That is intellectual death.

Subjectivity9

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know